Loading...
1992-21398-Minutes for Meeting June 15,1992 Recorded 6/25/199292-213980118-0912 WORK SESSION MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 92,11M 25 AH 8: %J8 June 15, 1992 SUE Chairman Maudlin called the meeting to order at 10 a.mrou :R members in attendance were: Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Nancy Pope Schlangen. Also present were: Bruce White, Assistant Legal Counsel; George Read, Planning Director; Catherine Morrow, Planner; Darrell Davidson, Sheriff; Mike Maier, County Administrator. 1. APPROVAL OF SHERIFFS LEVY Mike Maier outlined the Sheriff's Department costs which would be included in the proposed levy. There was a shortage of $681,162.00 to take the staff to a 40 -hour workweek in the first fiscal year after passage of the levy. The second year, it would take $942,573 to keep them on the 40 -hour workweek. For the serial levy, those two numbers were added to get an average which was $811,868. Since past experience indicated that a certain percentage of taxes were uncollectible, the levy would have to be $909,000 in order to receive the net amount of $811,868. Sheriff Davidson said this money would allow the Sheriff's Department to maintain at the current level. The Board said they had been kept fully informed on these issues, and supported going out for a serial levy. MAUDLIN: I would entertain a motion for accepting and approval of publishing for the Deschutes County Serial Levy. THROOP: I'll make the motion. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 2. DECISION ON WILDLIFE AREA COMBINING ZONE AMENDMENTS Before the Board was the decision on amendments to the Wildlife Area Combining Zone of Title 18 and to the Fish and Wildlife Section of the Comprehensive Plan and Resource Element. Catherine Morrow passed out copies of the revisions to Chapter 18.88 which included the reference to the portion of the rural residential zone. Under D(3), they added the reference to Title 18.060(c) concerning the area within one mile of the urban growth boundary. This same reference was added to page 4, E(3), and those two references would require that the bNCHED PAGE 1 MINUTES: 6/15/92 i I J c 0118-0913 density in cluster plan developments be one in ten in any rural residential area which was within the Wildlife Area Combining Zone. Concerning siting standards on page 4, Section 18.88.060 B(2) , a provision was added which read, that the siting within three hundred feet of an existing road or easement would force a dwelling to be located on irrigated land, in which case, the dwelling would be located to provide the least impact on wildlife habitat possible considering browse, forage, cover, access to water, migration corridors and minimizing length of new access roads. On page 4 concerning fencing standards, Section 18.88.070 she clarified where these fencing standards would apply by adding an introductory provision that these fencing provisions would apply as a condition of approval for any new fences constructed as part of the development of a property in conjunction with a conditional use permit or a site plan review. She also changed the language to say that the alternative fence design would be approved by the County after consultation with ODF&W rather than approved by ODF&W. A memo from ODF&W indicated they could agree to a modification of their proposed standards up to a maximum height of 48" and a minimum low wire of 15". They said the low wire was especially important because the animals would rather go under or through a fence than over it. The BLM said the specifications for fences for cattle in areas with deer and antelope were a maximum height of 38" and bottom wire of 16" with the second wire 101, above that and the third wire 1211 above that. They also required a smooth wire for the bottom strand. Commissioner Throop said he had received a call from Steve Lewis, the head of the Central Region of the ODF&W, indicating there may have been some confusion about their position on a destination resort in the wildlife area combining zone. Commissioner Throop asked that the representative from ODF&W clarify their position before proceeding further. Steve George, ODF&W, submitted a letter to the Board and then read it into the record. He said the purpose of this letter and his comments was to clarify the ODF&W position. ODF&W had interpreted the proposed language submitted by David Jaqua to mean that any land occurring within a wildlife area combining zone could not be used in calculating housing densities. Their interpretation was that it could not be used as destination resort open space either. Therefore, any determination for open space or dwelling densities would have to come from land outside of the wildlife area combining zone. It was also their interpretation of this language that the allowed uses were a restriction of activities which were currently allowed in similar lands. He apologized for any confusion. PAGE 2 MINUTES: 6/15/92 0118-0914 Chairman Maudlin asked if ODF&W had changed its position from its previous letter of May 29, 1992? Mr. George said they had not changed their position. It was their interpretation of the proposed Jaqua