Loading...
1992-08294-Minutes for Meeting January 21,1992 Recorded 3/18/199292-08294 i 0109 0618 MINUTES C-,,��. DESTINATION RESORTS DECISION FOR DRY LANDS DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS January 21, 1992 Chairman Maudlin called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. Board members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Nancy Pope Schlangen. Also present were: George Read, Planning Director and Bruce White, Assistant County Counsel. Chairman Maudlin said the purpose of this meeting was to discuss and make a decision on a Plan Amendment and Zone Change request to implement statewide planning Goal 8 allowing the siting of Destination Resorts in Forest and Agricultural Area. The public hearing on this issue was held at 7 p.m. on January 8, 1992. He pointed out that the discussion of Destination Resorts in irrigated farm lands and forest lands would be held at a later date, and that the decision being made at this meeting would only pertain to non -irrigated farm lands. George Read said the County had received approval from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to segment the mapping so long as the County met the standards of Goal 8. The staff had already gone through the process of excluding what was required by Goal 8 from the mapping. He pointed out that non- irrigated or dry lands were parcels with less than 37 acres of irrigation. He suggested that these be referred to as "less significant agricultural lands" and leave out the language about "irrigation of important farm lands." As part of this process, the County needed to adopt supporting documentation which would show how the County met the state standards, and that was the purpose of the maps. They explained how the County separated the important agricultural land from the less significant agricultural land. The only map that needed to be adopted was one indicating where destination resorts could and could not be sited. This map would be adopted as part of the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. The remainder of the maps needed to be included as supporting evidence of how the County came to the final map of where destination resorts could be located. These maps would become a resource part of the comprehensive plan. Bruce White said he had not seen any legal arguments of substance which indicated that the County could not segment the process as long as those lands excluded by Goal 8 were excluded from consideration. The only items which 1000 Friends of Oregon quoted in their letter of opposition were from the Destination Resort Handbook which had little legal standing and was only a guideline. PAGE 1 MINUTES: 1-21-92 6.e 0109 0619 Commissioner Throop said he understood that the County could focus on dry lands as long as the lands which were specifically prohibited from destination resort siting in State Law were excluded; and the other two segments (irrigated farm lands and forest lands) would be held neutral until the time frames outlined for their review. Bruce White said the only map which the County was required to adopt by State law was a zoning map showing where the destination resorts could be located. Chairman Maudlin asked if the County could adopt a map of dry lands indicating the area where destination resorts could be located, and then in the findings state that the County would be making a study of irrigated lands and forest lands in the future which would include additional mapping. Bruce White said the proposed ordinance language stated that the Board would be taking this issue on in a phased fashion, and that the dry lands phase was only the first of three different stages. By adopting the map, the Board was not saying that they would never be looking at other lands for destination resort siting. However, the County had to demonstrate on what basis the final map for dry lands was adopted, which was the purpose of the other maps. He said these other maps would have no legal significance other than as a reference to demonstrate how the County had met Goal 8. Commissioner Throop said there was a series of mapping steps which the County had gone through to arrive at how the first phase could be segmented out for adoption. The state required that a record be kept of the specific process which the County went through to arrive at the final map. Chairman Maudlin said the County would be approving a map which would show where destination resorts could go, and therefore it would also be saying that destination resorts couldn't go anywhere else. He suggested stating in the findings that the County was going to study irrigated lands and forest zone lands, and when these studies were completed, the County would be adopting maps which would show where destination resorts could go? Bruce White said that in the goals and policies of Ordinance 92- 001, the first policy set out that it was the intent of the County to proceed in a staged fashion. Commissioner Throop said he was satisfied that this process would allow the Board to make a segment -one decision now with an accurate record of how this decision was made, but would hold segments two and three neutral for future decision making. Commissioner Throop said he felt the "other important agricultural lands" definition needed to be moved from the ordinance to the findings and decision along with the maps. That would place the PAGE 2 MINUTES: 1-21-92 0109 0020 complete record in the findings and decision, so everyone could understanding how the process evolved. Commissioner Schlangen said she would like the definition to be for the "less significant dry lands." Bruce White said he would have a copy of the proposed package with the Board's recommended changes to the Board in advance of the February 7, 1992, meeting. George Read said he would like to use the Eagle Crest findings as the basis to go through the ordinance with the Board for their comments, since it included the Planning Commission findings and bolded Eagle Crest's proposed changes. The Board felt it was more appropriate