Task 7 Planning Commission Town Hall Meeting · 2015-04-16 · 1 & 2: Task 7 Foundation • Task 4...
Transcript of Task 7 Planning Commission Town Hall Meeting · 2015-04-16 · 1 & 2: Task 7 Foundation • Task 4...
Task 7 Planning Commission
Town Hall Meeting
Southern Oregon Regional Pilot Program
Task 7: Executive Summary
Prepared By: Douglas County Planning Department
1 & 2: Task 7 Foundation
• Task 4 Data Collection & Analysis
– Soils & Natural
– Resources Public Utilities & Services
– Land Use and Parcelization
– Natural Hazards
– Goal 5 Inventories
• Task 5 Regional Methodology
– Outside UGBs
– Currently Resource Designated
– Not used for growing perennial crops (ORS 215)
– Predominantly Contain Soils other than Class I-IV
– Are within 3 Miles of an UGB, UUA, or Rural Comm. Rural Serv. Center
3: Fire Protection
– Fire District Proximity Analysis (Low Impact)
– DFPA Statistics
– Current LUDO Standards
– CWPP
– CCA Conflict Elimination
4: Land Use Conflict
– Methodology (3 Mile Proximity)
– Parcel Size Remains Resource (10 Acres or Greater)
– Alternative Zoning will Continue to be Resource in Character
– No Subdivisions
– Current LUDO Requirements (Resource Mang. Cov.)
5: Goal 5 Resources
– Fish & Wildlife
– Big Game Habitat
– Natural Resources
– Cultural and Historic Resources
– Hunting and Fishing Opportunities
6 & 7: Special Considerations
• Animal Unit Per Month (AUM) – Lack of Data
– Available Data Reflected Task 4 Soil Analysis
• Steep Slopes – DEM Analysis Shows Little Conflict
– Current LUDO Requirements
– CCA Conflict Elimination
• Forest land Productivity – Lacking Data
– Dept. of Revenue Data Supplementation
– High Amount of State Coordination
8: Carrying Capacity Report Card
Carrying Capacity Issues Rating Subtotal
Public Service & Welfare 15
Land Use Conflict 2
Water Availability 2
Sanitation 2
Ground Water 3
Fire Protection 2
Natural Hazards 2
Transportation & Access 2
Goal 5 9
Wildlife & Fish Habitat 2
Big Game Habitat 2
Natural Resources 2
Cultural & Historical Resources 1
Water Pollution 2
Other 7
Urbanization Conflicts 2
Recreational Opportunities 1
AUM 2
Steep Slopes 2
Scale: 1-No Impact; 2-Low Effect w/Regulations; 3-Unknown; 4-High Effect w/Regulations; 5-Impacted
Total 31
16=No Impact; 17-32=Low Effect; 33-48=Medium Effect; 49-64=High Effect; 65+=Impacted
• Quantifies impact on Task 7 concerns
• Grade of 31 out of 80 displays a low impact
• Site specific analysis has eliminated conflicts further
9: Conflict Identification
• Sensitive Big Game Habitat
• Public Lands
• Insufficient Non-resource Lands
• Coastal Resources
• Susceptibility to Fire Protection
• Steep Slope & Accessibility
10:Conclusion & Outcome
Scenario 1 (Most Probable)
• 25% real development of the 3,701 feasible NR parcels = 925 NR Parcels
• Multiply 925 by the average persons per household in Douglas County (2.4 PPH, US Census Bureau) = 2,220 persons
• This scenario would potentially create housing for 2,220 persons within Douglas County; compared to the 4,575 forecasted for the next 20 years this only accounts for 48% for the population forecasted for the next 20 years.
Scenario 2 (Less Probable)
• 50% real development of the 3,701 feasible NR parcels = 1,850 NR Parcels
• Multiply 1,850 by the average persons per household in Douglas County (2.4 PPH, US Census Bureau) = 4,440 persons
• This scenario would potentially create housing for 4,440 persons within Douglas County; compared to the 4,575 forecasted for the next 20 years this accounts for 97% for the population forecasted for the next 20 years.
