Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-02-25 - Planning Commission Minutes' Community Development Department / Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701 FEBRUARY 25, 2010 - 5:30 P.M. L CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Chris Brown. Members present were Vice Chair Ed Criss, Merle Irvine and Richard Klyce. Commissioner Cyrus arrived at 7 p.m. Absent: Todd Turner. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner; Terri Payne, Senior Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. III. PUBLIC HEARING: PA -10-1, a Plan Amendment to consider the La Pine Urban Growth Boundary — Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner. Peter gave a summary of the proposal. Deborah McMann and James Lewis testified and said that the citizens of La Pine had been very helpful — they want to preserve livability and a sustainable community, as well as reducing the necessity of commuting to Bend for services. They worked on a description of an urban growth boundary (UGB), land issues and choices as to what would happen if the UGB did or did not match the city limits. James said there has been some turnover in the City Council and a new Planning Commissioner appointed. Chair Brown asked Peter about the state's participation is in this process and when they would weigh in. Peter said all three of them had spoken with Mark Radabaugh and his agency is supportive. Due to work on other UGB's in the state, Mark did not have time to send a letter but has been an active partner with the City of La Pine. James said he met with Mark this morning. The only issue he saw was more land inside the city limits than was needed for the 20 -year inventory. and he would be talking to his coworkers in Salem. Motion: Vice Chair Criss motioned to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Irvine. Motion passed unanimously. Quality Services Performed with Pride Motion: Vice Chair Criss motioned to forward the proposal to the Board of Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. Motion passed unanimously. IV. DISCUSSION: Destination Resort Remapping Code Amendment: Reconsideration of Recommendation — Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner. Chair Brown spoke about his instituting the process to ask the Board to refer this back to the Planning Commission, specifically to get the input of Commissioners Turner and Quatre. However, action still needs to be taken this evening to give a recommendation to the Board. Nick said that there were some questions to be answered about the 1992 farm study, which has not been completed — what was not done and how do we finish that? Peter said that 1992 was the first time the County was subject to Periodic Review. As a result, the County initiated a farm study which set new minimum lot sizes for agricultural parcels and new farm dwelling standards. Deschutes County is very unique in the way they structured the subzones relating to irrigation. The state shortly thereafter changed the statutes, including the 80 -acre parcel size minimum. Because Periodic Review was completed, Deschutes County has not had to go through another update to conform with the requirements coming out of the valley. Peter quoted from Ordinance 96.062, one of three adopted by the County to be in compliance with Periodic Review. There was controversy about agricultural policies which still exists. The County conducted surveys as part of the 1992 study. One of the results indicated that the greatest support was for not citing resorts on irrigated land, which may be one reason the Board did not want to revisit this. Peter also provided several maps. Chair Brown felt that several items needed to be addressed, including the irrigation provisions and whether that section should be excluded; subdivisions as an excluded section (if platted not eligible for destination resorts); and the grandfather provision. Regarding the irrigation provision, Chair Brown had made a motion to remove that section from the destination resort criteria. He would like to discuss whether the irrigation criteria should be deleted from the destination resort language. Motion: Chair Brown motioned to remove the section of the ineligibility criteria involving the 40 and 60 acres of irrigation from the destination resort ordinance. Commissioner Klyce wanted to discuss this before seconding the motion. There were criteria put in place in 1992, and as he understands it, most had the force of law but the job was not completed. Did the criteria for the 40 and 60 acres not have the force of law? Peter said it did make them formally ineligible on the map. Nick said that they were ineligible and supposed to be revisited, but this did not happen. Commissioner Klyce then seconded the motion. Discussion: Chair Brown said this is part of an underlying issue — the irrigation is not well understood in light of changes in the law in the last few years. For instance, the issue of whether or not the irrigation rights on this land are first being used — nowadays we can put the irrigation back in. This was not considered in 1992. There is also no discrimination between the types of irrigation source — surface water or a well. The language, because of the in -stream deferral, contains tough terminology. If they use that literally, he feels "irrigated" means wet. The actual issue is a water right, not irrigation. The biggest problem is that we are locked at this Commission every other meeting about whether we have highly productive farmland. Making these decisions as if we are in the valley and basing them water is inappropriate. The decision on whether resorts are allowed should be based on productive farmland. He would like to see this section removed and thinks it is too simplistic. Commissioner Irvine asked Chair Brown about not wanting destination resorts