2011-2772-Minutes for Meeting April 13,2011 Recorded 5/5/2011COUNTY
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,F000NTY CLERKS CJ 1411'1111
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 05/05/201108:21:58 AM
IIIIIII III (IIIIIIIIIII VIII III
2011-27 2
Do not remove this page from original document.
Deschutes County Clerk
Certificate Page
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2011
Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Anthony DeBone.
Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy
County Administrator; Nick Lelack, Tom Anderson, George Read, Peter Gutowsky,
Community Development; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; media
representatives Hillary Borrud and Devin Williams of The Bulletin; and seven
other citizens.
Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m.
1. Discussion of Proposal to Extend Sunset Provision for Development
Approvals.
Nick Lelack gave an overview of the item, and said there is interest in utilizing
these extensions. Chair Baney stated that it seems there is a high price attached
to the extension process. Mr. Lelack said it costs $310, which basically covers
departmental expenses.
Chair Baney asked if a time period beyond a year might be appropriate. Mr.
Lelack replied that builders operate under the idea that they will build in the
timeframe and under the appropriate standards at the time. It may be possible
to have a longer period of time allowed, with the potential of an extension.
Laurie Craghead said that it is more complicated than that. Neither the County
nor the applicant can change the rules after the application has been approved.
Extensions, however, may be appropriate.
Mr. Lelack said they currently have a five-year program, but wish to discuss
creating a program that goes beyond five years. Commissioner DeBone asked
how many projects or applicants might be affected, and how many have asked
for extensions.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Page I of 5 Pages
Mr. Lelack said that the economy is not good, which is part of the reason for
asking for extensions. He asked whether he should research this further.
Commissioner Unger said he would like to allow for an extension of two years,
which would sunset. This will give applicants a chance to weather the
economy. There are projects in the queue that were allowed five years, but
these could be extended for a while. They cannot go too far out, but this allows
some flexibility. At that point, they would have to reapply. This would only
give relief to those who have already applied.
The Board indicated they want to keep it simple.
Mr. Lelack says at this point they are given two years to initiate development.
They can then apply for extension, and a second extension, and a third, of one
year each. They are considering an additional two-year extension.
This would concern current applications back to 2008 or prior. They could
consolidate the five years and allow for one two-year extension. Mr. Lelack
will revise the document and provide it for the Board to review,
2. Discussion of Small Wind Energy Text Amendment.
Peter Gutowsky gave a PowerPoint presentation on this issue (a copy of which
is attached). Very little public testimony has been received. A panel was
organized with various agencies, who then met with the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission unanimously recommended adoption of the Code
amendments. The systems are already expensive, requiring a large investment,
but there are tax subsidies available, so the process should be simplified to help
these projects go forward.
These would be permitted outright, up to 36 feet; zero to 15 kW, and would
have to meet noise requirements and other criteria. He gave an overview
regarding proposed text amendment, and indicated that he feels this is ready for
a Board hearing. The Board felt it is ready to go forward.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Page 2 of 5 Pages
3. Discuss Deschutes County's Formal Amendments to Modify its Destination
Resort Map.
Mr. Gutowsky gave a PowerPoint overview of the legislative history of this
issue, and the Ordinances adopted by the Board last year.
Ineligible lands have to be considered, as set forth by the State and other
agencies. The local criteria were continued. Eligible land is based on the 1992
criteria as well. Code requires a minimum size of 160 acres.
The procedures Ordinance regarding amendments is based on State law. They
received about 900 inquiries after the information was sent out with tax bills.
The Land Use Board of Appeals affirmed the two Ordinances, 2010-024 and
2010-025, in March. These have been appealed to the Court of Appeals.
About 91,701 acres were disqualified, 17,506 acres were carried over, and
3,187 acres were carried over from the existing resort map (908 grandfather
requests). Three sites totaling 1,255 were added, Pine Forest added 617 acres,
Belveron & Vandevert added 278 acres, and Agnus Delashmutt added 360
acres.
Deschutes County does not have an eligibility criterion allowing a property that
is less than 160 acres adjoining a mapped property to be added to a resort map.
The Planning Commission made a deliberately vague recommendation, that it is
to be `thoughtfully considered'.
A little over 22,000 acres were identified, resulting in an 80% reduction from
the existing map, which was over 112,000 acres.