• Task 5 Candidate Lands (68,575 Acres)
• Task 7 Designated Lands (54,784 Acres)
• Max Potential Parcels (4,627)
• Subtract 20% for site limitations (3,701)
• Most importantly: Consistent with the State Wide Planning Goals
Reedsport
Gardiner
Winchester Bay
Southern Oregon Regional Pilot ProgramTask 7: Carrying Capacity Analysis
Area 1 (Gardiner; Reedsport; Winchester Bay)
Non-Resource Lands/1 Mile BufferNon-Resource Lands/2 Mile BufferNon-Resource Lands/3 Mile Buffer
Area Profile:
Candidate Lands Development Capacity: LOWArea Description:The candidate lands identified within area 1 have been eliminated inthe designation process because theyare unlikely to ever have to potential of development, through this or any other alternative designation process. The reason being is that a large portion of candidate lands within area 1 fall within the Dunes National Recreation Area public land. Another large portion of these candidate lands are identified within Estuarine and Shoreland areas, as inventoried within the Coastal Resources Plan, which would ultimately limit development.
0 1 20.5 Miles
Acres of Candidate Lands: 6,164Acres of Designated Lands: 0
CCA Conflict Areas (Eliminated from Candidate Status)
Elkton
Wells Creek
Scottsburg
North Fork
Southern Oregon Regional Pilot ProgramTask 7: Carrying Capacity Analysis
Area 2 (Elkton; North Fork; Scottsburg/Wells Creek)
Non-Resource Lands/1 Mile BufferNon-Resource Lands/2 Mile BufferNon-Resource Lands/3 Mile Buffer
CCA Conflict Areas (Eliminated from Candidate Status)Area Profile:
Candidate Lands Development Capacity: MODERATE
Area Description:Candidate Lands identified within area 2 are characterized by gentlyto moderately sloping lands adjacentto riverine areas such as Smith River and Mill Creek. Some of the lands within area 2 will be constrained by access, but could still be potentially developed.Lands identified within sensitive big gamehabitat have been eliminated. Lands withinElkton's community boundary buffer have been eliminated because the acreage wouldnot create any potential development.
Acres of Candidate Lands: 4,446Acres of Designated Lands: 2,500 Approx
Yoncalla
Drain
Rice Hill
Curtin
Southern Oregon Regional Pilot ProgramTask 7: Carrying Capacity Analysis
Area 3 (Curtin; Drain; Rice Hill; Yoncalla)
Non-Resource Lands/1 Mile BufferNon-Resource Lands/2 Mile BufferNon-Resource Lands/3 Mile Buffer
Area Profile:
Candidate Lands Development Capacity: HIGHArea Description:Area 3 is made up of lands within close proximity to the I-5 corridor and a high capacity of existing road infrastructure. The lands are within areas of gentle slopes and transitional land uses from resource to committed rural residential areas. Curtin's Community buffer has been eliminated based on insufficent acres identified within it.
Acres of Candidate Lands: 2,259Acres of Designated Lands: 2,248
CCA Conflict Areas (Elminated from Candidate Status)
Sutherlin
Roseburg
Oakland
Roseburg
Riversdale
Oak Valley
Nonpareil
Umpqua
Glide
Southern Oregon Regional Pilot ProgramTask 7: Carrying Capacity Analysis
Area 4 (Nonpareil; Oakland; Sutherlin; Umpqua)
Area Profile:
Candidate Lands Development Capacity: HIGHArea Description:Area 4 is made up of lands within close proximity to the I-5 corridor and a high capacity of existing road infrastructure. The lands are within areas of gentle slopes and transitional land uses from resource to committed rural residential areas.Some lands southeast of Sutherlinwere eliminated based on fire protectionlimitations and access limitations.
Acres of Candidate Lands: 11,300 ApproxAcres of Designated Lands: 9,500 Approx
Non-Resource Lands/1 Mile BufferNon-Resource Lands/2 Mile BufferNon-Resource Lands/3 Mile Buffer
CCA Conflict Areas (Eliminated from Candidate Status)
Roseburg
Winston
Sutherlin
Roseburg
Riversdale
Dixonville
Melrose
Tenmile/Porter Creek
Lookingglass
Clarks Branch
Camas Valley
Dixonville
Oak Valley
Umpqua
Green
Dillard
Shady
Southern Oregon Regional Pilot ProgramTask 7: Carrying Capacity Analysis
Area 5 (Roseburg Area)
Area Profile:
Candidate Lands Development Capacity: HIGHArea Description:Area 5 is made up of lands within close proximity to the I-5 corridor and a high capacity of existing road infrastructure. These lands are charaterized by ruralresidential transition and moderate to high grade slopes. Lands northeastand southeast of Roseburg have beeneliminated due to access and fireprotection constraints.
