Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-12-13 - Planning Commission MinutesCommunity Development Department 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 DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701 DECEMBER 13, 2012 — 5:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Vice Chair Chris Brown. Absent: Chair Bill Rainey. Members present were Todd Turner, James Powell, Ed Criss, Hugh Palcic and Matt Lisignoli. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. Commissioner Powell suggested changing the order of the agenda and having the work session for the Central Oregon Large Lot Industrial Land Needs Analysis first, which was agreed to by the other Commissioners. Minutes of October 25 and November 8, 2012 were approved. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. III. WORK SESSION: Central Oregon Large Lot Industrial Land Needs Analysis — Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner. Peter gave a brief history and discussed the items in the Commissioners' packets. Vice Chair Brown and the other Commissioners felt this should be passed on to the Board with the Planning Commission's recommendation. Commissioner Criss asked if a city wanted to use 50 acres inside and 50 acres outside the urban growth boundary (UGB), could they do that? Peter said the rules are very precise and echo State law. If a City wants to execute this program, the counties have all adopted the analyses, policies and findings, and they have signed IGA's (intergovernmental agreements). So this particular city could decide to take advantage of a couple of the sites. State law says that COIC would vet it and make sure the site is viable and supported; then it has to be demonstrated that the need could not be met within the UGB. Quality Services Performed with Pride Under this program, if the city went forward, it would have to apply a large lot industrial overlay zone. A 10 -year zone would have to be applied that committed the area to the use, which would be part of the demonstration. If the need could not be found within the UGB, the city could go outside it. Nick added that cities have indicated that if lots were available inside their UGB's, there wouldn't be a need. The two lots in this hypothetical case could also be consolidated. Commissioner Lisignoli asked about the definition of "short term," which Peter said is five to six years. The long-term need goes out to 20 years. There is a short-term need for six sites, and we can replenish three of those six for a total of nine. It is a pilot program for a ten-year period. If successful, we can provide the first six and replenish the other three. The original proposal, challenged by 1000 Friends, was for a total of 17 sites. They were adamant about removing 11, and we negotiated the current proposal. Nick said when we began this process, we were operating under the statewide planning program which is a 20 -year time frame. The question was asked about short term, and this program may be expanded statewide if successful. Peter said the program will be revisited in ten years. Even if we get three or four sites, the region will benefit. In all likelihood, the program will be modernized so this scenario is easier to deal with. Commissioner Powell asked about a hypothetical 100 -acre parcel outside a UGB — say the COIC/City expands the parcel. Under the new rules, what are his obligations to try and move that parcel rather than have it sit there? Also, if ten years pass and that parcel remains unsold and unutilized, what happens? What happens if the UGB expands to include that lot? Peter said it would be up to the city to identify a property owner who is willing to price it at market rates. COIC is working on what is required for a submittal to get the regional support. You have to go through the COIC for its blessing, and then go through the local land use process. If we bring in a site and the scenario described renders it useless, COIC is trying to make sure that when a preliminary proposal comes forward, there is enough agreement in the region that it can be served — you have a willing property owner, some kind of arrangement in place to market it appropriately. It will be up to the city and not fleshed out in analysis or policies — but everyone understands that this type of hypothetical situation needs to be addressed. Regarding the second question - after ten years, a willing property owner would have to get a development agreement. If the owner wanted to go to a different use after ten years, nothing prevents demonstrating a different need to justify that the original large lot industrial need is going to be replaced. It would be up the city and the property owner to demonstrate that this is consistent with state law. Under 9(a) you need a development agreement, but it does not address how to prevent marketing beyond what is reasonable in the marketplace. Locking in a property for ten years in the large lot industrial overlay zone is very restrictive. Commissioner Powell felt that if he wanted a parcel included in the UGB and it could not be done any other way, ten years is not a long time. Peter said there would still be an obligation to document that the current zone (large lot industrial overlay) can be replaced by a demonstrated need and economic opportunity