Loading...
1992-05031-Minutes for Meeting January 15,1992 Recorded 2/6/199292-03031 0108 1195 MINUTES OF BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING OF JANUARY 15, 1992, REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE Chairman Maudlin called to order the public hearing on TA -91-6, an amendment to Chapter 18.84, the Landscape Management Combining Zone and Chapter 16.116.160, Rimrock Setbacks, of Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, and an amendment to the. Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, section on Open Space, Areas of Special Concern and Environmental Quality. George Read, Planning Director, gave the staff report and a brief history. He stated that the guiding document for the landscape management zone is the section on Open Space, Areas of Special Concern and Environmental Quality of the County's compre- hensive plan. He stated that the current standard for the landscape management zone is one-quarter mile on each side of the centerline of identified landscape management roadways, and 200 feet on each side of a landscape management river or stream. He further stated that the purpose of landscape management review is to obtain a structure that is as compatible with the site and existing scenic vistas as possible. Mr. Read explained that in 1979, a 100 -foot rimrock setback was adopted countywide. He further explained that that standard was changed in 1982 to a flexible standard not to exceed 20 feet, and then in 1986, a flat 20 -foot setback was adopted after the river study was completed. George Read explained the factors that the state felt needed to be addressed as part of periodic review. He stated that those factors were an analysis of the cumulative effects of dev'!�lopoment decisions on the protection of significant Goal 5 resourc s,_�v amend Goal 5 analysis to include a discussion of state qgi i7 waterways, federal wild and scenic river segments, and 1$W lard use actions will be coordinated with state and federal a �c,s; and amend the standards in the LM zone to be clear and oct.ive. Mr. Read stated that these issues were taken to the FRt4niii.ng Commission for discussion and the Commission's recommendargn i,,s before the Board tonight. He stated that this portion of per -tea iodic review relating to landscape management and Goal 5 resources needs to be adopted by April 15, 1992. George Read explained that not enough manpower was available to do a full analysis of the cumulative effects of all develop- ment proposals in the scenic corridors, so planning staff asked the Planning Commission to assess the issues they saw in those zones. He stated that the Planning Commission identified prob- lems they perceived with the LM zone with regard to rimrock setbacks and the non -clear standards in the LM review criteria. 1 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC PUBLIC HEARING OF JANUARY 15, 1992KtYP CHED „`���� FE 1192 MAR 0108 1196 He further stated that this approach was discussed with the DLCD and that they accepted that as an adequate cumulative impact review. Mr. Read stated that the initial staff recommendation was for a fixed, non -variable setback, which was 50 feet at that time. He explained that after initial recommendation and public hearing, the Planning Commission became aware that this would have significant impact on numerous lots by reducing value due to no river view, and asked that an exception to the standards be allowed while still retaining a 50 -foot setback requirement, particularly for newly created lots. Mr. Read explained that whenever an exception to a standard is allowed, it is difficult to have clear, concise criteria. He explained that the Planning Commission felt that since a land use process would have to be gone through anyway in the landscape management zone, it would not be particularly more difficult to have a review of an excep- tions process. George Read further stated that another major issue was whether or not the conservation easement required by the zoning ordinance for all land use actions should require public access. He stated that the Planning Commission directed staff to remove the public access requirements from the LM zone. He further explained that the Planning Commission recommended that public access not be a condition of approval. George explained that public access would only be a condition of approval for certain land use actions, such as a subdivision, partition or variance, in the LM zone. Mr. Read commented that the Planning Commission has submit- ted amendments to the zoning ordinance, but staff is waiting for Board direction to prepare findings and address periodic review. George Read stated that the draft ordinance amendments also make changes to the LM zone to be consistent with state and federal scenic waterways designations. He further explained that it would state that other areas not within a scenic waterway would include all area within 660 feet of the high-water line. He stated that the current standard is 200 feet, and that the Planning Commission recommendation of 660 feet is from the river study. George stated that the Planning Commission recommended that landscape management corridors along highways remain the same. George Read explained that the Planning Commission recommen- ded that standards requiring site plan review for new structures remain in the ordinance, allowing alterations of up to 25% of the assessed value of a structure without going through the review, and exempting structures which were not visible from the land- scape management corridor. He further stated that DLCD was 2 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC PUBLIC HEARING OF JANUARY 15, 1992 oras 1197 concerned that due process and public notice be given on land use decisions in LM zones. He stated that the primary changes to the siting require- ments in the LM zone have to do with regulating exterior appear- ance. He explained that the proposed standards would require that no large areas be finished with white, bright or reflective materials, and that structures shall be finished with muted earth tones that blend with and reduce contrast with the surrounding vegetation and landscape of the building site, except that it shall not exclude