Loading...
2002-1354-Minutes for Meeting November 27,2002 Recorded 12/5/2002DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ 7007'1354 MARY SUE PENHOLLOW, COUNTY CLERK COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 12/05/2002 04;33;40 PM IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII II I III 20020013041 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend, OR 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 388-4752 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2002 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend Present were Commissioner's Tom De Wolf, Dennis R. Luke, and Michael M. Daly. Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Tom Blust, Road Department; Damian Syrnyk, Kevin Harrison, Paul Blikstad, Christy Morgan and Geo,Nge Read, Community Development; Rick Isham and Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Marty Wynne, Finance Department; media representative Barney Lerten Of bend. com; and ten other citizens. Chair Tom De Wolf opened the meeting at 10: 00 a. m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. Chair DeWolf said that Marty Wynne, Finance Director, recently was given an award from the Government Finance Officers' Association of the United States and Canada for excellence in Financial Reporting for the year ending Fiscal Year 2001. Mr. Wynne thanked the Board for its decision to purchase and implement state of the art software, and also acknowledged the hard work and assistance of County Administrator Mike Maier and Credit Manager Jeanine Faria. No other input was offered. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, November 27, 2002 Page 1 of 24 Pages 2. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Improvement Agreements and Other Documents regarding Utilities, Golf Course Completion and Overnight Lodging, Eating and Meeting Facilities for Pronghorn Resort, as Required by the Destination Resort Ordinance. 1R'.ick Isham explained that everyone is working diligently to get the agreements in order. The improvement agreements have been finalized; the security agreement is on its way; escrow is preparing to close documents in draft form, which are completed in concept. The project closes by plat through a signing at escrow. The Board can approve the agreements and authorize signature of the final plats. Fle indicated he has reviewed the bonds; a portion will be a cash bond, held by the County's Finance Director, and will be subject to drawdown for completion of the required improvements in the development. The documents can be signed as prepared and ready, probably within a week. Everything will be in place before the plat is filed. The documents will be recorded but are operative only upon the filing of the final plat. LUKE: I move approval and signature of the improvement agreements, final plat and escrow closing documents and instructions for the Estates at Pronghorn, Phase 1, subject to final review by County Legal Counsel. In conjunction with this motion, I further move to authorize any Board member to sign, in escrow, any or all documents necessary to finalize these actions, and authorize the recording of the final plat when the security for the improvement agreements has been provided to the County. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Chair DeWolf complimented the Legal staff on their work on this gigantic project, which should be a wonderful project for Central Oregon. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, November 27, 2002 Page 2 of 24 Pages 3. Before the Board was Consideration of First Readings of Ordinance No. 2002-126 and Ordinance No. 2002-127, regarding Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan Policies and Zoning Regulations regarding Rural Industrial Zones for the Following Sites: State of Oregon Military, Redmond; Lend Auto Recyclers; Deschutes Junction (Willamette Greystone, Cascade Pumice and Better Sandall-United Pipe Supply); and Wickiup Junction (Vic A'ussell Construction Co. Site) - Christy Morgan, Community Development Department Christy Morgan said that the requested changes have been made, per Monday's meeting. LUKE: Move first reading of Ordinance No. 2002-126, by title only. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. At this time, Chair DeWolf conducted the first reading of Ordinance No. 2002- 126, by title only. LUKE: Move first reading of Ordinance No. 2002-127, by title only. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. At this time, Chair DeWolf conducted the first reading of Ordinance No. 2002- 127, by title only. The second readings of these two Ordinances will be conducted on Wednesday, December 11. 4. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 2002-038, Text Amendments to the Building Setback and Lot Coverage Requirements in the La Pine Residential District. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, November 27, 2002 Page 3 of 24 Pages Klevin Harrison explained that the applicant, Sanderson Companies, Inc., applied for a text amendment to some of the development standards in the La Pine residential zone to bring their property more in line with urban design standards that would be found in cities. Specifically, they ask that the lot coverage be increased from 30 to 35% (the ratio between the lot size and building footprint, not including parking areas, but including accessory buildings except those that do not require a building permit, such as a storage shed). In addition, they have asked for a change in the front setback from a generic twenty feet to ten feet for the house, as long as the garage is at twenty feet. DEWOLF: The house at ten, the garage at twenty? HARRISON: Fright. DEWOLF: S,o, if they were doing one of these 1960's, flat, front porch garages, it would have to be a twenty. HARRISON: Fright. A reduction of side yard setbacks from the current standard, which is a minimum of five and total of both sides of fifteen, to a flat five-foot setback. LUKE: Do they still have to have fifteen feet between buildings? HARRISON: No. The setback would just be measured from the property line to the building. LUKE: So ten feet from building to building is a possibility. FIARRISON: And a reduction of the rear yard setback from twenty feet to five feet. DEWOLF: Flow big a lot size are we talking about here? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, November 27, 2002 Page 4 of 24 Pages HARRISON: Minimum lot size in this district is now 5,000 square feet, because they are on sewer and water. DEWOLF: That seems really tight, Kevin. I guess what we are talking about is this giving flexibility for the location on the lot. But with five feet - and I don't understand this zone - in the City of Bend, when you get a zero lot line, where you have to put a solid block for fire, but you don't have to do that at five feet? F[ARRISON: We have two things coming into play. The City of Bend, in its zoning ordinance for a standard residential zone, has a five-foot minimum, fifteen feet total standard that we have right now. Building code requirements are kicked in VThen you get a building closer than three feet to a property line. Then you start having to build in a firewall. LUKE: also, if you do a detached garage, and it's a certain distance from the house, you have to have firewalls. DEWOLF: What about the non -permitted buildings, accessory buildings that don't need a building permit. Does that still have to be five feet away? F[ARRISON: The zoning standards apply to all structures, whether or not they need a permit. Theoretically a building that is less than 120 square feet that doesn't need a building permit would still have to meet the side yard setback. LUKE: Unpermitted buildings are inspected only on a complaint basis. F[ARRISON: That's right. Administration of that is something of a problem because they aren't coming to the County, and there's no review by the County. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, November 27, 2002 Page 5 of 24 Pages DEWOLF: But Code Enforcement would go out. It seems that for an accessory building like that you'd want to. People do that all the time. Now we are creating for ourselves a potential for a real neighbor -to -neighbor catfight. HARRISON: I was going to detail what the applicant proposed, and what the Planning Commission recommended. They aren't necessarily the same. The Planning Commission has heard this request and has made a recommendation. They agree with the applicant on the lot coverage; that it should be bumped up to 35%. I want to point out that this is consistent with the sl:andard urban residential zone in Bend. They didn't agree entirely with the applicant's proposal regarding the front yard setback. They recommend we keep the twenty -foot setback, but if you have a garage and the garage is set back twenty feet, then the house can be set at ten ff;et. F►EWOLF: That sounds like exactly the same thing. HARRISON: What the applicant is actually asking for is a generic ten -foot setback. DEWOLF: So you could build a place without a garage. HARRISON: Or if the house and garage were in a line, then they could be at ten feet as well. In terms of the side yard, the Planning Commission recommended that we stay v"7ith the current standard of five and fifteen. And they split the difference with the applicant on the rear yard setback, and recommended ten feet rather than the current twenty and the applicant's proposed five. DEWOLF: But they don't address accessory buildings. I'm thinking of those you buy at a home supply store, the sheds where you park your gardening equipment. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, November 27, 2002 Page 6 of 24 Pages HARRISON: Not specifically. The setbacks still apply for any structure or anything that takes up space on the lot. But what you are really pointing out is a difficulty in administration, because if you have a structure that does not require a permit, there is no reason for a person to come into the County and no reason for any kind of County review. They are still held to the setback in the ordinance, but we wouldn't be involved unless there was a complaint. DEWOLF: And there will be a complaint and we will become involved. And we'll have to fierce them to move something when there's no logic for it to be moved. Maybe this is nit -picky. HARRISON: As a practical matter, I don't think that this has been a problem for us. We did receive a letter from the applicant yesterday. (He distributed copies of the letter at this time. A copy is attached as Exhibit A.) This is a renewed request that the front yard setback be ten feet for a