Acres of Candidate Lands: 23,800 ApproxAcres of Designated Lands: 21,300 Approx
Non-Resource Lands/1 Mile BufferNon-Resource Lands/2 Mile BufferNon-Resource Lands/3 Mile Buffer
CCA Conflict Areas (Eliminated from Candidate Status)
0 2.5 51.25 Miles
Sutherlin
Roseburg
Oakland
Dixonville
Dixonville
Oak Valley
Nonpareil
North Umpqua VillageGlide
Southern Oregon Regional Pilot ProgramTask 7: Carrying Capacity Analysis
Area 6 (Glide; North Umpua Village; Oak Valley)
Area Profile:
Candidate Lands Development Capacity: LOWArea Description:Area 6 is made up of lands along the North Umpqua drainage. These lands will be restricted by access and topographical constraints. Some lands are identified within very close proximity to committed residential areas which will be more susceptible to development. A majorityof lands east of Glide have been eliminated based on insufficient lands identified within that area.
Acres of Candidate Lands: 7,500 ApproxAcres of Designated Lands: 7,250 Approx
Non-Resource Lands/1 Mile BufferNon-Resource Lands/2 Mile BufferNon-Resource Lands/3 Mile Buffer
0 2.5 51.25 Miles
CCA Conflict Areas (Eliminated from Candidate Status)
Roseburg
Winston
Myrtle Creek
Canyonville
Riddle
Dixonville
Tenmile/Porter Creek
Lookingglass
Clarks Branch
Camas Valley
Dixonville
Green
Dillard
Shady
Southern Oregon Regional Pilot ProgramTask 7: Carrying Capacity Analysis
Area 7 (Winston/Myrtle Creek Area)
Area Profile:
Candidate Lands Development Capacity: HIGHArea Description:Area 7 is characterized similarly to that of the Roseburg area in land use.These lands are within transitionareas of committed rural residential and smaller tract resource landsThese areas have a wide variety of slope patterns. These areas have a major presence of county transportation infrastructure, however some lands will have difficulty provided access.Some lands east of Winston havebeen eliminated based on slope constraints on acces and limitedfire protection services.
Non-Resource Lands/1 Mile BufferNon-Resource Lands/2 Mile BufferNon-Resource Lands/3 Mile Buffer0 2.5 51.25 Miles
CCA Conflict Areas (Eliminated from Candidate Status)Acres of Candidate Lands: 13,800 Approx.Acres of Designated Lands: 12,100 Approx.
Winston
Myrtle Creek
Canyonville
Riddle
Milo
Azalea
Clarks Branch
Tiller
Days CreekJackson Creek
Green
Dillard
Southern Oregon Regional Pilot ProgramTask 7: Carrying Capacity Analysis
Area 8 (South Umpqua)
Area Profile:
Candidate Lands Development Capacity: MODERATEArea Description:Area 8 has a small amount of candidate lands identified within it relative to the size of the study area. A majority of lands within area 8 are in close proximity to the Riddle Canyonville area which would provide excellent opportunity for additional growth. However, all of the lands south of Canyonville will be highly constrained by slope. A large portion of lands within east of Canyonville within the buffer area have been removed based on aninsufficient amount of candidate lands identified. Lands in the south portionof this area are eliminated based on the major slope limitations.
Acres of Candidate Lands: 5,700 ApproxAcres of Designated Lands: 4,700 Approx
Non-Resource Lands/1 Mile BufferNon-Resource Lands/2 Mile BufferNon-Resource Lands/3 Mile Buffer0 3 61.5 Miles
CCA Conflict Areas (Eliminated from Candidate Status)
Glendale
Azalea
Quines Creek
Glendale Junction
Fortune Branch
Southern Oregon Regional Pilot ProgramTask 7: Carrying Capacity Analysis
Area 9 (South County)
Area Profile:
Candidate Lands Development Capacity: LOWArea Description:Area 8 is largely constrained solely by the small amount of candidate lands identified within it. All lands have been eliminated based on insufficient candidate lands identified.
Acres of Candidate Lands: 100 ApproxAcres of Designated Lands: 0
Non-Resource Lands/1 Mile BufferNon-Resource Lands/2 Mile BufferNon-Resource Lands/3 Mile Buffer0 2.5 51.25 Miles
CCA Conflict Areas (Eliminated from Candidate Status)
Roseburg
Sutherlin
Winston
Reedsport
Myrtle Creek
Yoncalla
Drain
Canyonville
Oakland
Riddle
Glendale
Elkton
Roseburg
Riversdale
Dixonville
Melrose
Milo
Tenmile/Porter Creek
Azalea
Lookingglass
Clarks Branch
Wells Creek
Rice Hill
Curtin
Tiller
Camas Valley
Days Creek
Scottsburg
Quines Creek
Glendale Junction
Dixonville
Oak Valley
Fortune Branch
Nonpareil
North Umpqua Village
Jackson Creek
North Fork
Umpqua
Glide
Green
Dillard
Shady
Gardiner
Winchester Bay
SOUTHERN OREGON REGIONAL PILOT PROGRAM Douglas County
TASK 7: NON-RESOURCE DESIGNATED LANDS
This map is based on a digital database compiledby Douglas County from a variety of sources.Douglas County cannot accept responsibility forerrors, omissions, or spatial accuracy. There are no warranties, expressed or implied.Source: Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA), Douglas County Planning.