barns from being red or dwellings from being white, but not applying to structures existing prior to adoption of the ordinance. George further explained that exterior light- ing, including security lighting, would require shielding. George Read stated that other changes include a height limitation of 30 feet which shall also include chimneys, antennas and flag poles and other projections on structures within scenic waterways. He stated that barns would be exempt from this standard. Mr. Read explained that the Planning Commission recommended a 50 -foot rimrock setback with exceptions to that standard. He stated that the intent of the exception criteria is so that property owners whose view is impacted by this ordinance can get an exception. He stated that the criteria for a rimrock setback exception include, the structure must be designed and sited to minimize the visual impact when viewed from the ordinary high water mark on the far side of the river, existing trees and shrubs that reduce visibility of the structure must be main- tained, the height of the structure cannot be excepted, decks shall not be located within 20 feet from the edge of the rimrock unless the structure is completely screened or it is found to be less visible from the river when sited closer. Mr. Read explained that the supplementary standards were fairly straight- forward. George Read interpreted a letter from DLCD that raised other issues. He stated that one issue was that present exception standards do not go so far as to make something remain non- visible, such as the cutting down of trees. He stated that another issue was coordination with the state on the issuance of permits. He read from the letter a sentence that stated "Deschutes County will not accept a land use application for a use within the boundaries of a scenic waterway until the State Parks and Recreation Department notification and review process is completed." George commented that this could be significant since the state parks department may decide not to allow a dwelling and delay issuance of a permit for up to one year. He commented that the state had not delayed a permit in this county. 3 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC PUBLIC HEARING OF JANUARY 15, 1992 0108 1198 He further stated that DLCD supported the 50 -foot rimrock setback and would prefer that the county not include exception provisions to the setback. George stated that DLCD realized some flexibility was needed and that one way to address that issue would be to identify individual management units and establish specific setback and design standards for each unit. He stated that this was the staff's initial recommendation, but that there was not enough staff time to proceed with this option. Commissioner Throop asked George what the consequences would be if the Board choose to do nothing about this issue. George responded that in order to do nothing, it would have to be determined that there was no problem. He further stated that the state may grant an extension of time for periodic review on this issue, but his recommendation is to move on with making a deci- sion on this or deciding what else can be put off. He further stated that if the County doesn't comply with the periodic review order, the state could take other action including issuing an enforcement order. Chairman Maudlin questioned the exception of red barns and white houses. George Read responded by saying that the Planning Commission was sensitive to public opinion and testimony on that point. He agreed with the Board members that this type of visual impact is very hard to regulate. Someone from the audience asked what's to prevent changes later and how do conservation easements relate to small pieces of property and does it affect state-owned property. George responded that provisions apply to all state-owned properties and it is somewhat questionable whether they apply to federally owned properties. He further stated that the conservation easement concept without public access deals with preserving the riverbank and providing protection for values along the riverbank. Commissioner Schlangen asked what the height limitation was within the urban growth boundary and Bend city limits. George stated that the City went through periodic review before the scenic waterway came into effect. He further stated that the City is working on the initial process to amend its policy. Someone from the audience asked about comments made by a Planning Commission member, Ted Schassberg. George responded that those comments were not part of the recommendation, but just added as notes to the Commissioners. Someone else in the audience asked a question and George responded by answering that the ESEE analysis of the river corridors is contained in the Deschutes River Study. He also stated that DLCD did not require any new ESEE analysis, only a cumulative impact analysis. The same individual asked if a new 4 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC PUBLIC HEARING OF JANUARY 15, 1992 0148 1199 ESEE analysis on economic impacts was required to change the standards of the ordinance. George responded in the negative. Someone else from the audience asked a question that Chair- man Maudlin responded to by stating that in some instances a conservation easement with public access could be required, but it isn't mandatory. Commissioner Throop elaborated that point by stating that subdividing and partitioning could require public access in their conservation easements. George responded to a question by stating that new lots along the river could be created, although it is difficult. Someone else asked a question that George responded to by stating that there can be an exception to the 50 -foot setback if the view has been impacted or lost. He further stated that the review standards determine the extent of the exception, and that the planning division staff would have to make an on-site deter- mination on each individual lot. George also explained that a structure can't be taller in height than the distance back from the rimrock. Another question was asked by someone in the audience that Mr. Read responded to by stating that a river view at 20 feet does trigger the setback exception. Someone else