on "productive farmland" and how to define that. Chair Brown said that what we heard with panels was that there is not a lot of highly productive farmland in the County, although there is a lot of land that is green. There are other state requirements to prohibit resorts. Commissioner Irvine asked if the land is added as eligible, where in the process do we indicate whether it is highly productive or not; where is that check and balance? Nick said that the state does not prohibit destination resorts on EFU — that is strictly a local criteria. Our two criteria in the Code today — the 40 and 60 acres — were based on farming practices at the time and have not been updated. We would need to have an updated farm study to do this. Also, the complexity of irrigation is incredible, in terms of levels of rights. Commissioner Klyce said he recalled from the farm panel that in the County, probably the only productive land was beyond Lower Bridge. He also mentioned junior versus senior water rights, and how a piece of land can have water only once every two years. You can move water rights and they do not have to be tied to the land. Chair Brown said that is one unresolved problem with using this approach. The way the restrictions are written, a person can either have in -stream water rights or transfer them to another parcel of property and become eligible. Commissioner Irvine and Chair Brown spoke about the state requirements to transfer water. Peter said there were two options: (1) change the existing ineligible EFU criteria; and also direct the Board to fund a new farm study, using those results to get at which lands are the most productive for agriculture; or (2) maintain the existing EFU ineligibility criteria but still recommend the Board update the study. Chair Brown agreed and asked if House Bill 2229 would bail us out to get the farm study done. Nick said that 2229, the Big Look Bill, Sections 5-7, really deals with correcting map errors. In Section 2, regional approaches are allowed to the state land use system through the DLCD, as well as proposals to change the definitions of agriculture in our region via a new farm study. HB 2229 would provide an avenue to revisit the farm study. Chair Brown said he was hesitant to have the County undertake a new farm study. Nick said the Board has on its goals looking at implementation of HB 2229 as early as the end of March. Chair Brown said he is not proposing removal of the irrigation exclusionary land paragraph; if we put a moratorium in EFU land until this resolved — he wants to support the recommendation to the Board and just remove what he feels is unworkable language. Nick said one of the key issues since 1992 is the Transportation Planning Rule — adding land to the map will have to be in compliance. Chair Brown said we are relying on all of these other restrictions to protect the land. Vice Chair Criss said he did see in the 1992 ordinance a definition for high value crop areas. Land can be excluded by the present criteria. One of his concerns is that the 1992 criteria are too old to make this determination. Chair Brown said he thought we should eliminate the unworkable piece of the puzzle. Commissioner Klyce asked if we should look at state criteria alone. Chair Brown said Deschutes County consists of pieces. Chair Brown and Peter discussed whether the motion should say they want currently ineligible lands as defined in the EFU ordinance to become eligible. Peter said all other EFU land, under 40 or 60 acres depending on whether it is contiguous, is eligible. Chair 3 Brown said he just wanted to remove the restrictions about irrigation. He is concerned about redefining EFU and would just as soon not use that language. Nick indicated they were referring to 23.84.030(3)(C) 5 and 6, and (D) 4 and 5. Peter asked what the objective was — whether the irrigated farmland was causing the problem for the Commissioners. No matter how you frame it, the Board will want to know what it means. If you take out the irrigated provisions, lands could become eligible. Should EFU land that is presently ineligible now become eligible? Chair Brown said he would like to indicate that it is not ineligible, but it would still be subject to other criteria. Commissioner Klyce asked if EFU lands became subject to consideration, would they still have to go through TPR? Motion to remove the existing ineligible EFU criteria (40 or greater contiguous acres in irrigation; and non-contiguous EFU acres in the same ownership having 60 or greater irrigated acres) passed unanimously. Chair Brown wanted to discuss the subdivision piece - part of the criteria added for platted subdivisions not being eligible to be mapped into a destination resort. Motion: Chair Brown motioned to remove the recommendation that platted subdivisions become ineligible for destination resorts (23.84.030(3)(C)(9) Platted Subdivisions). Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. Discussion: Vice Chair Criss asked if we are discussing subdivisions without homes. Nick said this refers to any platted subdivision. Vice Chair Criss said he is in Wild River which is mapped as a possible destination resort. Perhaps we should include language to refer to undeveloped subdivisions. He would prefer north of Spring River Road to have a slightly different version — people in South County are very concerned about destination resorts. Nick said that a landowner must sign any land use application affecting their property. A current subdivision could not be forcibly included in a destination resort without the owners' consent. We would be looking for a definition of "developed," and "undeveloped." Chair Brown said maybe what we need is list the types of subdivision properties that can be included. Nick said that in that case, it would be in (D) of the ordinance. Nick suggested the motion