analysis, locally produced, that this site can fulfill. Local cities and governments have this choice. The idea is to lure more developers if more sites are on the market. Commissioner Powell asked if we are comfortable with this. Nick said it is the best we can do under the circumstances. In business Oregon terms, this is a pretty modest amount of sites — only six. The magnitude of the impact is pretty small, and the requirements are fairly rigorous. We may not even need six sites. Commissioner Turner asked about the term "traded sector employer" and whether it is restricted to that. Peter said it is not, but the expectation is that it will be attractive to them. There is a very broad definition. Distribution centers, data centers and warehouses are seen as some of the most important businesses. Commissioner Palcic asked what the biggest rub was on this issue, and Peter said it was that 1000 Friends thought this was a transferrable approach. That may be why they did not want the REOA (regional economic opportunity analysis) used. Commissioner Palcic asked about the replenishment — if we had one site removed from the list, is it automatically replenished immediately? What are the procedures? Peter said it has not been vetted yet. As the IGAs are set up, the advice that we have given COIC and our city partners is not to make the COIC process too onerous in the beginning. Maybe after three sites have been successfully utilized, for example — at that point, COIC's role gets complicated and they can allocate. At some point, they will want to make sure we do not disproportionately assign the sites to one region over another. Nick said that one of the issues 1000 Friends raised is that we were calling it an REOA, which is statutorily defined. An REOA is two pieces — the need and the inventory. Our process is only designed to be the first piece — the need. When the inventory is actually conducted, we will identify the number of sites, which may only be two, three, etc. Commissioner Criss said he had spoken with Pam Hardy who said that 1000 Friends were concerned this might be a land grab. Vice Chair Brown said that today we are talking about six parcels and the potential to add three more. What is the designation of size for those parcels? Peter said the term is "site," and not parcels, and this is defined in rule as 50+ acres. The analysis says there is a need for three 50 -acre sites. Vice Chair Brown asked if this anticipated a certain number of jobs/improvements. Peter said not to that level of specificity, but last fall there were examples provided in the appendix of other cities and what this had meant for economic development. Vice Chair Brown said that this situation has changed dramatically and spoke about Nike currently wanting concessions in Oregon. A lot of the companies in the U.S. are trying to keep jobs here. This is an opportunity for central Oregon to be at the leading edge. Peter said that these site sizes enable big industries to relocate here and, based on the model looking at trade sector industries as defined in the administrative rule, this provides incentives. This particular industry group is of known deficiency in Oregon, and we need a discussion on how to use limited resources for economic development and get the biggest bang for the buck. Nick mentioned Figures 21 and 22, which show a range of job types. We also approached this not as a land use project but as an economic development project. Developers will be buying properties with an idea that uses will expand and investments such as those by Apple and Facebook are for the long haul. Commissioner Lisignoli asked if there are any roadblocks as we try to appeal to these large companies. Can 1000 Friends make the process difficult? Peter said that many members of our regional partners are exhausted by the process to date and the difficulty of working with 1000 Friends. The land use system allows 1000 Friends to challenge land use issues, and nothing that we develop in rules or policies prevents that. So when a city decides to execute this program, 1000 Friends will monitor and may contest if they think it conflicts with the law. It is one reason Nick has been working with the UGB group to modernize the process. For local governments, it is a huge roadblock. In some Oregon locations, economic development has been stifled. Nick said that opportunities down the road for challenges will probably reduced once sites are approved by the cities. Hopefully it will be smoother sailing when it comes to actively recruiting the businesses. Commissioner Lisignoli felt that we should try to remove as many barriers as possible. Commissioner Powell felt that whether or not one agrees with 1000 Friends, these processes have enough history behind them showing that things are not always done in the best interests of citizens. As onerous as it may be when trying to plan these things, it is important that all voices be heard and acknowledged. Roger Lee was disparaging of Pam Hardy's testimony questioning the number of lot sizes and jobs, but he has to work with 1000 Friends as part of the process. As planning staff, you have told people who asked questions that you have heard and acknowledged them. There may not be as many challenges if you can keep incorporating people in the process. Motion: Commissioner