language that paragraph (b) included open space when it stating that the area covered by the wildlife area zone included within a destination resort would not be used for calculating the dwelling units provided for by 18.113.060. Chairman Maudlin asked what would stop the owners of the wildlife area from using this land for other purposes if it were not open space for the destination resort? Mr. George said allowed uses would be covered by County regulations and he understood there were be few restrictions. They had felt that the Jaqua language was more restrictive on what could be done in the wildlife area than if it were outside of the destination resort. Chairman Maudlin asked if they could make trails for ATVs and leave the area open in the winter if it were outside of the destination resort? Mr. George said that was his understanding. Mr. George said that if the open space was allowed to be included as destination resort open space, it would place the resort development much closer to the wildlife area, and therefore the impacts would be much greater. Commissioner Schlangen pointed out the area was zoned for 40 acres which would allow numerous homes and fencing, and asked if the wildlife wouldn't be better protected if the area was used for open space in a destination resort? Mr. George said ODF&W felt that if the wildlife area was allowed to be used for open space, it would place the destination resort right up against the boundary of the wildlife area combining zone. There would be some overlap of uses, and the uses in a destination resort were considerable. If there was a buffer of open space between the destination resort and the wildlife area combining zone, there would not be as many impacts. Commissioner Schlangen said allowing the wildlife area as open space would require that there be an enhancement program to protect the animals, while if the wildlife area was left in 40 -acre parcels, there was no control over what could happen in the area. Mr. George said they felt there was less impact on the wildlife with one residence per 40 acres than with a destination resort right on top of it. Commissioner Schlangen asked if it would have a greater impact even if the open space had an enhancement program, with pond, etc. worked out with ODF&W. Mr. George said destination resort development had a negative effect overall no matter what mitigation took place. Commissioner Throop pointed out that this land was currently zoned EFU in a wildlife area combining zone, and he didn't feel a subdivision would be approved in this area, therefore the maximum partitioning would be into three parcels, and not every 40 acres. PAGE 3 MINUTES: 6/15/92 0118-0915 Commissioner Schlangen said she had wanted to consider these amendments on a county -wide basis all along, and was quite disturbed that one possible destination resort was driving this process. She felt it was counter productive to what the County was trying to accomplish with the wildlife area combining zone. She suggested putting off making a decision on Goal 8, since all of the correspondence and calls she was receiving were regarding destination resorts not the protection of wildlife areas. Since Goal 8 was not a requirement for periodic review, she suggested that it be handled after periodic review was completed. She knew it would be just as controversial later, however she wanted to have the results of the survey concerning the public's opinion on farm zones and destination resorts before going forward on this issue. Commissioner Throop asked staff what DLCD would think if the County postponed Goal 8 until after periodic review, when the County had told them that it would be handled as part of period review? George Read didn't feel there would be a problem with handling Goal 8 in that fashion, however the comprehensive plan would have to be amended to make the process clear and explain why it was being done. Commissioner Throop said the Board had agreed to segment Goal 8 into three phases: dry land, forest land, irrigated farm land. Two of those three segments were completed. He asked if the County would go forward with a destination resort package, including those two segments, until after periodic review when the remainder would be completed? George Read said yes, the comprehensive plan could be amended to make that clear, and develop findings accordingly. He felt this would fulfill the County's obligation under periodic review. Bruce White said that in the comprehensive plan, the County set up a phased process indicating that the destination resort siting process would be completed by August 31, 1992. George Read said that as part of the final periodic review package, they could prepare amendments to outline what the Board had decided to do with destination resorts, i.e. laying out those issues left to be resolved and the time frame for resolving them. Chairman Maudlin expressed concern that postponing this issue until after periodic review would preclude him from voting on the destination resort issue since he was leaving office at the end of the year. Bruce White said that if the Board was ready to adopt the farm lands revisions on September 30, 