would amended to delete (3)(C)(9) and add to (D). Chair Brown took a straw poll and the Commissioners were in agreement. Motion: Chair Brown motioned to add as an eligibility criterion undeveloped or unimproved subdivisions. Motion passed unanimously. Chair Brown said he also wanted to talk about whether subdivisions that meet the open space requirement of a destination resort should be eligible for mapping. Nick added that cluster developments are required to have 60% open space and destination resorts 50%. Peter suggested that the Commissioners consider a general divide of all platted subdivisions north of "X" or a designated area. The language needs to be very clear for the County to administer the ordinance — ultimately legal counsel will formulate it. The Commissioners could match the grandfather clause to the subdivisions to appease the South County colleagues and leave all other platted subdivisions eligible. 4 Chair Brown wanted to continue with the open space discussion. He disagreed with the more exclusive requirement for cluster developments than for destination resorts. Where are we with cluster subdivisions in the County? Peter thought there are three. Commissioner Klyce asked if roads are part of the open space, and Nick thought they were not. Terri added that yards do not count as open space, and open space has to be commonly owned. Nick read from state law that "open space means any land retained in a substantially natural condition or improved such as golf courses, bike trails or as required to be protected by a conservation easement. It can be ponds or lands used as buffers. It does not include residential yards, streets or parking areas. Chair Brown suggested amending the motion to include ineligible properties, undeveloped subdivisions. Peter asked for clarification and Chair Brown indicated it was a plat with no improvements. Seconded by Commissioner Irvine. Commissioner Irvine asked if 20% of a subdivision is developed, then it would not meet the criteria? Peter said that these would be subdivisions recorded prior to statewide planning legislation. Motion passed unanimously. Motion: Chair Brown motioned to include in the second amendment cluster develop- ments which include a minimum open space requirement that exceeds the 50% of destination resorts. Seconded by Commissioner Irvine. Discussion: Chair Brown and Peter discussed requiring the open space for development to be in excess of that required for destination resorts. Vice Chair Criss and Chair Brown discussed the open space requirement. Peter asked if they would like to allow cluster developments that contain open space that exceeds the destination resort requirements — he thought they should define the requirements for destination resorts on a particular site. Nick suggested that they use the language in state law: "...cluster developments that contain at least 50% of the site dedicated to open space...". Motion: Chair Brown motioned to remove platted subdivision exclusion from the exclusion and add as an eligibility criterion cluster developments that have at least 50 percent of their site dedicated to permanent open space, excluding streets and parking areas Seconded by Commissioner Irvine. Motion passed unanimously. Peter and Chair Brown discussed whether they needed to consider the grandfather clause. Nick said the key is we could reapply our current criteria with the exception of EFU. Peter said the only place a grandfather clause would apply is for lands in the urban reserve area, resources lands within a mile of a urban growth boundary. Chair Brown discussed parcels of less than 160 areas and two landowners who wanted to combine two 80 -acre parcels. Nick said we could re -run the map with all of the existing and proposed criteria and anyone could remain in if they are already mapped. Chair Brown discussed whether people would be automatically mapped or have to request it. Peter mentioned South Deschutes County would remain mapped unless they contacted us saying they wanted to be unmapped. Nick mentioned Measure 56 noticing. Commissioner Klyce mentioned that it would be less expense to the County if a homeowner had to notify us rather than doing a mailing. Peter and Nick discussed timelines and when we are obligated to do the Measure 56 notice and the ability to only amend the map every 30 months. Motion: Peter suggested a motion for Commissioner Klyce to change the grandfather clause to apply only when property owners who become ineligible as part of the adoption of this ordinance retain their existing DR designation unless a property owner mapped on a 1992 map formally notifies us in writing that they want to be removed. Seconded by Vice Chair Criss. Motion passed unanimously. Motion: Chair Brown motioned to forward recommendations to ordinance 2010.001 and 2010.002 as amended to include changers previously noted in the discussion. Seconded by Vice Chair Criss. Motion passed unanimously. Peter mentioned that the Board suggested their public record be kept open for another 30 days. Nick said that they will conduct the hearing on Monday and likely continue it for two weeks to allow the public to provide testimony. Note: Commissioner Cyrus arrived after the above discussions and before the following agenda items. V. DISCUSSION: Comprehensive Plan Update — Terri Payne, Senior Planner. A. Detailed Schedule Review Nick said the proposed schedule had been given to the Board, including adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan by the end of this calendar year. The Board strongly supported this recommendation. Chair Brown said he respects the amount of work going into this. The tougher issues are naturally put at the end of the schedule. Commissioner Klyce disagreed. Commissioner Brown restated that the tougher issues were at the front of the schedule and the job may