When Bend hits 100,000 population, almost all of the eligible properties will
no longer be eligible, based on the 24 air mile requirement.
He asked if the Board wants to wait for the Central Oregon Landwatch appeal
to be heard before proceeding. Chair Baney replied that they should move
forward and not wait for appeals that could take years. The other
Commissioners agreed.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Page 3 of 5 Pages
4. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules.
Dave Kanner said that the dais and video equipment project would be starting
next week in the conference rooms. Meetings will be shifted around to other
rooms.
5. Other Items.
Dave Kanner said that the board of the Bethlehem Inn is waiting for suggestions
from the Commissioners regarding the appointment of two board members for
their group. Chair Baney stated that she asked a few people, who declined. It
will mean a lot of work. She is in touch with a Realtor who may be able to help
lead them.
Commissioner Unger asked if they have anyone in mind who might make their
board more rounded. Mr. Kropp indicated that in his opinion, they do not.
Chair Baney added that it might be hard for anyone the County appoints to
make a significant difference.
Commissioner DeBone suggested that they go ahead and fill their board. He
does not want to slow them down. He would like to be kept informed as to
when they have board meetings. There will be other opportunities as board
members leave. Commissioner Unger reminded everyone that they have about
15 months remaining to perform.
Commissioner DeBone asked if the Board would sign a letter supporting the
Sisters Scenic Bikeway designation. The Commissioners agreed. He would
like to see the Road Department take this into consideration as they do road
projects.
Regarding HB 3615, regional planning goals, Mr. Lelack said this allows for a
regional definition on resource land development. Three pilot counties have
been identified: Josephine, Jackson and Douglas. The Commissioners indicated
that they would like enough flexibility to figure this out at a County level. They
recommended this be at a 2+ on the `watch' scale - high interest but the County
not taking the lead.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Page 4 of 5 Pages
The noticed Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2)(h), pending or
threatened litigation, did not take place due to time constraints.
Being no further discussion, the meeting concluded at 3:35 p.m.
DATED this a?~i Day of 2011 for the
Deschutes County Board of Commissioner.
r
Tammy Baney, Chair
Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair
rl ~ )
C..I-LAA-o~
ATTEST: Gl
Alan Unger, Commissioner
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Page 5 of 5 Pages
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2011
1. Discussion of Proposal to Extend Sunset Provision for Development Approvals
- Nick Lelack
2. Discussion of Small Wind Energy Text Amendment - Peter Gutowsky
3. Discuss Deschutes County's Formal Amendments to Modify its Destination
Resort Map - Nick Lelack
4. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules
5. Other Items
Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2)(h), pending or threatened
litigation
PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real
property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues.
Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners ' meeting rooms at
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY.
Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.
li
n
7 s~•
\ o
N
Q~
-
~
O
t
d
Gam.
E
3
c~-
O
~
h
tr
N
N
'p
A
cX~
Y
4
3
C
~
'c0
M
~
~
-4
J
O
C
a
cu
Z
Z4
,
- S
0
_
v
co
a
,TES
Of
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
Board of County Commissioners
Nick Lelack, AICP, Planning Director
April 13, 2011
Re: Work Session: Development Approval Extensions
SUMMARY
The purpose of this work session is to seek Board direction on whether the County should
initiate a text amendment to the Deschutes County Code (DCC) to allow additional development
approval extensions beyond the normal approval and extension periods for non-resource
approvals such as site plan reviews, subdivisions, partitions and lot line adjustments. There has
been interest from the development community to continue to keep planning approvals active
until the market allows them the financial ability to submit their building permits, pay their SDCs
and commence construction.
DISCUSSION
DCC Chapter 22.36 (B) and (C) establish the duration of land use permit approvals for two
years, and authorize the Planning Director to grant up to three 1-year extensions for approvals
where a development has not been initiated.' Land use permit approvals subject to this time
frame include site plan reviews, conditional use permits, subdivisions, partitions, lot line
adjustments, etc. Deschutes County's 5-year timeframe to initiate a development is one of the
longest development approval timelines for both cities and counties in Oregon. The Exclusive
Farm Use and Forest Use Zones have separate duration of approvals and extensions as
established by state law.Z
' Per DCC 22.36.020 Initiation of Use, development action under a land use approval has been "initiated"
if it is determined that: 1. The proposed use has lawfully occurred; 2. Substantial construction toward
completion of the land use approval has taken place; or 3. Where construction is not required by the
approval, the conditions of a permit or approval have been substantially exercised and any failure to fully
comply with the conditions is not the fault of the applicant.
