Loading...
1992-05486-Minutes for Meeting February 07,1992 Recorded 2/25/19920108 1558 92`05486 4 MINUTES};rte DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Friday, February 7, 1992 Chairman Maudlin called the meeting to order at 10 a.m. Bo�G. members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop, and Nancy Po f Schlangen. Also present were: Rick Isham, County Counsel; Bruce h White, Assistant Legal Counsel; and George Read, Planning Director. Chairman Maudlin announced that the Findings and Decision on the Pacific Power & Light Appeal would not be acted on at this meeting, but was scheduled for February 12, 1992. 1. ORDER 92-014 DENYING THE PETITION FOR INCORPORATION OF SUNRIVER Before the Board was signature of Order 92-014 which would deny the petition for Incorporation of the proposed city of Sunriver and adoption of findings and conclusions. The Board announced their tentative decision on the petition on January 22, 1992, and adopted Resolution 92-003 setting forth the tentative decision and directing the development of findings of fact in support of the tentative decision. Commissioner Throop said he felt the documents perfectly reflected the decision the Board made on January 22, 1992. MAUDLIN: I would entertain a motion for signature of Order 92-014. SCHLANGEN: Move signature. THROOP: I'll second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 2. ORDINANCES 92-001, 92-002, 92-003 AND 92-004 AMENDING PL -20 AND TITLE 18 CONCERNING THE SITING OF DESTINATION RESORTS ON DRY FARM LANDS Before the Board was signature of Ordinances 92-001, 92-002, 92-003, and 92-004 amending PL -20 and Title 18 concerning the siting of destination resorts on dry farm lands. Chairman Maudlin sa language agreed on issue. The previous were 350 feet for areas; 250 feet fo PAGE 1 MINUTES: 2-7-92 id he wanted to make a slight change to the at their last meeting concerning this motion stated that the exterior set backs commercial development including parking r multi -family development and visitor KEY CHEREC (- 0108 1559 oriented accommodation; 150 feet for above -grade development; and 100 feet for roads. The two areas which he wanted to change were the 100 -foot set back for golf courses from the exterior line, and the 50 -foot set back for jogging trails and bike paths. The 100 foot set back from golf courses from the exterior line would result in a minimum in all zones of another 20 feet for set backs for dwellings. If there was a 50 -foot set back for golf courses, it would still leave 70 feet in actuality from the golf course edge to properties. He felt that would leave an open space jungle of weeds. The same would apply to jogging trails and bike paths. If they were set back, there would be an area which would probably not be maintained, because it was along the exterior property line. He recommended that jogging trails and bike paths run along the edge of the exterior property line/right-of-way. Commissioner Throop said he didn't have any problem with those changes. Bruce White suggested that the preferable way to proceed was for the Board to review one ordinance at a time. He said there were four ordinances with a set of findings attached to tie the package together. Ordinance 92-001 would adopt some definitions in the comprehensive plan to comply with Goal 8, it would adopt the discussion from the Planning Commission recommendations, and it would present some goals and policies to be added to the comprehensive plan which reflected Goal 8 and the staged manner in which the County had chosen to proceed with the process. Commissioner Throop said the Board had tried to find a means of communicating the three -phased process of reviewing lands for the siting of destination resorts to the public by referring to the segments as: dry lands (anything with less that 37 acres of water), (2) forest lands, (3) irrigated farm lands (anything with more than 37 acres of water). Bruce White continued that the Board was currently dealing with phase one of this process which would include adopting a zoning ordinance for the entire County, identifying county- wide any lands excluded by Goal 8, and identifying the staged sequence. In the second stage, the Board would be considering destination resorts in F-2 and F-3 lands after the Forest Rule had been implemented in the County. Stage three would include irrigated EFU lands. He said it was clear in the ordinance and comprehensive plan policies that the Board did not ascribe any value to the judgement of which EFU lands to deal with in segment one or segment three. Ordinance 92-002 included a description of the mapping. Ordinance 92-003 would adopt the zoning map for destination resorts. Ordinance 92-004 contained the details regulating the siting of destination resorts when applications were received. PAGE 2 MINUTES: 2-7-92 0108 1560 Bruce White continued that in Ordinance 92-001, Section 1, he had proposed to take most of the existing policy out, however he had since decided that was a mistake because the County was not trying to change the current policy except as modified by the Goal 8 process. Therefore, he left the language alone except which necessary to combine it with the existing process. The only other change was to