0 5 102.5Miles
T 19 S
T 20 S
T 21 S
T 22 S
T 23 S
T 24 S
T 25 S
T 26 S
T 27 S
T 28 S
T 29 S
T 30 S
T 31 S
T 32 S
T 33 S
R 2 W
R 3 W
R 4 WR 5 W
R 6 WR 7 W
R 8 W
R 9 W
R 10 WR 11 WR 12 WR 13 W
Urban Growth Boundary &Urban Unincorportated AreaRural Community &Rural Service Center
Rural Residential &Ineligible Non Resource Lands
1 Mile - 10 Ac2 Miles - 20 Ac3 Miles - 40 Ac
Non Resource Lands within 1 MileNon Resource Lands within 2 MilesNon Resource Lands within 3 Miles
Public & Private ResourceLand Disqualified asCandidate Lands
Community Boundaries
Community Buffers
Candidate Lands
Ineligible Lands
“Designated Non Resource Lands” are privately-owned lands that:-Are outside of urbanized areas; and-Are currently resource designated (TR, FG, FF, and AW zones); and-Are not used for growing perennial crops (per ORS 215); and-Predominately contain other than Class I-IV soils; and-Predominately contain soils with aforest productivity of less than 85 cu ft/ac/yr (Douglas Fir); and-Are within 3 miles of an Urban Growth Boundary, Urban Unincorporated Area, Rural Community or Rural Service Center-Have not been found to have conflict withTask 7 issuesLands satisfying the above criteria are potentially eligible for a density of 1 unit per 10, 20 or 40 acres, respectively.*54,784 Acres are Identified to beDesignated Lands
Roseburg
Sutherlin
Winston
Reedsport
Myrtle Creek
Yoncalla
Drain
Canyonville
Oakland
Riddle
Glendale
Elkton
Roseburg
Riversdale
Dixonville
Melrose
Milo
Tenmile/Porter Creek
Azalea
Lookingglass
Clarks Branch
Wells Creek
Rice Hill
Curtin
Tiller
Camas Valley
Days Creek
Scottsburg
Quines Creek
Glendale Junction
Dixonville
Oak Valley
Fortune Branch
Nonpareil
North Umpqua Village
Jackson Creek
North Fork
Umpqua
Glide
Green
Dillard
Shady
Gardiner
Winchester Bay
SOUTHERN OREGON REGIONAL PILOT PROGRAM Douglas County
TASK 5: NON-RESOURCE CANDIDATE LANDS
This map is based on a digital database compiledby Douglas County from a variety of sources.Douglas County cannot accept responsibility forerrors, omissions, or spatial accuracy. There are no warranties, expressed or implied.Source: Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA), Douglas County Planning.
0 5 102.5Miles
T 19 S
T 20 S
T 21 S
T 22 S
T 23 S
T 24 S
T 25 S
T 26 S
T 27 S
T 28 S
T 29 S
T 30 S
T 31 S
T 32 S
T 33 S
R 2 W
R 3 W
R 4 WR 5 W
R 6 WR 7 W
R 8 W
R 9 W
R 10 WR 11 WR 12 WR 13 W
Urban Growth Boundary &Urban Unincorportated AreaRural Community &Rural Service Center
Rural Residential &Ineligible Non Resource Lands
1 Mile - 10 Ac2 Miles - 20 Ac3 Miles - 40 Ac
Non Resource Lands within 1 MileNon Resource Lands within 2 MilesNon Resource Lands within 3 Miles
Public & Private ResourceLand Disqualified asCandidate Lands
Community Boundaries
Community Buffers
Candidate Lands
Ineligible Lands
“Candidate Non Resource Lands” are privately-owned lands that:-Are outside of urbanized areas; and-Are currently resource designated (TR, FG, FF, and AW zones); and-Are not used for growing perennial crops (per ORS 215); and-Predominately contain other than Class I-IV soils; and-Predominately contain soils with aforest productivity of less than 85 cu ft/ac/yr (Douglas Fir); and-Are within 3 miles of an Urban Growth Boundary, Urban Unincorporated Area, Rural Community or Rural Service CenterLands satisfying the above criteria are potentially eligible for a density of 1 unit per 10, 20 or 40 acres, respectively.*36,097 Acres of Non Resource Lands have been identified within a 1 mile bufferof all community boundaries.*68,575 Acres of Non Resource Lands have been identified with a 3 mile buffer of all community boundaries.