asked why setbacks are necessary if someone owns both sides of a stream and the stream is not open to the public. George responded by stating that it is inside a land- scape corridor and therefore required to be protected by the existing comprehensive plan. The same person also asked another question that Mr. Read responded to by stating that the Deschutes River Study identified the Deschutes River, Crooked River, Fall River, Little Deschutes River, Spring River, Paulina Creek, Squaw Creek and Tumalo Creek as being protected Goal 5 resources. He also stated that state and federal designations are not necessar- ily the same. Another individual asked about why this review process is being gone through again. George Read responded that in 1979, all discretionary permits did not have to go through public notice, but that the state has mandated that public notice be given as part of periodic review. He also stated that some standards proposed now will be similar to those that were in place before the River Study took effect in 1986. Someone else asked a question about regulations in an agricultural area that George responded to by stating that the language was taken from the state statute and is in the current ordinance. 5 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC PUBLIC HEARING OF JANUARY 15, 1992 0108 1200 Another person asked a question regarding steep canyons in the northern part of the County and would all developments be required to go through this review. Mr. Read stated that in a steep canyon, a house probably wouldn't be visible if sited 20 feet from the rimrock and therefore would not have to go through any review. He also stated that all houses within 50 feet of the rimrock would have to go through site plan review. Someone else asked how the process for review will work and how the determinations will be made. George responded that if a view was available from a second story, an exception can be gotten for the second story. He further explained that the process involves site visits and staking of the rimrock. He also explained that of all applications received, approximately 10% would be difficult and on those 10%, planning staff would rely on site visits and information from the applicant. Mr. Read also stated that the fees charged cover costs only and that the public can participate each year in the fee -setting process. Another question was asked about the time frame for the permit process. George answered that the current turnaround time for planning review of an LM review decision with public notice is 15 days. Another individual asked a question that Chairman Maudlin responded to by stating that there is a charge for land use actions. Commissioner Throop stated that the CDD department is completely fee supported and that tax dollars do not support their activities. George Read responded to a question by explaining that the comprehensive plan and River Study state that the County should minimize the impact of views along the river corridors from structures. He stated that the Planning Commission felt that this was not being done. Mr. Read explained again that conserva- tion easements are meant to preserve the riverbank. Chairman Maudlin then opened the hearing to testimony from proponents. Harrell Graham spoke to the issue of security light pollu- tion. He stated that he believed the ordinance did not go far enough on the issue of light shielding. Jane Poor, a resident of Bend, stated that she supports the amendments requiring a 50 -foot setback, the extension of the landscape combining zone from the present 200 feet to 660 feet, the amendment of the zoning ordinance site plan review standards to clarify existing standards and add additional standards to reduce visual impacts and the requirement of conservation ease- ments. 6 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC PUBLIC HEARING OF JANUARY 15, 1992 0108 1201 Jane Fowler stated that she supports land use restrictions along the rivers and streams in the area. She stated that she believes no dwelling should be closer than the 50 -foot rimrock setback requirement. She further stated that the standards needed to be stronger. Ms. Fowler stated that she believes the LM zone should be extended to one-quarter mile. Larry Pratt, director of the Sunriver Nature Center Observa- tory and a river front property owner on Spring River, stated that he sent a letter to the Board and explained part of its content. He stated that the observatory is strongly supported because the skies in Central Oregon are so clear. He further stated that any protective measures can only contribute to the greater good. John Wujack, a resident of Bend and co-founder of the Coalition for the Deschutes, stated that the original recommenda- tions from planning staff with regard to the river study should not be altered and urged Board acceptance of the planning staff recommendations. He further stated that he believes public access is not a right the public can ask for, but he believes there should be some type of right of portage for people who canoe and kayak on the river. Chairman Maudlin then opened the hearing to testimony from opponents. Leonard Knott, a resident of Sisters, voiced his concern that there is a perception by some people that the private ownership of property is in the same category as crimes against humanity. He stated that he believes these proposed standards are beyond what the state requires and do not allow for any flexibility. He also stated his concern over forced public access. Donna Reed, a resident of LaPine, stated that she believed 20 or 25 canoers portaging around an obstacle would do nothing to preserve a riverbank. She stated that there should be some type of rule governing exterior appearance of structures, but that it should apply to everyone not just those living along the river. She further stated that she is very upset and concerned over having to sign a conservation easement. Ms. Reed further stated that the 660 foot area on some parts of her property are on the other side of a road and she doesn't feel that she needs to be told how to take care of her property. Clifford Jensen, a resident of Salem and owner of a parcel of property near Cline Falls, stated he is opposed to