2 The approval period for the following dwellings in the EFU and Forest Use Zones is 4 years
(replacement dwelling, nonfarm dwelling, lot of record dwelling, large tract dwelling, and template
dwelling). Up to two 2-year extensions may be granted by the Planning Director for such dwellings.
Quality Services Perfor/ned with Pride
The Community Development Department has been approached about providing additional land
use permit extensions due to the extended economic downturn. Similar requests have been
made and approved throughout Central Oregon. For example, the cities of Bend, Redmond and
Sisters, and Crook County, have all approved additional land use permit extensions, and
typically for 2 additional years.
The table below shows the number of development approval extension requests by year
between January 1, 2000 and March 31, 2011.
Table 1. Development Approval Extension Requests
Year
Number of Extension Requests
2000
35
2001
51
2002
65
2003
39
2004
33
2005
24
2006
51
2007
49
2008
73
2009
70
2010
85
2011(V Quarter)
24
TOTAL
600
The table shows a significant increase in extension requests beginning in 2008. Specifically, it
shows that 252, or 42%, of the 600 development approval requests since 2000 have been
submitted since the start of 2008. Moreover, 2011 is on pace for nearly 100 extension requests
with 24 already submitted in the first quarter.
The reason land use permits have expiration dates is to ensure development proposals comply
with current standards. Approval extensions are available so applicants can request additional
time to begin or continue a development or meet conditions of approval regardless of whether
the applicable standards have changed. Applicants are required to submit a written request for
an extension prior to the expiration of approval, state the reasons for the additional time, and
submit a fee of $310.
The Planning Director approves the extension request if it can be determined that the applicant
was not responsible for the delay, including, but not limited to, delay by a state or federal
agency in issuing a required permit.
OPTIONS / DIRECTION
Staff seeks Board direction on which of the following courses of action, if any, to take related to
development approval extensions:
1. Determine that the current development approval time period and opportunity to apply for up
to three 1-year extensions is sufficient time to initiate a development.
2. Direct staff to initiate a text amendment to allow additional extensions for land use permits
unless such an extension would violate any time limitation on the permit imposed by Oregon
state law. If the Board directs staff to pursue this course of action, then the following issues
also need to be discussed:
a. Does the extension automatically extend all applicable permits or are applicants
required to apply for additional extensions? Jurisdictions with shorter approval and
extension periods than Deschutes County tend to automatically extend all applicable
permits because the majority of permits expire in the same general time frames.
However, Deschutes County's 5-year approval and extension period creates significant
variations in the time frame for expirations of approvals and extensions. An automatic
extension would be significantly more complicated to administer than extending or
expanding the current system of applicant initiated 1-year extensions in Deschutes
County. Staff recommends an applicant initiated 1-year or 2-year extension process be
considered rather than an automatic or "blanket" extension.
b. What is the time limit for additional extensions? Does it follow the current 1-year
extension process or is it a different period of time, such as 2-year extensions? Many of
the jurisdictions granting extensions are doing so for 2-year periods. Staff recommends
one 2-year extension.
c. If applicants are required to apply for extension requests, how many additional
extension requests may be allowed? Some jurisdictions, including Bend and Crook
County, are allowing one extension for 2-years, and then determining at that time
whether additional extensions should be authorized. Similar to b. above, staff
recommends granting applicants one 2-year extension.
d. Is there a sunset date on the text amendment? Jurisdictions are approving additional
permit extensions due to the current economic situation with sunset dates. Crook
County and Bend have approved extensions for two years. Staff recommends the text
amendment sunset 2-3 years following adoption. The Board will need to make a finding
to support the text amendment. It will be a more defensible finding if the text
amendment is for a limited duration. For example, the Board may make a determination
that there is a county-wide need for such extensions because the current state of the
economy is not conducive to property development and the Board desires to save land
owners with land use approvals the expense of reapplying based on the continuing
economic downturn for a period of a "X" years.