Criss motioned to approve Ordinance 2013-001, repealing Ordinance 2011-017. Seconded by Commissioner Palcic. Motion approved. Motion: Commissioner Criss motioned to approve Ordinance 2013-002 and recommend it to the Board for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Palcic. Motion approved. IV. DELIBERATION: Newberry Country: A Plan for Southern Deschutes County - Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner. Commissioner Powell mentioned requests made to the Planning Commission to reopen the hearing — one for the entire Plan and one for a specific question. Vice Chair Brown said he had spoken to Judy Forsythe, who made the requests, about the procedures needed to reopen the hearing and the fact that the DEQ report has not yet been submitted. She did not say whether or not it was okay with her and he has not heard anything further. Vice Chair Brown mentioned that she was not in attendance this evening. Commissioner Criss said he had also spoken to Judy. He wanted to know, if we move forward and do not get the Steering Committee items until January, whether we take those recommendations separately at that time? Would there be an amendment process which would come before the Planning Commission? Nick said that it would, unless the Board decides to remand part or all of the Plan, in light of the information at that time. Peter said that it would be helpful for staff to understand what the DEQ steering committee recommendation might look like. One outcome could be a Goal 11 exception, which is a plan amendment that would occur with what's in place today. He would be cautious since this Plan is still in draft form. The DEQ steering committee is dealing with groundwater protection, and there has been enormous input to decouple that from the planning process. He does not understand what the steering committee amendment would have to do with this Plan. Commissioner Criss said there would be an amendment to the South County Plan. When the steering committee makes its recommendations, he feels there will be a land use component. Nick said that there could be an amendment to the Plan. Once it leaves the Planning Commissioners, the Board would have to approve any amendments and add them into our work plan. Peter said that a petition has been submitted to the Board suggesting that the administrative rules be changed to require alternative treatment systems when existing systems fail or when there is new development. This has to be resolved in January. The Commissioners could recommend to the Board that they not hold their first hearing until after that date. This draft Plan could then be evaluated in light of those recommendations. 4 Commissioner Palcic said he did not see how the decision of DEQ would alter what we currently have in the Plan. Vice Chair Brown said what he saw was a target that has not appeared yet — DEQ has an unknown commodity out there, and we should not spend our time talking about an unknown. We don't know how long it will take for that information to be brought forward and it is decided whether the DEQ's decision impacts this Plan. Let's get this up to the Board and let them make the call. Nick said that there are three-four pages of recommendations and as he understands it, we don't know what the DEQ timeframe will be for acting on them. Commissioner Palcic said he did not want to see us lose momentum and also does not want to disregard people's concerns. But all we are trying to do with the Plan is explore opportunities, and the two policies concerning the DEQ will not change. Vice Chair Criss felt that South County has participated in and approved the Plan, and it should be sent forward to the Board. Nick said there could be a joint Board/Planning Commission meeting once the DEQ recommendations are made. Commissioner Powell said that was really the key — the document as it stands now is relevant. The driving forces are the issues of unbuildable lots, groundwater, the County, the Local Rule, etc., which should be acknowledged. If there is a way that we can deliberate on what we have and keep the doors open, then we will have served the citizens of South County. Commissioner Criss felt that the citizens of South County want to make sure we vet this subject before it goes to the Board. Nick said that nothing in the Plan would change, as far as he has seen with the draft DEQ recommendations, only add to it. Commissioner Turner asked what would happen if there are recommendations with which they are not comfortable, and Commissioner Criss said that was what the concerns were about. Vice Chair Brown thought that a joint meeting with the Board and Planning Commissioners would solve this. Peter mentioned that the DEQ steering committee has met 35 times or so; they may not even have a recommendation in January, which puts us in a tough position. How do we handle what are very valid perspectives and fold in the DEQ recommendation? It may not be a seamless process. Vice Chair Brown suggested that when the recommendation for the South County Plan is forwarded, we include a comment that we do not have the DEQ information. Commissioner Palcic felt there has been a lot of work done on this and a lot of meetings held, and at the 11th hour the world is coming unhinged about this one issue. He would have liked early on to say that Goal 9 (11) needs to be tabled. He wished someone from the public had come forward much sooner. Vice Chair Brown said we would forward this without those particular goals and say the policy is to initiate a plan amendment once we have the DEQ/steering committee recommendations. Peter suggested that Chair Rainey has started the deliberations with his matrix comments and we could go through these. No change. 