the LM zone and would like to see it abolished. He also expressed his concern over public access. He stated his belief that with the setback requirement, an owner can't even observe his own prop- erty. Mr. Jensen also expressed his concern over police protec- 7 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC PUBLIC HEARING OF JANUARY 15, 1992 0108 1202 tion and the shielding of lighting. He also expressed concern over the issue of liability if public access is allowed. Chairman Maudlin interjected by stating that although he agrees that there should be no public access, that issue is not being discussed at this time and that Mr. Jensen should limit his remarks to the issues at hand. Mr. Jensen concluded his remarks and thanked the Commission. Matt Cyrus, a resident of Sisters, stated that he opposes the draft ordinance for the reasons he has stated in previous letters. He submitted his letters for the record. He explained that he spoke to someone from DLCD who told him that there was no mandate from DLCD to strengthen landscape corridor restriction. Mr. Cyrus further stated that a DLCD review of the County's periodic review order outlined the failure of the County to include an analysis of the cumulative effects of development decisions on the protection of Goal 5 resources, and that an ESEE analysis would need to be completed. He then requested that consideration of this ordinance be delayed until an ESEE analysis is completed. Omar Moffett, a resident of Redmond, stated that he is concerned over the devaluation of property. Pam Cyrus, a resident of Sisters, stated that she doesn't disagree with the control of light pollution or with the riparian conservation zone, but that she does disagree with a conservation easement. She stated that she believes there to be a conflict of interest between public access and a conservation easement, although she knows public access has been removed from this plan. She believes the planning department needs to review the current policy of requesting public access. Ms. Cyrus also expressed her concern on exterior appearance standards and the definition of rimrock. Parker Johnstone, a resident of Redmond, read a letter from Wester Cooley on behalf of Oregonians in Action stating that his group opposes any changes to the LM combining zone ordinance with the exception of including wording to the effect of "public access to private property is forbidden." The letter as read also stated that any changes made that adversely affect the rights of property owners and/or their property values may cause the group to pursue litigation. Keith Cyrus, a resident of Sisters, stated he appreciates the problems staff had with setbacks, but feels there are many inequities. He stated that he had problems with the definition of a high water mark and the conservation easement. He further stated that he did not feel that his property along Squaw Creek should be subject to the same regulations as those that apply to 8 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC PUBLIC HEARING OF JANUARY 15, 1992 0108 1203 the Deschutes River. Mr. Cyrus commented that he would like to see property owners get together with the County to redefine conservation easements. Keith Cyrus stated that the did agree with the County's position on lighting. Dean Cameron, a resident of Redmond, stated that he is a property rights activist. He stated that in some cases, a 20 - foot setback will not allow a river view and believes that a second story should be allowed. He further stated that regula- tions should apply to all classes of people. Neil Chase, a resident of Redmond and co-founder of Eagle Crest, stated he is opposed to the ordinance, but agrees with light shielding. He stated that he is opposed to the setbacks and conservation easements, because he feels he is the best judge of how to use and spend money on his own property. Mr. Chase further stated that if the property is condemned, the County should buy it or reduce the taxes on it. Dave Hanson, a resident of Bend, questioned why the County wants more restrictive setbacks when state and federal regula- tions require only a 20 -foot setback. He also stated that he believes conservation easements open up too much liability to the property owner. He also expressed concern over the cost of the exception process. James Lowell, a resident of Redmond, stated that he sold property in Sunrise Village and bought property southwest of Redmond to get away from over -regulation only to feel that it's happening again. He stated that he feels the amendments are a thinly disguised taking of private property without compensation. He also stated that the amendments unduly interfere with property owner rights with regard to exterior appearance and the height of structures. Mr. Lowell stated that he is not in agreement with those wishing to restrict security lighting. He urged the Commission to reject the amendments from the Planning Commission and adopt only the minimum regulations required by the state. Carolyn Bostwick, a resident of Bend and a member of the Central Oregon Board of Realtors, stated that the amendments have a total disregard for the rights of private property ownership. She stated that although she believes the environment needs to be protected, there is no balance of rights in these amendments. She further stated her disapproval with the visual screening of structures with landscaping stating that it could be a fire hazard. She also expressed her disapproval with a more stringent standard than the state requires. 9 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC PUBLIC HEARING OF JANUARY 15, 1992 0108 120 George Read stated that another meeting was scheduled for 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, January 22, 1992, to further consider this matter. He stated that a decision on this issue or an extension needed to be made by April 15, 1992. Chairman Maudlin then adjourned the hearing. DATED this �St/')day of , 1992, by the Board of Commissioners of Deschutes ount , 0 . 5MK 7TIT CHairman ��2v A ST: TOM THROOP, Commissioner i- YYl ZV cC-� �� 67 ecording Secretary NANCY POPE SCHLANGEN, Commissioner 10 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC PUBLIC HEARING OF JANUARY 15, 1992