make an amendment to the open space definition in the comprehensive plan to show that destination resorts were, in some ways, a bit of an exception because the language would allow alterations of the natural terrain, i.e. golf courses, etc. in areas where the County might otherwise not allow alterations. Commissioner Schlangen questioned the language in the policies on page 7 which said destination resorts would not be sited on 1150 or more contiguous acres of unique or prime farm lands." She thought this language was not going to be included. Chairman Maudlin said that Bruce White felt this basic information needed to be in the policies, and it was taken exactly from the Goal 8 process. Bruce White said that DLCD would be looking at the County's package to see whether there were comprehensive plan policies which reflected the goal, because once the County was acknowledged on this part of the process, the goals were no longer applicable. Therefore, DLCD wanted to be assured that the goals were included in the comprehensive plan. Bruce White pointed out that Policy #11 indicated that no applications for quasi-judicial plan map changes and zone changes would be allowed. Therefore the County would not be allowed to change the Destination Resort maps until this three -phased process was completed. If something had been left out, or someone wanted to add their property to the map, the County could not consider these changes until the entire process was completed. However someone could apply through the exceptions process which was a part of Goal 8. Bruce White continued that Ordinance 92-002 dealt with the mapping of the lands where destinations resorts could be sited. This ordinance would adopt map 11 (a county -wide map) and eight detail maps which were reflective of the county -wide map. Then to explain to LCDC in the findings how these maps were developed, exhibit A included the mapping discussion. Commissioner Throop said he wanted to discuss the public lands map and the wildlife combining zone map. He wondered why the Board would not adopt these maps now. Bruce White said if the Board wanted to adopt negative mapping, the critical maps would be the wildlife maps and the prime soils map which state law required to be excluded, since the County would be looked at by LCDC to see whether those areas had been excluded. George Read said the motion was to move those maps to the PAGE 3 MINUTES: 2-7-92 0.08 1501 findings, and therefore, the staff had referred to them as reference maps instead of including them. Since the Goal required positive mapping (where destination resorts were allowed, not where they weren't allowed), he felt this reference would be adequate. Commissioner Throop questioned the language not allowing destination resorts within one mile of the urban growth boundary except in an exception area. He felt the conflicts would be as important in the exception areas as in the urban growth boundary. George Read said the Planning Commission initially did exclude the exception area, however there was testimony objecting to that. The Planning Commission considered the objections and found that the exception areas were already committed to subdivisions and other developments, and that destination resorts were already allowed there. Therefore, by excluding those areas, the County would be taking away a use which was currently allowed. Commissioner Throop said it was possible that this package would be appealed to LUBA, so he wanted to know if there were any areas of the package where staff felt the County was potentially vulnerable. He wondered if the lack of mapping of high crop soils was an area of vulnerability. George Read said the evidence in the record indicated that the only high value crop in Deschutes County was potatoes which was indicated in the findings. Bruce White said the County knew there wasn't a concentration of high crop soils in the County, so he didn't think it would be worth appealing on this issue. He felt the facts in the record justified the finding. Commissioner Throop questioned the language that there were no sites currently inventoried as Goal 5 sites which were fully protect under Goal 5. George Read said their approach to Goal 5 resources was to fully allow conflicting uses or to mitigate/condition them both. Bruce White said there were some sites coming in the future which would be fully protected, i.e. cemeteries in the historic landmarks ordinance. Bruce White continued that Ordinance 92-003 adopted the zoning maps for destination resorts. Ordinance 92-004 had a series of exhibits attached which adopted the destination resort definitions and Exhibit C was the "meat" of the ordinance. The F-2 and F-3 zones were not dealt with in this Ordinance and no prejudgments had been made regarding destination resorts in those zones. On Exhibit C, Application to Existing Resorts, was a new section to clarify the intent of the ordinance concerning expansions to existing resorts. The expansion area would either have to meet all of the criteria or the entire resort, including the expansion area, would have to meet all of the criteria of the ordinance except for the PAGE 4 MINUTES: 2-7-92 01®8 1562 setbacks and lot sizes. Commissioner Throop asked