house, twenty feet for a garage. There is a request for the elimination of a special setback in La Pine that deals with properties adjacent to zoned forest land. There's a special one hundred foot setback. I'd just like to point out that it's really not part of this request, and it brings us into an area that would involve the review and application of state law. DEWOLF: I don't want to go there. We are in the midst of that already. We've got that whole deal out in Tumalo, and when that gets resolved, then perhaps that would be the point at which we could revisit this. Paul (Blikstad), I'm looking at you. Is that a logical way to proceed? When the decision is made on the Dowell property, is that something that would then set precedence in other areas where residential properties bump up against forest lands? F[ARRISON: I think this is different. This is specific to the formation of the UUC - the urban unincorporated community. Staff recommendation is that we avoid this one hundred foot setback issue at this point, as it really isn't part of this request, and it's not part of the Planning Commission's recommendation. It involves the application of state law and the review of County comp plan policies that are really separate and distinct from what is going on right now. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, November 27, 2002 Page 7 of 24 Pages LUKE: Would a carport be considered a garage? HARRISON: They are defined separately. If you want a carport, you should make that explicit. You have a draft ordinance that reflects the recommendations of the Planning Commission. That ordinance has not been reviewed by the code review committee or legal counsel, so I don't intend it to be fixed at this point. So we're looking at a public hearing, making the changes we want, perhaps have a first reading, and then have it reviewed by legal counsel and staff for the second reading. Is that your suggestion? HARRISON: Ij_� the ordinance represents and is consistent with the desires of the Board, I suppose we could have the first reading. And between now and the second reading, we could have it reviewed by the code review committee and legal counsel. LUKE: So the recommendation, one more time, is ten feet for the house, twenty for the garage in the front. Is that correct? HARRISON: The recommendation from the Planning Commission is twenty feet in the front, with the exception that if there is a garage and the garage is placed at twenty fret, then the house can be moved up to ten feet. UEWOLF: What if the house is placed at thirty feet? If the garage is placed at thirty feet, can the house still be at ten? LUKE: And if there is no garage? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, November 27, 2002 Page 8 of 24 Pages HARRISON: Then the setback would be twenty feet. LUKE: For the house, even if there is no garage? Why? I mean, it doesn't make any sense. The whole purpose of the twenty -foot setback is so that you can park a car on the driveway between the property line to the garage. HARRISON: And you wouldn't necessarily have to back into the street. But if you build a house and there is no garage, and the house is at ten feet, then if you park in those ten feet, you're backing into the street. LUKE: It depends on where you park. DALY: You might not be able to park a full-size vehicle in ten feet. HARRISON: That's part of the problem. LUKE: You are penalizing people who don't put a garage on their lot. DEWOLF: And you should. There's no bus system. They need a car and a garage. F[ARRISON: We do have to provide for off-street parking. LUKE: It. would make more sense to me that if you aren't going to have a garage in the ordinance, that you would provide for that off-street parking. But why should the house have to be back twenty feet? Why should the whole length of the house be back twenty feet if you could provide perhaps a gravel parking area between it and the property line? Just asking the question. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, November 27, 2002 Page 9 of 24 Pages F[ARRISON: Well, what happens once that house is built, it's not uncommon for people to come in later on and ask for the garage. LUKE: Tfot a problem. It has to be twenty feet back from the street. L►EWOLF: He's got you on that one, Kevin. LUKE: A, garage has to be twenty feet back from the street. That's the rule. HARRISON: I think that you could still write the ordinance to say that the house should be at ten, and the garage at twenty. LUKE: Uarage or carport. Does that make sense to you? HARRISON: I think you really achieve the same purpose. DEWOLF: So if they just put in a slab to park on, or nothing, and the house is at ten feet. . HARRISON: A,nd if they want to come in later and build a garage or a carport, then it's at tiventy. LUKE: You could put in a slab for your driveway. DEWOLF: I'm agreeing with the Planning Commission. It seems logical to me that if somebody doesn't initially want to put on a garage, there's no guarantee they ever will. Having a house ten feet away, I can see people putting in a little gravel thing in front of the front door, and that's where they are parking, and backing out into the street. And that's how they are getting out. I agree with the logic of having that house further back if there's no garage. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, November 27, 2002 Page 10 of 24 Pages LUKE: I would point out that I think you could write the ordinance if you aren't going to have a garage, you're just going to have the house, that you have to make an accommodation for at least a gravel parking space, at least twenty feet long. DEWOLF: That's great; you put it in, pass an inspection, and then get rid of it. What we are talking about here is permanent structures and where they are going to be located. LUKE: You are talking about permanent structures, and there's nothing that says once the house is finaled that you can't do anything you want out there anyway. At this time, Chair DeWolf opened the public hearing. TOM WALKER: I'm Tom Walker of W & H Pacific, and I represent the applicants, Sanderson Companies, Inc. (He referred to his letter, Exhibit A, at this time.). My request is simple. That is, to create as much flexibility as we can. Some of your comments are right -on. It is so hard to in small urban lots to make everything fit, to save the trees you want to save and to create the character that you want. I would encourage you to establish as much flexibility as you can, and let the builders do a good job to site the homes and create the private spaces, and address parking. All of those things can only be done if we have as minimal setbacks as possible. For example, ten feet to the front of the house and twenty feet for any garage or carport is exactly what my client would like to see. My client has a particular interest in some of the neo -traditional type of developments. If you think of same of those developments that are in Bend, what we hope to do is allow La Pine to do the same types of projects. But if you have alley access, for example, it's nice to have a rear yard setback of five feet if you can. LUKE: Wouldn't that come in as a planned unit development of some type? If you come in with a plat, that's pretty easy to address. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, November 27, 2002 Page 11 of 24 Pages IJEWOLF: And we could do a variance. WALKER: A. lot of these neo -traditional projects are not a conditional use or a planned unit development. Often they are a standard subdivision application. And, you're right, there's always a chance for a variance. But that is another process and lots of builders, particularly those that are trying to reduce the cost of building, don't have the expertise, time or the dollars to go through a hearings process. It is an excessive process. LUKE: And while we are looking at these code changes because of this application, I would point out that a lot of Adair homes are built without garages. I don't think it's unworkable if the house is at ten. DEWOLF: A.nd the other thing to remember, though, is that this is one developer, and what we are doing is changing the code. This is everywhere. LUKE: Everywhere there is sewer and water. WALKER: In La Pine. The changes we are proposing are very similar to what is in Bend, Redmond and Sisters, and other communities. I think they are relatively well tested. I think some of your comments are very good and we ought to clarify carports and garages and those kinds of things. Again, I would just stress the need for flexibility, and think about some of the neo -traditional projects, and particularly our desire to save trees and get the density up in urban areas to keep the cost down. But still have the flexibility to protect the trees and other features on the site, accommodate slopes, create private spaces, and all of those things that are so important in a neighborhood. A,s you think about the front yard setback, too, think about a row of houses with garages that are all ten feet. If you have an Adair home without a garage, I don't think you want to have it set back further from the street than all of the neighboring houses. It might create an odd appearance or at least limit your ability to participate in the neighborhood. Remember that these are small lots. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, November 27, 2002 Page 12 of 24 Pages DALY: For my purposes, we are going to have another hearing, right? DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: No. We could have the first hearing today. There will not be another public hearing, but there will be an opportunity to change the ordinance between the first and second readings. DALY: I would like to see maybe a site plan, with what the Planning Commission is recommending compared with a site plan of what the developer would like to s(�Ie, just so we can compare. A picture is worth a thousand words to me. It makes a lot of difference. WALKER: That's a good point. A picture is really helpful, and I think we can take some typical site plans from other projects where we've had these reduced setbacks and demonstrate some good points. The only other thing that I'd like to add is the hundred -foot setback for forest zones. I would encourage you, when it is appropriate, to think about the impact of a one hundred foot strip in an urban area. It is a huge impact, and consumes land dramatically. Sometimes that strip is not maintained and it could be a fire hazard. GEORGE READ: I support the premise that is being argued here that we need flexibility in setbacks, especially with smaller lots. As they have been allowed to become smaller, we need more flexibility to save trees. Also, if you put in alleys, these setbacks should be allowed to change. Let's say you put your garage in the back; why should you have to put your house further back in the front? That doesn't make sense. I think there is some good argument there. T'he one thing I want to point out is that this very issue was in front of the Urban Area Planning Commission of Bend when we still managed the urban area. So, I sat through hearings on this, and this very topic took the Planning Commission three or four meetings to decide. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, November 27, 2002 Page 13 of 24 Pages It really is kind of a change, because traditional neighborhoods have twenty foot setbacks, and the total of fifteen feet; that's been our code, at least in Bend, for many years. I don't believe Bend changed that. DEWOLF: How many meetings did our County Planning Commission take to deal with this? Just part of one, I believe. My point is that this is an issue that is debated all over. I think I support it just from a planning point of view. As we get to smaller lots, we do have to have more flexibility, especially if alleys are used. LUKE: What are your personal thoughts on houses without a garage being at ten feet? The problem you could create is if you have a narrow lot, fifty feet wide, and you have your setbacks on each side. You may not have a place to park a car in that area. We do require off-street parking, though, so we can probably deal with this through our plot plan review. LUKE: That was my thought. That if you aren't going to have a garage, you have to provide at least a gravel off-street parking spot. DEWOLF: Anything else, Tom? WALKER: No, other than the hundred foot issue. I encourage you to take that out as soon as you can. Really, the things that I argued this morning really don't affect Mr. Sanderson's project. But when you go through the process, I think we have an obligation to do the best that we can for the entire neighborhood, and what goes on for years to come. DEWOLF: Do you want to hold a first reading, or what? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, November 27, 2002 Page 14 of 24 Pages QALY: I think there are enough questions that we need to look at it further. DEWOLF: VVe will continue the public hearing until next week, and consider the first reading then; is everybody okay with that? Commissioners Daly and Luke agreed. Mr. Walker will get the pictures or sketches to Commissioner Daly for his review before Tuesday, December 3. 5. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2002-146, Declining a Request to Hear Appeal A-02-13, an Appeal of a Hearings Officer's Decision Denying a Request to Modify a Conditional Use Permit (4pplicant. Aced). Damian Syrnyk indicated that this matter had been discussed at the Monday, November 25 work session. He then gave an overview of the issue. . . DALY: If the application had been done correctly, is what the applicant is asking for totally out of reason? SYRNYK: He is proposing a conditional use permit to look at additional commercial activities in conjunction with farm use. The Hearings Officer laid it out in her decision that there is a way to get there from here. When we are looking at a situation where we've gotten an approved permit, perhaps a site plan, there are a couple of ways we can make changes. If we are looking at changes that might be doable through a modification, sometimes people proceed that route. If they are really beyond the scope of what we can do through a modification, then the way to get there is to look at a new application for a conditional use permit and possibly a site plan. So they aren't out of the question. I think what the Hearings Officer laid out is that there is a way to get there; it's just different from the one we're looking at right now. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, November 27, 2002 Page 15 of 24 Pages DALY: In other words, what he is asking for is not out of reason, and is very possible. The only problem is he didn't have a $200 an hour lawyer to put it all together for him, and do it exactly correctly. Is that what you are saying? I don't know if you would need a $200 an hour lawyer to put together the application; but I think what I am saying is that what he wants to do is not out of the question. There's nothing that would not be allowed as potentially a commercial activity in conjunction with farm use. But it might involve more details and specifics than what the Hearings Officer had before her. DALY: To me, it seems unfortunate that a citizen of Deschutes County can't come to the Planning Department and get a decision, or at least have some way to work through this without having to hire expensive attorneys in order to get there. In other words, the process has become so complicated that a citizen can't do by himself anymore. To me, that's what is unfortunate. Wei 614 I'm not sure that is entirely correct. I think in this case the Hearings Officer did an excellent job in going through and listing what it would take to get this approved. I have not seen a decision quite this user-friendly for a long time. I think one of the reasons that it was probably done that way is because there wasn't an attorney for the applicant involved. I think the Hearings Officer went out of her way to actually list those things that need to be done. I think she did a great job. I think the application, from my standpoint, was lacking a lot of the things that she pointed out. If we start hearing all the applications that are lacking in detail, we'd be hearing a lot of them. There is responsibility on the part of applicant. If you look at what the fee is for having to get this appeal to us, because that is part of the order, that would go a long way towards sitting down with a land use attorney and getting a lot of that stuff put together. If that would have been spent the first time, he may not even be here now. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, November 27, 2002 Page 16 of 24 Pages Mike, I agree with you. The land use process has gone the way of requiring ai:torneys. That's the way it is. When people first did land use, it was supposed to be for the benefit of the people so you could know what you can do with your property and move through that system. We left that one a long time ago. We've been fighting that for a long time. DEWOLF: If everybody agreed about how things should work, we wouldn't be in this situation. And who is more right - the applicant who is before us, or the neighbors who feel their rights have been compromised by that applicant? I mean, we get stuck on the middle on these things all the time. That's the s,�stem we live in, in this contentious, litigious society. Ultimately you want to make a decision now, the thing gets appealed and costs Mr. Aceti more money, costs our staff and our taxpayers more money, and has appeals from his neighbors because we made a decision that is inappropriate according to state law? I mean, that is what you are faced with. LUKE: That happened in Crook County, and ended up stopping development on almost all rural residential lots until we got the legislative bill through three or four years later, to fix it. DALY: You've got all the right arguments. I'm just saying that it is sad that we've progressed to this point. LUKE: It is sad, there is no question about that. I've put that on the record more than once. DALY: I'm glad you agree with me. DEWOLF: I do agree. It is very complicated stuff. However, what I also recognize is what brought us here. We've got a lot of people in a limited amount of space, and people don't agree. And when people don't agree, you've got to have a way to resolve it. Typically that is going to involve attorneys, planning commissions, hearings officers, us, our staff. I don't know how else to get there. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, November 27, 2002 Page 17 of 24 Pages DALY: Obviously, we can't. There is no other way to get there. I agree with you. My comment is that I feel it is terribly unfortunate that land use has progressed to this point and we can't use the old common sense way of doing things that we used to do. DEWOLF: Well, then you end up with Texas, and there's that option. I mean, that's where you go if you have no land use. Go to Texas. The one thing people talk about Oregon as a beautiful state, and what has brought us here over the last thirty years has been that land use which is such a pain in the butt. LUKE: Back to the applicant. Again, I agree with the Hearings Officer, and I think she did an excellent job of outlining what it is going to take to get most of this tfxough the process. For that reason, I ready to move signature of Order 2002-146, declining the request and returning the fee to the applicant. DALY: I'm not going to second it. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: No. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. DEWOLF: What restrictions are we under? LAURIE CRAGHEAD: There are no hearings before you, so you can take citizen input if you want at this point. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, November 27, 2002 Page 18 of 24 Pages DEWOLF: Once a decision has been rendered, we're okay. CRAGHEA.D: Yes. TONY ACETL• I'm Tony Aceti, and I reside at 21235 Tumalo Road, my mailing address. I understand that this was a difficult decision. Maybe not difficult. But I went to Damian (Syrnyk) and asked him what I could do. He recommended explicitly that all I needed to do was a modification. Under his recommendation, I did so. I asked him exactly what Commissioner Daly has said, is this a doable situation; he said yes, but to be specific. Pumpkin patch, Christmas tree patch, so I listed those. And I'm trying to do this so everybody saves face, so there isn't a large legal battle down the road in case there was a complaint. I was guided to do a modification, so by his recommendation, and I put in my letter that if there are any complications, if there are any questions, if I need to adjust, whatever, please feel free to call me at any time. At the eleventh hour I find out that it is going before the Hearings Officer.. I had to have an extension because I was not prepared, I thought this an administrative decision, and it's just been very frustrating. I do want to abide by the law so that this thing doesn't become a rat's nest. So, I feel, not just for me, because I know there are a lot of people who have problems with the land use permits, whatever. If there can be some more communication between the planner that you are working with as a citizen, so that if there is a little bit of a question in the application, a phone call -- I mean, I feel that people want to abide by the rules and the laws. So with a little communication between the planner, I feel that there wouldn't be as much frustration with the applicant. Thank you for your time. DEWOLF: Do you want to respond to that, Damian? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, November 27, 2002 Page 19 of 24 Pages S YRNYK: Mr. Aceti is correct, we did meet probably twice at the counter and briefly discussed his proposal. He did want to modify his application to look at doing some additional things on his property. They did include the pumpkin patch and Christmas tree sales, and things relating to nurseries. We talked about the EFU zone and how things like raising nursery stock on property is allowed as farm use; things beyond that would possibly require a conditional use permit. There was a difference between what we looked at with the application and -hat we talked about at the counter. Not that there's nothing wrong with that, if he is looking at possibly expanding his business. But, once we got an a]?plication through the door, we're under a time clock. And we did notify Mr. Aceti at least three weeks before the hearing that this was going before the Hearings Officer. We did schedule it before Karen Green, who had reviewed his original application back in 1997. At least a week before the hearing, what I had tried to do in my staff report is to lay out where I thought he needed to provide some additional information to meet all of the criteria. Do you have any other questions for me? EIALY: My comments remain the same. I really think that maybe our department could be a little more helpful in some of these cases, and let people know exactly -- I think Mr. Aceti felt like he was misled, and maybe we should take a look at what actually occurred over there. Obviously he has a request there that is not out of reason, so there should be a way to get there. Obviously, he is going to have to hire himself an attorney to get it done right, which I feel is unfortunate that we have to go through that process. 6. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature for Acceptance of Road Dedication Adjacent to "B" Avenue in Terrebonne. LUKE: Move acceptance of this road dedication. EIALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, November 27, 2002 Page 20 of 24 Pages 7. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Approval of an Appointment to LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council). This item was postponed, due to time constraints. 8. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Approval of Appointments to the SB 360 Committee, as Required by the State. This item was postponed. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. LUKE: Move approval of the Consent Agenda. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items: 9. Signature of Contract for Continuation of Contract with Elliott Morrison, M.D., for Psychiatric Services. 10. Signature of Contract for Continuation of Contract with Marc Williams, M.D., for Psychiatric Services. 11. Approval of the Adoption of By-laws for the Newly Formed Public Health Community Advisory Board - Adopted in Honor of Stan Owen. 12. Signature of a Letter Approving the Appointment of Dr. James C. Ritzenthaler, MD, to the Deschutes County Public Health Community Advisory Board. 13. Chair Signature of Oregon Health Division Grant Revision #5 for FY 2002-03. 14. Approval of Updated Space use Agreement with the Deschutes Children's Foundation at the La Pine Community Campus. 15. Signature of Letters Reappointing Shirlee Evans, Ed Moore and Beth -Ann Wesley to New Three-year Terms on the Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, November 27, 2002 Page 21 of 24 Pages 16. Signature of a Resolution Transferring Appropriations within Various Funds of the 2002-2003 Deschutes County Budget and Directing Entries. 17. Signature of La Pine Trucker's Light Parade, to be Held on December 7, 2002. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SER'.VICE DISTRICT 18. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $499975.16. LUKE: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 19. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the Amounts of $1,142.21 (operations) and $13,713.00 (construction fund). LUKE: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE BEND LIBRARY COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 20. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Bend Library County Service District in the Amount of $184,143.75 (debt service). Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, November 27, 2002 Page 22 of 24 Pages LUKE: Move approval. DALY: Second. `'OTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER LIBRARY COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 21. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Sunriver Library County Service District in the Amount of $25,050.00 (debt service). LUKE: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. . RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMIMISSIONERS 22. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $2,923,926.13 (includes various bond payments), plus initial payments to William Smith Properties (in regard to the County/State Building Project). LUKE: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, November 27, 2002 Page 23 of 24 Pages 23. Before the Board were Additions to the Agenda. The Board discussed their meeting schedule for the balance of the calendar year. They decided they will meet on December 16, 18 and 30; and will not meet December 23. Being no further items brought before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m. DATED this 27th Day of November 2002 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Tom DeWQIf, Chair ATTEST: 6z C t Recording Secretary Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, November 27, 2002 Page 24 of 24 Pages r November 26, 2002 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners c/o Mr. Kevin Harrison Deschutes County Planning Department 117 NW Lafayette Bend, OR 97701 RE: Sanderson Companies, Inc. Text Amendments to the Building Sept -Back and Lot Coverage Requirements in the La Pine Residential District WHP File #30222 (825007) Dear Commissioners: 920 SW Emkay, Suite C100 Bend, Oregon 91102-1041 541.388.4255 Fax 541.388.4229 R CEIVED BY: NOV 2 6 2002 DELIVERED BY. - / AAM Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the pending text amendment for the setbacks and dimensional requirements in the La Pine Planning District. We have worked cooperatively with your staff and the Planning Commission to reach agreement on most of the proposed text changes. I do however have comments on the proposed lot setbacks for your consideration. Sanderson Companies, Inc. obtained tentative plan approval last year (reference Deschutes County File #TP -01- 922) for 46 single family lots, and found the La Pine Residential District dimensional standards and setbacks had become out -dated. Sanderson Companies, Inc. agreed to sponsor a text change amendment to provide development standards similar to those enjoyed by other communities in Central Oregon. La Pine deserves a broad range of residential inventory. Relatively small lots with reasonable setbacks can promote a. sense of neighborhood and interaction between neighbors, while providing affordable housing opportunities in an urban setting. For example, neo -traditional developments have proven successful in other Central Oregon communities, with high urban densities, alley served garages, front porches, and the sense of neighborhood interaction for residents. The success of neo -traditional development in other communities required higher lot coverage and reduced setbacks, as compared to the current La Pine Residential District Zone. Sanderson Companies, Inc. agrees with the recommendations of your staff and the Planning Commission with two minor exceptions. A front yard setback of 20' is proposed, except when a garage is setback 20'. Sanderson Companies, Inc. always anticipates a garage so the proposed language works fine. However, a home without a garage should not be restricted by a 20' front yard setback. A reduced front yard setback provides flexibility to preserve trees and natural features, accommodate slopes, construct decks and yards, maintain flexibility to create private space, and accommodate utility extensions or driveways. In other words, a 10' setback to the home, and a 20' setback to the garage is recommended to optimize lot layout opportunities. whpacific.com planners surveyors engineers landscape architects r November 26, 2002 Page 2 The side yard and rear yard setbacks currently include a 100 -yard minimum setback from adjacent zoned forest lands. The Sanderson Companies, Inc. subdivision is not adjacent to forest lands, so the proposed rear and side yard setbacks are not applicable to his project. However, a text change amendment is an extensive process and I believe you will be asked to reconsider this significant setback in the near future. I recommend the 100' setbacks be eliminated. If you cannot find your way to eliminate the 100' setback from the adjacent forest zones, then I recommend a much more reasonable setback, such as 25 feet. I conducted research with other County standards in Central and Eastern Oregon and talked to State agency representatives. It is not common for an additional residential setback adjacent to forest or farm zones. Klamath County, Union County, and Umatilla County have no additional setbacks in their zoning ordinances for residential. lands abutting farm or forest lands. A 100' setback in an urban setting is very significant, consumes valuable urban land, adds development costs, reduces urban density, and greatly restricts planning opportunities. In summary, the subdivision proposed by Sanderson Companies, Inc. in La Pine is not necessarily affected by these changes I have proposed. However, a front yard setback of 10' to the home and 20' to the garage is strongly recommended to provide greater flexibility. Similarly, I recommend the side and rear yard additional setback of 100' from forestlands be eliminated, or significantly reduced. La Pine deserves up to date development standards enjoyed by other communities in Central Oregon. Thank you very much for your consideration. Sincerely, W&H PACIFIC, INC. Thomas A. Walker, P.E. Vice Preslident Cc: Sandy Sanderson 825007(3022. )-)-tawltr-I 12602.DOC