to work from the Planning Commission's recommendations. Commissioner Throop wanted to clarify what should happen to late arriving letters and comments on this issue. He felt it was unfair that general public testimony was limited while discussions continued with people who knew the process well enough to know how to contact staff directly (i.e. attorneys). Bruce White said when there was testimony regarding new language, it was appropriate that a cut off date be in effect, in order to allow staff time to respond. However, additional testimony regarding the process, etc. would not have been a problem. The Board agreed that any testimony which had come in prior to this meeting should be included in the record. George Read started through the Planning Commission recommendations with the Board page by page. Commissioner Throop asked for additional information on 2 (c ) which said the impacts of resorts on surrounding properties, farms, and forest uses and other resources can be substantially mitigated. He asked what process the Planning Commission went through to reach that conclusion. George Read said the Planning Commission was uncomfortable proceeding with irrigated lands so these lands were mitigated because they were being deferred until they had more information. Chairman Maudlin asked how the County could adopt prime soils without going through the irrigated lands process, when the Soil Conservation Service said these were prime soils when irrigated. George Read said the Planning Commission found that these lands had the capability to be prime soils, and therefore they were prime soils whether they had irrigation or not. All of these prime soils could be irrigated, because the underground aquifer was large enough for people to dig a well and pump the water. He said the prime soils, based upon the SCS maps, were mapped and excluded from consideration and would not be considered for zoning at this time. PAGE 3 MINUTES: 1-21-92 0100 0621 Commissioner Throop asked about any "unique farm lands/high-value crop lands" in the Terrebonne area, which was defined by the State as crop land which produced more than a $1,000 gross per acre, and whether livestock was considered a high-value crop? George Read said a high value crop area was based on 1983 dollars and in 1983, there was one high value crop grown in Deschutes county which was potatoes. In 1990 mint was getting close to the high value standard. In the record there were approximately from 170 acres of potatoes with the five year range of 170-300 or 400 acres county- wide. The staff felt this did not constitute a high value crop area. Concerning livestock, it referred to dairy and feed lots, which were only in isolated small areas. Since they had to use 1983 values, there was a question whether llamas would have that high a value. He felt it was clear there were no high value crop areas in the County based on the 1983 standard. In terms as "unique," he said they might be referring to cranberry bogs, etc. and he did not feel the County had any. The record indicated the County did not have any unique farm lands. George Read continued that no federal lands were mapped for possible zoning. He said the Planning Commission was holding a meeting the following evening to discuss the Forest Rule. He explained the irrigated lands issue. Commissioner Schlangen was concerned again about the references to maps. George Read said the maps were necessary to explain why the County was making the decisions it was making, and how it arrived at the non -irrigated lands map. Chairman Maudlin asked why the County didn't use the handbook definition regarding the 50 contiguous acres of prime or unique land. George Read said the County did not have the mapping to justify using that test. Chairman Maudlin said he didn't want to put any maps in the package that would commit the County on zoning for destination resorts outside of non -irrigated lands. Commissioner Throop said there were 11 maps which led the County to the final map which indicated where Destination Resorts could be place in Deschutes County. He felt the process used to arrive at the ultimate map would be clear by referencing the maps in the findings and decision. Commissioner Throop felt there should be specific language in Ordinance 92-001 to describe the segmentation process, and delineate the Board's desire to move into segments 2 and 3 of this process totally neutral and unbiased by what transpired in segment 1. Chairman Maudlin asked which map was the interim map. George Read said map 11A was the map which indicated where destination resorts could be sited based on the Planning Commission's recommendation. This map included the dry lands, the rural residential lands, and multi -use agricultural lands. He said forest lands were also on this map, but the Board was not considering those lands. PAGE 4 MINUTES: 1-21-92 0109 x622 Chairman Maudlin said he felt the Board had made its wishes clear on how the mapping should be handled and suggested going through the rest of the findings. Commissioner Throop said there was also the question of destination resorts being allowed within one mile of the urban growth boundary. Bruce White said there was some testimony from Sisters merchants regarding resorts being competition for their businesses. All of the Board members said they were comfortable with the one mile standard. George Read continued the discussion of siting standards. He said that 1000 Friends said they were concerned with the proposed language and quoted what Goal 8 provided. Commissioner Throop asked if George Read felt the language was sufficient to protect natural features. George Read said yes, and that the staff had attempted to mirror the rule very closely in terms of protecting natural features. He had spoken with Blair Batson and they were unaware of some of the standards the County already had, i.e. floodplain zones, and fill and removal standards for wetlands. They were supposed to respond with some language and failed to do SO. Bruce White suggested that the