1992, he thought they could go into effect that day, even if they were challenged. Commissioner Throop felt the County would not be asking DLCD for an extension if the Board followed Commissioner Schlangen's recommendation, but would be PAGE 4 MINUTES: 6/15/92 0118-0916 identifying Goal 8 as a post -periodic review activity. George Read agreed, and suggested that the County amend the plan as part of the final periodic review order to specify how the final part of destination resorts and Goal 8 would be handled. Commissioner Throop said that after periodic review was finalized, all the information and options would be on the table, so it wouldn't take a lot of time to prepare for a destination resort decision. George Read felt the Goal 8 package should be back before the Board before the end of the year. He pointed out that if it was not a unanimous vote, this would not be effective for 90 -days. Chairman Maudlin asked if Ordinance 92-042 Exhibit A, Page 2, would list destination resorts as a use not permitted in the wildlife area combining zone, or would it be left off the list, or would it be determined after periodic review? George Read said the Board needed to make a choice of whether to leave it in or take it out for now. Commissioner Throop felt if the issue was being deferred, it should be left on the list. George Read said that if the Board agreed with the Planning Commission that destination resorts should be left out of the wildlife area, the staff could justify that position with the information currently in the record. If the Board decided to allow destination resorts in wildlife areas, there was a conflict since the County had adopted a wildlife area combining zone which encompassed areas which were zoned for destination resorts. Chairman Maudlin didn't see any reason to delay this issue until after periodic review. Commissioner Throop said he would support Commissioner Schlangen's recommendation and felt it was a good process for making public policy decisions. It would allow the County to complete periodic review, and defer the decision on destination resorts until the Board had full information from the survey. He felt it made sense to have the farm study completed before making the decision on irrigated farm lands. Getting this decision out of the periodic review process could ease the process for completing periodic review, however he wanted this issue to be taken up immediately following completion of periodic review and before Chairman's Maudlin departure. Commissioner Throop said concerning the wildlife area combining zone, he recommended changing the standard fencing requirement which would not be subject to a variance from 40" top 18" bottom to 48" top wire and 15" low wire which was the "bottom line" position from ODF&W. Commissioner Schlangen agreed to this language, although she felt fencing standards were unenforceable. PAGE 5 MINUTES: 6/15/92 01.18-0917 THROOP: I will move that page 5 (a)(1), second line, 18 be amended to 15, and (2) line 1, 40 be amended to 48 and then also on page 4, that provision that staff drafted to reflect the landowner and the Board's concern of last Wednesday, that would be included as well. SCHLANGEN: I'll second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES THROOP: I was also going to move the adoption of the page 4, 18.88.060 on siting standards (b)(2) which was the provision that a couple of the members of the real estate community pointed out where this provision might be in conflict with irrigated farm land, and go ahead and move the inclusion of that amended 300 foot siting standard. SCHLANGEN: I'll second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES SCHLANGEN: I move that we accept the staff's rewriting of 18.88.050 (d)(3) and (e)(3). THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES SCHLANGEN: I'll make a motion that under 18.88.040 (b) that we omit (1) destination resorts to be addressed at a later time. MAUDLIN: I'll second the motion. Commissioner Throop said he thought Commissioner Schlangen wanted destination resorts to remain on the list which would be consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation and the record. He understood from staff that the County did not have a substantive basis for removal of destination resorts from the list. Commissioner Schlangen said she wanted her motion to include language that the Board wanted to defer the destination resort issue. PAGE 6 MINUTES: 6/15/92 0118--0918 Commissioner Throop said he didn't feel the Board wanted to say "yes or no" to destination resorts at this time, but wanted to defer the whole issue. He suggested crafting some language which said that no one could make an application for a destination resort in that area now, but there would be nothing in the ordinance to preclude it when this issues was brought up again after periodic review. That would not bias the issue either way. Bruce White suggested taking it out of (b) and putting it in subsection (c) to mirror the language which would be put in the comprehensive plan to state that no application would be accepted in these areas until such time as the question on how to resolve these conflicts