be easier as we go along. Nick said that we will be asking for any new information at the beginning of each month to be distributed before the second meeting. Chair Brown, Nick and Commissioner Klyce discussed keeping the meetings on schedule and how much of the information and agendas could be reviewed and discussed at each meeting. Commissioner Klyce said that we are already behind, and some decisions made at the last meeting need to be reviewed, so let's give the schedule a try. Terri said that on March 25 the indicated revisions could be done at a later date. Commissioner Klyce asked about comments from the community mentioned in Terri's email. Terri said a few things had been added — for example in the Land Use section, there was a public comment about cumulative impacts in 1.3.6. Commissioner Klyce asked if something like that was included, could it be a footnote? Why is the public commenting on this? Terri said that we are in a public comment period, and sometimes those comments are coming from a number of different agencies, provided over those three months up until January 7. We are still getting comments because there is no official closing date. Chair Brown said these should not be incorporated now. Commissioner Irvine said if the staff feels it is important to consider the comments, they should be included. Perhaps they could be footnoted or highlighted, rather than not having them at all. The Commissioners indicated a preference for having new comments at the bottom of the document. Nick said that this was a unique situation and we will prepare a memo for items not included in the first Comp Plan draft for each meeting. Commissioner Klyce spoke about time limitations and only having an opportunity to look at the documents on 0 weekends. Nick said we will try to get documents to the Commissioners two weeks before each meeting. B. Format Chair Brown said he was comfortable with the format and likes being able to go to each policy with an alphanumeric reference for discussion. Commissioner Irvine also liked the format with policies under each goal. Terri and Commissioner Brown talked about the discussion version and that we may take it further in August, but for now, ease of use for both staff and the Commissioners is what matters. C. Chapter 4 Goals, Policies and Actions Key issue 1 — It was decided to keep this in. Key issue 2 — Should it be "cities" or "urban areas"? Terri said she would check to see if it makes a difference. Goal 1 — Nick suggested language saying "participate and coordinate in efforts to create and/or amend urban growth areas and urban reserve areas." Goal 2 — Zoning coordination was discussed and whether Goals 1 and 2 could be combined. Sections 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 — There was discussion as to whether these could be combined. Commissioner Klyce asked for definitions of rural and urban reserves. Redundancies in the Plan were also discussed, along with the possibility of working with legal counsel to combine them. Commissioner Klyce read a sentence from the Big Look stating that clarification for the general public was a goal. Chair Brown and Terri talked about combining Redmond policies. Chair Brown and Terri discussed the inclusion of current Sunriver policies and also a policy requested by Inn at the 7th Mountain. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS Nick mentioned the legislative update for the destination resort bill did pass and is on its way to the governor. There was positive testimony from several organizations. The guest ranches bill also passed, which allows 4-10 overnight lodging units/cabins on a ranch of 160 acres only in eastern Oregon. Deschutes County has more than any other area in the state, but only 3-4. The process has been streamlined. Nick said that the destination resort work group will convene next week. Senate Bill 1055 with 15 amendments allows event venues on wineries. The question of allowing them on all EFU lands came up, and the wine industry was against this - only on winery lands with a sunset clause of June 30 next year. The AOC will create a committee to discuss commercial events/use on farmland in the interim. HB 2229 has as a key component that most counties agree most farmland designations comply with state law. Chair Brown and Nick discussed whether Deschutes County should step up, as Richard Whitman has indicated that DLCD does not have it on their work plan for this year. Staff resources were discussed — climate and water are big topics and experts would need to be consulted. By the end of March, AOC will have a workshop regarding implementation of HB 2229. Nick mentioned the opening for a new Commissioner which closes next Friday; three applications have been submitted so far. Yesterday the Board directed staff to initiate 7 three new text amendments — one to update the Historic Landmarks Code with a grant of $3,000; amending the solar ordinance which has variance criteria that are tough to meet; and allowing small wind farms. The CDD work plan will be distributed at the next meeting. Commissioner Criss mentioned putting together a draft for a South County chapter in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Cyrus discussed a chart showing comparative valuations for Black Butte Ranch, Sisters, Pronghorn, etc. Chair Brown thanked Nick for meeting with him each week prior to the regular Planning Commission meetings, and the Commissioners for being prepared. Chair Brown also asked Commissioner Cyrus if he would be leaving at the end of his term, and Commissioner Cyrus said he would like to continue on the Commission if the Board decided to extend his term. VII. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. ReIB=Lkne submitted, Secretary NEXT MEETING — March 11, 2010, at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97701 9