If the Board supports initiating such a text amendment, staff will recommend the ordinance be
adopted by emergency based on the findings made to support the ordinance.
r-
Document Reproduces Poorly
(Archived)
N
M
TIT
to
co
I,,-
N
4-i
O
N
cC
Y
tC
m
d
.c
O
m
E
O
U
O
ca
a)
L
(n
co
O
O
co
Q
r
r
O
N
M
Q
N
fn
c o
N
a)
m
d O
LL U f-
U
C
ca
2
O
T
m
a)
C
W
V
a)
7
r
C)
N
f7
r
Q.
Q
cn CO Co -
a) cn a) to a) co
O U
.e E
0 o O_ U Q C O A w
O 4--
_O
NO Oa) m
a) (n
en =
(n a) E ca ca - c U
a) cn o)23 'a >j C
C O 0 O E ye a) p O O
0 U~ a) ~U
_0 c cnn0=3 _a_0 (1) caC as
C j a)= -p in L r- LO ~ Co
a) . :P Q) O C -0(.)
ca C 7 U) -~e Q C X V
U O 07 L N co
O
N a) (Up m
a) oOL
~ cu UE 0 mN (D CL O
_0 U a) U
O U) CO _0 N
U C C Q (a C O M U
O O U C
j L M C:
Co a) - in
C N x cu O O) U C ~ p 7
- r U a
E c
O L O C a)
c E ~m O cn co ZA 0 N a~ U) O C
t
-0 CD
m -0 cn U)~ ca a)a
ca C EM 30 C~ 3 rna) E 3 a)
cn O p m cu C O U p C-0 O_ a
C L~ L O p U) ,C O c a)
N UU a)>+ Uco3 a) U)
N ca in 0 a) ca U)) c
r_ D M E a) a) N O ?r (1) US 3
-C 0 V) o a) L (L)
O d O O •c? L a) 0 U .L w m U`
C C -a L% L U L O U ~ C r C
O a) OOc,~a Om._ CL N+.3
V U) Q) U ca c
C ~(u CEO inEo o~r_
a) + a
)
L L
a) E
Cl) M) CL)
O~ cy) cn X C C O
C o o cn o ca~ E a) c U
m >+a ?S c O c (1) (L) C~•~ 0EQ
3c°) in ) 0(U ~~CD E 0 E
cn to U _
a) U a Co
a ca a cn " a C 0-0 a c V
cp C N E
10) 0 > N O O U O (a
O) C_ L T U N w C
0) 4-- X_ clS O C N N
L O O p p _ Y U- a) C: Y
O C a) -r- a) a) CO a U
w C 7 L O>, a)a-. C y-0 U oo m
a) m C U cn U cn c a) L
M L L `J C 'O C: a) p ca c N
3 QE cn.2 c is ~.C E~
L) U) in 3: tea) ~p 'QC :3 a)
a) -r- cu ca H c r- a O O p
U
U p L
E o
a) C a s 0) C 2 0 0-0 U O` C
C C L cn 0).- a) O a) C O O
a
E ca 3 :E L U C p U cn
E co a > N ) a) m U -a a) a) 'o U 0 U) U -tea
Q O j a (a C') C Q p (a ca co
Q) L u) C V7 a) (a E C
O.C O in ca ~ O N p E U c' c
C O
- L O > >a a) X O CD .C r-
L a) .a C L ca a) L ca ca a) a- .C
7 O 2 U C) C 4) :3 G) U L ca N a) p
mt C"a a)ptoO ca`)oa) ca) c(D -0
C
aL a)5 aa) )p0~ C- a)r>1 ca)c°
a) U a) a) o)
~U N~a a C O
m 0 O L N O L> C~ U C m
a) U r0- C U ca co i 0 N ca N p 7
>.a) cE o.g3ccu Y a) a) 5a)-0
~Y 3 0 LD~ v a) o O
O O -.2) > U C_ O L C
cn :3 _L a E > C L
a)p EE 3
C O co ~O t LO C L-0 O .C >1 O Q. C
vi ~ cn O "N U c O O 0
ca a) = R1 "p6 - 4) "O 3: Y O a
g-- cnoEc
a) 0 >ip LLaN a)-Om pa)a N.VC
L a) O
Z3 (D a) O)O ~p C a) 0:3 0
= C U N a 0-
0 ca a) , O Co 0) a) C C a) E
c_E - c>E -0 a)~- ornca
222) N is O a) O (a vaj a a) U C m
a) 0) cn E U U-a me L nE E a) a)
~c a) L=32 a)aa)O ~XO m
a) C LL cn c.) 0 (n ca c U a) 0 - 0 U
3
2
.a
C
O
a)
_0 C)
m rn
a)
O
:E :2 A U Q'
Q 0
U c) C
C
cn W (,or m
t0
Cl)
M
O
v
O
N
d-
O
N
N
03
P-4
U
bA
«3
O U
~r
03
0
~ zs
• o c~
o
ktm
a~
a
o
i~l ^ V N i~
3 iT^111
i o ~ o ° 3
U ~ U U O
. , . O bb
y ~I 4.1 N
~ ~ U O bA
Ri
few O }~~yyl b U
cq3 42
I C 3
U V rn
o
+5 V)