staff go through the proposed four ordinances with the Board so they could get an idea of what the package looked like. They started with Ordinance 92-001 which included text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. Currently the comprehensive plan dealt only peripherally with destination resorts. Section 1 of this ordinance would be amended to recognize that destination resorts would occur through the implementation of statewide Goal 8, and there were some definitions which needed to be changed or added, i.e. destination resort. He suggested that criteria for siting destinations should be the same whether the application came through the exceptions process or the Goal 8 process and the Board agreed. George Read said destination resorts were currently allowed as conditional uses in forest zones on less productive forest lands, however as part of this process, destination resorts would be removed from forest lands until the forest lands segment was completed. Bruce White continued discussion of Ordinance 92-001. He said this ordinance included the policies, the first of which discussed implementing Goal 8 in a phased sequence. The map of where destination resorts could be sited would be adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan in ordinance 92-002. Ordinance 92-003 would adopt a map entitled destination resort zone. Ordinance 92-004 would adopt the actual language to be included in the siting criteria. PAGE 5 MINUTES: 1-21-92 0109 0623 George Read suggested going through the findings. The definitions included the question of how much open space the Board wanted. The state mandated 50% open space. The present standard was 65%, however it allowed the use of portions of the individual lots as open space. The Planning Commission recommended 65%. He said the testimony regarding open space at Black Butte Ranch which was given at the public hearing was incorrect. The riparian habitat would be allowed as open space, however flood plains could not be included. Bruce White asked how the Board wanted to define open space and what could occur in it. Chairman Maudlin felt the handbook was fairly strict. George Read said that during site plan review for a condominium project, there was a 15% landscaping requirement. So he wondered whether the Board wanted to consider that 15% landscaping as part of the open space. He recommended that it not be included in the open space, but that the open space requirement be limited to 50%. Commission Throop suggested that the Board could approve a lower percentage of open space with a stricter definition of open space or a higher percentage with a more flexible definition of what constituted open space. Bruce White indicated that with a strict interpretation of open space ball fields and developed parks would not be included as open space. Pastures would be open space if that was the condition of the property prior to development, however if pastures were put in by the resort, they would not be considered open space. Chairman Maudlin said he would like to use a 50% standard for open space but with a very strict interpretation of what would qualify to be in that 50%. Bruce White asked if that meant no alteration of natural landscape areas (except fairways and golf course greens) and no structures would be counted in the open space? Chairman Maudlin said that sounded right. Bruce White said he would recommend having bike paths and hiking trails in open space, and the construction of lakes and ponds. Commissioner Schlangen said she would like lakes and ponds to be considered as open space. Chairman Maudlin said that trails would be alright for open space but that bike path would probably be paved and shouldn't be considered open space. Commissioners Throop and Maudlin agreed that portions of individual lots would not be included in open space. Bruce White asked if when the Board said no structures, it meant park benches and picnic tables? Developed parks would not be allowed as open space, however undeveloped areas could have a picnic table or park bench. George Read pointed out that the language included the ability to enhance the natural values as they existed and still be counted as open space. George Read said the next standard was the two houses to every one overnight accommodation which was the state standard and what the planning commission recommended. The Board had no concerns over this standard. George Read said the Planning Commission felt there was data to show that there was adequate water. He said he added one PAGE 6 MINUTES: 1-21-92 0109 0024 additional study from the Bureau of Reclamation into the record. It exceeded the consultant's study in stating that there was adequate water in the aquifer. It said the area was using 30,000- 40,000 acre feet of water while there was 1.1 million acre feet in the aquifer. It did say there was a potential of a perched water table between Bend and Redmond because of the number of wells which were not in the main aquifer. He asked how far the Board wanted to go in requiring a study regarding the perched water table and what would happen if the neighboring wells did go dry. Commissioner Throop said there had been a tremendous amount of citizen concern over this issue, and he wanted to deal with the issue in more detail. George Read said the required hydrologist's study would have to include whatever was necessary to convince the hearings officer that there wasn't a problem. He felt the existing well log data would be adequate for this purpose. The Board asked that the staff prepare some options for the Board's consideration before the approval date. George Read said there was a recent memo from the Department of Transportation on the impacts of destination resorts on state highways. Their recommendation that the long-term cumulative impacts be analyzed was very difficult. The Planning Commission agreed this ordinance needed to be monitored, and if a traffic problem occurred as a result of destination resorts, then the comprehensive plan would need to be reviewed. Mr. Read