Sothern Oregon Regional Pilot Program
Task 7: Executive Summary
Douglas County Planning Department
1. Task 4 Data Collection and Analysis
a. Soils & Natural Resources b. Public Utilities & Services c. Land Use and Parcelization d. Natural Hazards e. Goal 5 Inventories
2. Task 5 Regional Methodology a. Outside UGBs b. Currently Resource Designated c. Not used for growing perennial crops (ORS 215) d. Predominantly Contain Soils other than Class I-IV e. Are within 3 Miles of an UGB, UUA, or Rural Comm. Rural Serv. Center
3. Fire Protection a. Methodology (3 Mile Proximity) b. DFPA Statistics c. Current LUDO Standards d. CWPP e. CCA Conflict Elimination
4. Land Use Conflict a. Methodology (3 Mile Proximity) b. Parcel Size Remains Resource (10 Acres or Greater) c. Alternative Zoning will Continue to be Resource in Character d. No Subdivisions e. Current LUDO Requirements
5. Goal 5 Resources a. Fish & Wildlife b. Big Game Habitat c. Natural Resources d. Cultural and Historic Resources e. Hunting and Fishing
6. Special Considerations a. Animal Unit Per Month
i. Lacking Data ii. Available Data Reflected Task 4 Soil Analysis
b. Steep Slopes i. DEM Analysis Shows Little Conflict ii. Current LUDO Requirements
iii. CCA Conflict Elimination
7. Special Considerations a. Forest Land Productivity
i. Lacking Data ii. Dept. of Revenue Data Supplementation
iii. High Amount of State Coordination 8. Carrying Capacity Report Card
a. Quantifies impact on Task 7 concerns b. Graded 31 out of 80 displays a low impact c. Site Specific analysis has eliminated conflicts further
Task
7 F
ou
nd
atio
n
9. Conflict Identification a. Sensitive Big Game Habitat b. Public Lands c. Insufficient Non-resource Lands d. Coastal Resources e. Susceptibility to Fire Protection f. Steep Slope & Access
10. Conclusion & Outcome a. Task 5 Candidate Lands (68,575 Acres) b. Task 7 Designated Lands (54,784 Acres) c. Max Potential Parcels (4,627) d. Subtract 20% for site limitations (3,701) e. Most importantly: Consistent with the State Wide Planning Goals
Scenario 1 (Most Probable)
• 25% real development of the 3,701 feasible NR parcels = 925 NR Parcels
• Multiply 925 by the average persons per household in Douglas County (2.4 PPH, US Census Bureau) = 2,220
persons
• This scenario would potentially create housing for 2,220 persons within Douglas County; compared to the 4,575
forecasted for the next 20 years this only accounts for 48% for the population forecasted for the next 20 years.
Scenario 2 (Less Probable)
• 50% real development of the 3,701 feasible NR parcels = 1,850 NR Parcels
• Multiply 1,850 by the average persons per household in Douglas County (2.4 PPH, US Census Bureau) = 4,440
persons
• This scenario would potentially create housing for 4,440 persons within Douglas County; Compared to the 4,575
forecasted for the next 20 years this accounts for 97% for the population forecasted for the next 20 years.
Carrying Capacity Issues Rating Subtotal Public Service & Welfare
15
Land Use Conflict 2 Water Availability 2 Sanitation 2 Ground Water 3 Fire Protection 2 Natural Hazards 2 Transportation & Access 2 Goal 5
9
Wildlife & Fish Habitat 2 Big Game Habitat 2 Natural Resources 2 Cultural & Historical Resources 1 Water Pollution 2 Other
7
Urbanization Conflicts 2 Recreational Opportunities 1 AUM 2 Steep Slopes 2 Scale: 1-No Impact; 2-Low Effect w/Regulations; 3-Unknown; 4-High Effect w/Regulations; 5-Impacted
Total
31
16=No Impact; 17-32=Low Effect; 33-48=Medium Effect; 49-64=High Effect; 65+=Impacted