2. Chair Criss felt that agencies might come in and apply something like the Wildlife Agreement to make changes to land use without it being vetted by the citizens. No change. 5 3. Commissioner Powell felt that the problem isn't public access through public lands but through private lands. No change. 4. Vice Chair asked what it would take, and Peter said a change to State law. No change. 5. Peter said something could be added in 10.1(e). Vice Chair Brown said he had asked Commissioner Unger about transit in La Pine; he said there is a La Pine area resident on the Board of COIC. Vice Chair Brown wondered why this is a sore point and whether the information is getting back. Nick said it may be a La Pine City Councilor. Commissioner Criss said the problem is the rural areas, and there will be decision tomorrow at the CAG as to whether there will be a match for a grant for COIC for rural transportation. Vice Chair Brown said if we have a resident from the area on the board of COIC, and it is not someone from a rural area, maybe that should be dealt with in La Pine. Commissioner Powell said that it could be incorporated into 10.1(e) and add "rural," "elderly," "disabled," or other language to acknowledge a difference between rural and city residents. Peter said he would add the language about involving other residents as discussed. 6. No change. 7. Commissioner Turner mentioned Vice Chair Brown's recommendations stated previously about holding this out for now. Nick said we could substitute those two policies with something like conducting a joint BOCC/Planning Commission meeting, and Peter added that he was concerned about if the DEQ steering committee process needs more time and this Plan is adopted, there are issues that will be bookmarked and not addressed. This omission could be in the Plan for two weeks or much longer, and we could have a Plan that does not speak to groundwater protection at all. Commissioner Turner asked again about just leaving it the way it is and reconsidering it after the DEQ decision, adding language about a joint BOCC/Planning Commission meeting. Peter said that could be Policy 9.3. Nick suggested "conduct a joint BOCC/Planning Commission public meeting with public comments in Newberry Country on the South Deschutes County/Northern Klamath County steering committee to address its recommendations." Commissioner Palcic said there is already language about supporting DEQ's efforts which could be struck and a placeholder put there. Substitute Nick's statement for 9.2 which will be removed. 8. No change. 9. Already folded into #7. 10. The Commissioners discussed leaving the door open to apply for financial support and whether the second sentence was a problem. Commissioner Palcic asked if we are adding in the comment and whether it should say "...currently does not have the resources." Commissioner Powell and Peter discussed modifying the language to be "similar to the UDRC," "encourage the formation of an organization similar to UDRC," etc. Commissioner Powell said that the County has Project Wildfire and Peter said compared to Upper Deschutes River Coalition, there is not enough leadership within the La Pine Community Wildfire Protection Plan area. It's community advocacy that's missing. Commissioner Powell and Peter discussed leaving the language as is. No change. 0 11. Commissioner Palcic asked if this would be separate from the representation on Economic Development for Central Oregon (EDCO) and Commissioner Criss said yes. No change. Page 2 (Introduction; How to Use the Plan): Change language in second section to "the South County Area Plan will be used," or "this Plan will be used," and the second underlined change will not be made. Policy 2.6a, no change. 3.1 K, agree to change. Policy 4.3, agree to change. Policy 5.1, agree to change. Policy 5.3, agree to change. Goal 9, this has been addressed previously. Policy 10.1, Commissioner Powell said the transportation issue has become of more and more concern to South County. The language of restricting to 503(c)(3)'s may not be appropriate and may be too restrictive if it only refers to them. "Entities" may be more appropriate, instead of "agencies." Peter asked if the Commissioners wanted to remove the references to COIC, and Commissioner Criss said COIC has indicated it will not provide public transportation in rural areas. Peter wanted to emphasize that they are the regional provider, however. The Commissioners agreed to use "appropriate entities." Goal 14, agree to change. Policy 14.1, agree to change. Policy 14.2, agree to change, and remove "Railroad" from the name. Policy 14.3, agree to Bill Raney's suggested change: "Evaluate existing emergency shelters to ensure the alternates are available if primary shelters are not available become inaccessible." Policy 14.4, agree to change Policy 16.1, agree to the following change: "Coordinate with non-profit organizations