continued that recreational facilities and overnight accommodations which were required to be built up front, had to be built or bonded prior to proceeding with the resort. The next issue was whether or not to require a water conservation plans as part of the sewage disposal system. Roger Everett, County Environmental Health Director, said his department would be involved in the process during the planning procedure, so he didn't feel they needed to be involved in the particulars of the WPCF permit or the incorporation of the beneficial use into that permit. All resorts would be required to get a WPCF permit, and the County would be out of the process at that point. There would be ample opportunity for him to respond to the Planning Department on the initial application and through DEQ. With the WPCF permit process and requiring the beneficial use would allow all kinds of innovations to accomplish the beneficial use, which meant exacting every use possible out of a finite resource (water). He recommended that the County require beneficial use in conjunction with the WPCF permit i.e. the water conservation plan shall include beneficial use to reclaim water the to maximum extent practicable. Mr. Read said the need for low-income housing had received some testimony. Commissioner Schlangen said she was uncomfortable not having something in the ordinance regarding low income housing, but couldn't come up with any language. Mr. Read said the Planning Commission felt it needed to be addressed as part of a big package PAGE 7 MINUTES: 1-21-92 0100 0025 not just in destination resorts. The Board discussed the possibility of requiring employee housing at the resort site, and whether other large commercial developments should be required to have housing for their employees. The Board decided to use the Planning Commission recommendation, but to reconsider the issue again in segment three. The next issue was the maximum lot size. The Planning Commission wanted to use a maximum lot size of 22,000 in order to cluster the development. The developers felt that was alright except they would like it to be an average of 22,000. Commissioner Schlangen agreed that using an average of 22,000 would allow the flexibility to adjust for the terrain. The rest of the Board agreed. The next issue was set backs. George Read said the basic reason the Planning Commission recommended larger set backs was to meet the goal requiring a buffer to minimize the impacts on the surrounding neighbors. The developers felt these setbacks were an "onerous burden" for smaller resorts. The Eagle Crest proposed amendments which didn't have any special set backs for dwellings; set backs for state highways would be 250 feet, golf course fairways on county roads would be 100, allows jogging paths or bike paths with no minimum, multi family 250 feet, and commercial uses would be raised to 350 feet. Commissioner Maudlin felt the bike and jogging paths should be 50 feet for state highways and County roads. He felt the set backs from surrounding properties should be increased since there would be greater impacts on neighbors than there would be on public roads. Commissioner Throop felt commercial uses would have a 350 foot set back, multi family and highway at 250 feet, jogging and bike trails on the highway at 50, County roads and exterior property lines would be 150 for above grade and 100 feet for golf courses and roads. George Read suggested: County roads and exterior property lines above grade 150 feet; roads and golf courses 100 feet, bike and jogging trails 50 feet, highways and multi family 250 feet, commercial 350 feet. George Read said although the bike path could not be used in the open space equation, the remainder of the set back, if left in a natural state, could be used as open space. The question of whether a limit should be placed on the maximum size of a destination resort was postponed until segment three of this review. Commissioner Throop said he felt the concerns over commercial uses were addressed in current language. George Read said he felt cultural resources needed to be addressed in the Ordinance, however, since these sites had not been identified, the County was not prepared to address this issue. Bruce White suggested considering this issue after the historical sites inventory had been completed. Mr. Read said data indicated there was about one significant site per square mile in Deschutes PAGE 8 MINUTES: 1-21-92 0109 0626 County. He suggested that the ordinance require the applicant to address how cultural and historic resources would be protected and require that historic and cultural resources be protected once they were identified. Chairman Maudlin clarified that the County would have to inventory the sites with cultural and historic resources before any destination resort would have to protect them. Bruce White said there was a state guideline which stated that ordinances should prohibit or discourage the alteration in structures in the 100 year flood plain and on slopes exceeding 25%. The Planning Commission reduced the slope to 20%, but there was no discussion. Chairman Maudlin suggested that it be returned to 25%. Bruce White proposed language that when a time share unit was not included in the overnight lodging calculation, it would become subject to the County's conditional use criteria. He also suggested that under the open space provision, the County should require an open space management plan which was consistent with what was required currently for cluster developments. George Read agreed that in the past it had created problems when there wasn't an open space plan. Bruce White also felt that it needed to be clear that rental units could not be converted to residential units. Chairman Maudlin asked about the situation where one owner wanted to take his unit out of the rental pool while another wanted to put his in. The numbers would be the same, so why would this be a problem. Bruce White said he hadn't considered the possibility of transferring units in and out of the rental