N ItiM ~ ~
to rn
• ~ N N
PENA
E Q o
" CO U)
d Q
10
N d +j ti
C-i
0 Cd
O
W U "o
4-0
M; 0
o
Cal
_ v
4-0
cA ;-4
9% JI h+ s.., N
O
N
M
0
M
N
c~
4.1
~Q
H
oo ' ~ o b ~ icyy
O U O O U Ed O
U) ul
::3 p N
O O -a U U
4-4
cd
cn CIA
Cd V)
a' O cl, N
7d
41
cqs
3 6q H
bb o to
o
U -d U cn p
0 Cd
c Q ti o iU 00 't3
O a~ cn
N ~ N~ ~ y ~ ~ I fir," bUA~ ~ O vi
O U M U° O cd a" O
in C3
~3 :j
O 3 O O En
Q O Q
N O C ~U
>1 ;3
a°i . o o Q, o ai o
0 3 " 0 0 v, -0 O o
¢ 4i a
y U by 'cd
ss-ya >C N U O
.sue o o cd ai a~ cd Cd
r--• o
Con to, 0-
to cd
C's
9.1
Cd N U o Q, v vii
M C5
4.1 v =
N 4+ O 4N Q r' O cd 41 'C ° U bq M
4--q 0
0 co
unn o ;:s "~G o Abp
0 ~ 0 3 a. 0 0 o a~ 0 .0 U
0
N
d'
P
N
m
44T
U)
~ tiU UN ,fib- ~ ~ 8
r.-
s
t~`1
~ n
1q~
co
CIQ
T
f r'~
~ r
I f r
r-
t
~ ~
~7 1 - ~
uO°
IIg'ii
41
~fF
t S
Y
.I
I
J ..I d
Tf
t
\
f
00
0
o~
A,~
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
April 6, 2011
Deschutes Board of County Commissioners
Deschutes Services Center
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, Oregon 97701
RE: Sisters Country Scenic Bikeway Designations
Dear County Commissioners,
As the official county advisory agency dealing with bicycle and pedestrian issues, the Deschutes
County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) would like to encourage the Board to
adopt a resolution of support for formal the designation of the proposed Three Sisters Scenic
Bikeways in Deschutes County (from Sisters over McKenzie Pass and between Smith Rock and
Sisters). (A third proposed scenic bikeway consists of loops around Camp Sherman, but starting in
Deschutes County.)
Cycling opportunities comprise a key economic asset for Central Oregon, and help attract both
visitors and new residents. It is one of the main ingredients in the healthy, outdoor lifestyle that
characterizes our County. A Board resolution would send a strong message to the Oregon State
Parks and Recreation Department that the county is committed to promoting cycling. The
designation would help draw more visitors and sustain economic vitality in our area.
The Sisters Community, under the guidance of the Sisters Chamber of Commerce, has accepted
responsibility for the marketing and management of these designated routes. The county's
responsibility would fall mainly to the Road Department, which along with various other agencies
(like ODOT and the Forest Service) responsible for the designated roads - would install signage
(provided without charge by the Oregon parks department) and to commit to maintain the
pavement along the routes in good shape.
The BPAC is prepared to work with your staff to draft an appropriate resolution for your adoption.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Howard, Chair
Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
Quality Services Performed with Pride
-f C C ~