that have technical expertise and an active presence in South County such as Deschutes Soil and Water Conservation District, Deschutes River Conservancy, Upper Deschutes Watershed Council, Upper Deschutes River Coalition and Trout Unlimited." Policy 16.4, agree to change. Policy 16.11, agree to the following change: "Participate in the Deschutes River Conservancy efforts to work with all partners in the upper Deschutes Basin on a 7 comprehensive water management plan that restores and manages flows in the upper Deschutes River while meeting the needs of users and property owners." Policy 16.12, Commissioner Turner felt that something should be mentioned about how the release is handled. Commissioner Powell suggested broadening the language but not use "regularly engage." Policy said that Policy 16.11 addresses this already. Commissioner Powell felt that 16.12 is very specific; maybe 16.12 could be expanded to incorporate an educational piece for the region/regional users about the river and maintaining its health. It could be looked at as an ongoing process to encourage collaboration. Are the releases mandated by state or district practices or administrative rules? Peter and Commissioner Powell discussed water management policy in 16.11 that is about water flow, and then 16.1 being about outreach/education. Commissioner Turner suggested a "...comprehensive water management plan that restores and manages the flow in the Upper Deschutes River." The Commissioners decided to remove 16.12. Policy Topics, Land Use and Econmic Development, agree to change. Policy Topics, Land Use Designations; Table 4, agree to change. Policy Topics, Transportation (page 31), agree to change. Policy Topics, Groundwater Quality (page 36), Commissioner Powell mentioned the information on the website being out of date (2007), and also no reference made to recent well testing that DEQ didn't put in their budget but performed anyway. There is no reference to modeling, projections, etc. Is there any other data that is more recent? Peter said the only data he is aware of would be available from the USGS and the question is whether to keep the DEQ language. The existing chapter, Regional Problem Solving, acknowledges groundwater problems starting in the 1980s. Our existing Plan does recognize a sensitive aquifer. Commissioner Powell felt that maybe we should label this as 2007 data, and then what kind of language do we have to have if we wanted to justify a Goal 11 exception? Peter said that if the language is adopted, and at some point there is a request for a Goal 11 exception, this Plan will have to be amended to recognize the boundary and other issues such as summarizing the justification. The DEQ steering committee is working with its staff to understand the best way to justify such an exception which is unprecedented. There is no consensus that there is a groundwater problem, so either it has to be addressed head on or creatively. It does not threaten or alter the language we put in the Plan today because it has to go through a separate process and be linked together. Commissioner Powell and Peter discussed the addition of the DEQ recommendations to this Plan. Commissioner Palcic suggested citing the language since it was taken from the DEQ website, and Peter will also add in the reference to the 2007 data. Appendix 2, Commissioner Palcic suggested changing to "non-resident property owners," rather than "absentee." Commissioner Powell asked if we should put this into a policy. Peter and Commissioner Powell discussed SB360 and its limitations on requirements, and whether Policy 13.3 covers it (requiring landowners to maintain defensible space). The Commissioners agree that it does. Appendices 5.1 and 5.6, agree to make them consistent. F:3 Peter and Commissioner Criss discussed the local zoning ordinance in La Pine and its application to the Neighborhood Planning Area. The Planning Commission discussed whether they were reading to forward the South County Plan to the Board of County Commissioners and whether to endorse it. Motion: Commissioner Powell moved to forward the South County Plan to the Board with our endorsement, with the proviso that we discussed at the beginning of these deliberations that there be a joint meeting regarding the DEQ findings, with public input as amended by the Planning Commission. Seconded by Commissioner Criss. Motion approved. V. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS Nick submitted a color copy of his presentation on PA -1 1-7/ZC-1 1-2. Our next meeting will be the first meeting in 2013, which will include the election of Chair and Vice Chair. CDD will also be determining projects to be addressed in the work plan at the Board's discretion. We will be looking at the application to amend DCC Title 19 to increase the ratio of 2 homes for each overnight accommodation to 2.5:1. We expect to receive another application for Title 18 and will be holding public hearings on both. We also support the City regarding the Tetherow water contracts, and the remand is pending. Commissioner Criss discussed a meeting where South County submitted a petition regarding a rulemaking process. The DEQ conducted the hearing and had another one before that. VI. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, C + Sher Buckner Administrative Secretary