pool. He felt that as a practical matter it would be difficult to enforce if units were allowed to shift back and forth. George Read said in the 1000 Friends of Oregon letter of January 8, 1992, they recommended that if the three segment review was used, that there should be a text amendment to prohibit zone changes to the destination resort overlay zone on a case-by-case basis until the final map was adopted. Mr. Read said he supported this recommendation. THROOP: I'm prepared to make a motion. I guess what I'd like to do is before I make it maybe run through the elements of it real quickly. The first one would be to move the other important agriculture lands out of the ordinance and into the findings and decision and that would include including the maps as a reference to the findings and decision so it explains whatever is required to take us to segment two and segment three neutral and not bias segment two or segment three in either fashion but move 18.040.030(I) on page four to the findings and decision and then create that system that we described for neutrality on the maps. Also where we're legally sufficient to describe how we arrived at where we arrived is the first one. PAGE 9 MINUTES: 1-21-92 0109 002'7 The second one would be to describe segment two and segment three in the ordinance so that segmentation process would be spelled out in the ordinance so people would be clear what the next two steps are. WHITE: Just in clarification, not the zoning ordinance, but the comprehensive plan amendment ordinance? THROOP: Right, yes. And clearly in both of these that we're talking about we're trying to create a neutral process here where in both of those we don't bias segment two or segment three either way. We go into those totally neutral; wide open live issues. Third would be open space. No alterations to the natural landscape, no structures in the open space, golf course fairways and greens are allowed, lakes and ponds are allowed, trails are allowed, improved parks are not allowed, pasture would be allowed if it was a preexisting use. Enhance the natural values of what exists there would be allowed. Flood plains would be out, wetlands would be in. And then there would be an approval criterion requiring an open space management plan and using the 50% standard. No structures in the open space other than small stuff like park benches and picnic tables and the like. I'm sure the building permit was the trigger. Can you craft something that lets a park bench and a picnic table. The next one would be in terms of ground water resources, language that would address site specific water problems. What happens if something goes wrong. Something to look at, as Nancy referred to it, aquifer. Also to include the January 8 recommendations on page 2 of the Highway Division letter. And in terms of sewage disposal, adopt Eagle Crest's 18.113.070(L); delete the Planning Commission and adopt the Eagle Crest. Also at 18.113.050 delete the section that Roger referred to in his letter but add back in that the conservation plan shall include the beneficial use of waste water. Adopt the minimum lot size, 22,000 sq. ft. average criterion. In terms of set backs, 350 foot set backs for commercial development, 250 foot set backs for multi -family, 250 foot set backs for highway frontage with the exception of a 50 foot set back in the highway frontage for jogging trails and bike paths, and then for County roads and exterior property lines, have a 150 foot set back for above grade development, a 100 foot set back for roads and golf courses and a 50 foot set back for jogging trails and bike paths. Require the applicant to address how identified cultural, historic and archaeologic resources will be protected. PAGE 10 MINUTES: 1-21-92 0109 0028 Prohibit structures on slopes which are 25% or greater in slope. Include in 18.113.060 Bruce White's new "L" on time share. Replace 18.113.0 with A and B that's outlined in Bruce White's recommendations. And then also Bruce White's recommendations 18.113.050 add "C", .070 add "I" and .090 add "J." Then include a text amendment to prohibit zone changes to the destination resort overlay zone on a case-by-case basis until the final map is adopted. Did I miss any points? SCHLANGEN: Just clarification of one point and that was the mapping. We will be adopting map 11A which meets the Goal 8 zoning criteria and the others will be just reference maps? MAUDLIN: I've got that down too. I want to see how they're going to put that down. How they're going to recommend that to us so we can talk about it. I'm in agreement in concept with every point. The aquifer is another thing I just want you to kind of let us know how you're gonna tell us what to do on that one. WHITE: If we can't resolve that particular one in one fashion, we can lay out some alternatives for your consideration. SCHLANGEN: Everything else Tom got done. SCHLANGEN: I second that motion. THROOP: Let me ask Bruce and George, do you see anything that we omitted in terms of changes that we need to make over what came to us in the Planning Commission. READ: I believe there are a couple of things that we need to look at and that is addressing some of the specific comments and issues that have been raised in the public testimony in order to develop better findings. The Planning Commission has some general findings. We may need some specific findings to address specific issues raised since the Planning Commission. Also there was some reference to inadequate findings by the Planning Commission in certain areas. I thinks that's something that the Board will need to look at. Bruce has already outlined that in 001, essentially so draft findings that reflect the Planning Commission recommendation, I think you've given us some guidance today but we need to prepare that specifically. So we'll bring that back to you. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 11 MINUTES: 1-21-92 DATED this'-_�day of Commissioners of Deschutes Cc ATTEST: f w z(Y12Z2 Recording Secretary PAGE 12 MINUTES: 1-21-92 0109 0629