what would happen if the developer wanted to change the master plan of the destination resort within the existing approved area. George Read said any change from the prior master plan would require that the developer go back through the master plan process, and all of the standards of this ordinance would have to be met except the previously approved set backs and lot sizes. Bruce White continued through the ordinance outlining the language which the Board had requested be added or changed regarding open space and impacts on roads. The Board had asked staff to prepare some language which would safeguard the water supply. The proposed language would require that additional information be supplied, i.e. estimate of water demands, availability of water. They also added language that "water sources shall not include any perched water table. Water shall only be taken from a regional aquifer." They tried to require enough information so it would be easier for staff, Water Resources, and the public to evaluate the application. He rewrote the approval standard for waste water disposal to include beneficial use as the Board had requested. He pointed out that the open space requirement had been changed from 65% to 50% and that landscaped areas were not included in the 50% calculation as the Board directed. Concerning the Board's discussion on removing the set backs on jogging trails and bike paths along the property line, George Read said that if there was a house on neighboring property which was 20 feet from the property line, there would be an impact from a jogging path or bike path along the property line. The purpose of the set back was to mitigate that impact. Commissioner Throop said he had not considered paths along interior property lines when discussing the reduction in the set back and thought it only applied next to roads. Chairman Maudlin suggested making the set back 50 feet where it would affect an adjoining property owner. Bruce White asked how this would protect lots which were platted but not yet built on. Commissioner Throop suggested a 50 -foot set back along private, developable property and no set back along roads. Chairman Maudlin said that would mean no set backs along public lands, i.e. BLM. Commissioner Throop argued against having no set back along boundaries with public lands, however the other two commissioners were not persuaded. Commissioner Throop asked if the intention of subsection (P) was to be compatible with the general conditional use criteria. George Read said he felt this standard (subsection P) was an easier standard to meet than the conditional use criteria. When property was zoned for destination resorts, some assumptions were made. If you had a criteria which could be proved or denied based upon PAGE 5 MINUTES: 2-7-92 0108 1563 "compatibility," the ability to litigate the issue would be greatly increased; while the standard that resorts could not "substantially limit, impair or prevent permitted or conditional uses of surrounding properties" was an easier standard to meet and was intended to be so. There were also specific standards for destination resorts which were tougher to meet for each of the issues addressed under the conditional use standards. ------------------------------------------ THROOP: I'll move first and second reading by title only of Ordinance 92-004 including all the amendments which have bee described more than adequately on the record here. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chairman Maudlin performed the first and second readings of Ordinance 92-004 by title only. THROOP: Move adoption. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES --------------------------------------------- THROOP: Move first and second reading by title only of Ordinance 92-003 including amendments discussed. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chairman Maudlin performed the first and second readings of Ordinance 923-003 by title only. THROOP: Move adoption. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 6 MINUTES: 2-7-92 0108 1564 THROOP: I'll move first and second reading by title only of Ordinance 92-002. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chairman Maudlin performed the first and second readings of Ordinance 92-002 by title only. THROOP: Move adoption. SCHLANGEN: Second. Commissioner Throop asked if there were any areas in the package where the County might be vulnerable to appeal. Bruce White said he would like any appellants to have to "smoke those things out themselves." He felt the only one might be the one which had already been discussed in this meeting. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES THROOP: Move first and second reading by title only of Ordinance 92-001. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chairman Maudlin performed the first and second readings of Ordinance 92-001 by title only. THROOP: Move adoption. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES The Commissioner thanked George Read and Bruce White the tremendous job the did on this package of ordinances. PAGE 7 MINUTES: 2-7-92 DATED this C�7tf)day of JV4, Commissioners of Deschutes C A S ecording Secretary PAGE 8 MINUTES: 2-7-92 01®8 1565 �K Dick Maudlin, Chairman