had been resolved. Commissioner Schlangen said she would agree to that subsection (c) language, but suggested that a time line be set so the issue would be assured of being dealt with before the end of the year. Bruce White said that was something which should clearly go in the comprehensive plan and could be placed in the zoning ordinance also, if the Board wished. Commissioner Throop agreed. He asked Mr. Read for a realistic time frame which could be committed to in the ordinance. George Read suggested, "before the end of the year." He felt the Planning Commission process could be completed by mid November. Chairman Maudlin asked what information Commissioner Schlangen wanted to have available before moving forward on destination resorts. Commissioner Schlangen suggested further information from ODF&W, Goal 3 information, an overlay map, and results from farm study. She felt wildlife mitigation should be allowed throughout the County in all zones to encourage large parcels. Commissioner Throop asked that Commissioner Schlangen restated her motion. SCHLANGEN: The motion is to take destination resorts out of #1(b) MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES SCHLANGEN: Add a (c) and I don't know what the staff wording is on that, no applications except that destination resorts will be addressed by December 31, Goal 8 .. whatever the wording.. THROOP: I'll second the motion for the (c) as you described earlier. PAGE 7 MINUTES: 6/15/92 VOTE: THROOP: YES 0118-0919 SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: NO THROOP: I'll move adoption on concept, prior to seeing the final language of the chapter 18.88 amendments as amended. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: NO At this point Chairman Maudlin left the meeting since he was on vacation and had just come in for the decision on the wildlife amendments. The remainder of the Board continued with the work session until 11:35 a.m. when the Board went into Executive Session by authority of ORS 192.660(1)(F) to consider records which were exempt by law from public inspection. Also in attendance were: Bruce White, Assistant Legal Counsel; Andrea Blum, Recording Secretary; Barney Lerten, Bulletin newspaper reporter; Karen Green, Community Development Director; and George Read, Planning Director. They discussed a memo from Assistant Legal Counsel regarding the mediation with ARLU-DeCo to avoid an enforcement order from LCDC. The Board reconvened in regular session and asked Bruce White to outline the settlement issues. Bruce White requested the Board's approval of the attached Exhibit A Settlement Proposal with ARLU-DeCo. SCHLANGEN: So moved. THROOP: I'll second the Board's approval of the settlement agreement. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: Excused PAGE 8 MINUTES: 6/15/92 DATED this ol� day of Commissioners of Deschutes VS Az� Recording Secretary PAGE 9 MINUTES: 6/15/92 0118-0920 Settlement Proposal 0118-0921 1. By June 30, 1992, the County will develop a new application form for farm dwellings, along the lines of that discussed between the County and ARLUDeCo (the Alliance) at their meeting on June 12, 1992, which the County will require applicants to use for all such applications submitted on or after July 6, 1992. 2. By June 30, 1992, the County will develop a new application form for non-farm dwellings, which the County will require applicants to use for all such applications submitted on or after July 6, 1992. 3. All farm dwelling and non-farm dwelling applications will automatically be called up and heard before the Board of County Commissioners until the date on which the County adopts its new farm ordinances (expected to be September 30, 1992); after that date, until the end of the year, all such decisions will automatically be heard before the County's Hearing Officer. 4. Decisions made on applications submitted between July 6, 1992 and December 30, 1992 will be subject to a post -decision audit by a disinterested expert, the results of which will be reported to the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) at an LCDC meeting early next year. This review will be a legal evaluation of the County's decisions and not a factual one calling for agricultural expertise. This audit shall be paid for by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), and depending upon budgetary constraints, may include a sample of such decisions. The auditor will be chosen by DLCD, subject to agreement by the County and the Alliance. S. The 120 -day timeline for issuance of any enforcement order is preserved in the event that the parties are unable to reach an agreement on the farm dwelling and non-farm dwelling forms by June 30, 1992, unless the County or LCDC can make a compelling argument to assure the Alliance that there could be no challenge to the validity of an enforcement order issued after the 120 timeline had expired. 6. The current Alliance petition for an withdrawn upon (1) a committment undertake points 3 and 4 set finalization of the farm and non -fa or before June 30, 1992. enforcement order will be that the County will forth herein, and (2) arm EXHIBIT A dwelling applications on