Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-03-11 - Planning Commission Minutes117 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 MARCH 11, 2010 - 5:30 P.M. I. 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, Keith Cyrus and Richard Klyce. Absent: Todd Turner. Staff present were Tom Anderson, CDD Director; Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Terri Payne, Senior Planner; Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner; Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. III. WORK SESSION: TA -10-2, Revise Deschutes County Code 17.16.115 to distinguish performance standards between county roads and state highways - Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner. Peter gave a summary of the proposal. Commissioner Irvine asked about Level Service C versus D and cost estimates to bring a C up to a D. Peter said it was usually on a case- by-case basis. Chair Brown and Peter discussed the La Pine Subway decision influence on this proposal. Chair Brown asked if this proposal, if approved, would change the procedures on a similar application to that in La Pine. Peter said it would not change the process. Vice Chair Criss asked if there was still a requirement for the applicant to do a traffic study, and Peter said this would still need to be done; the part of the Code requiring a traffic study would not change. Chair Criss and Peter discussed studies in the ITE manual, and Peter gave some examples of data that were not included, such as studies for bed -and -breakfasts. IV. WORK SESSION: TA -10-1, Deschutes County Code; Sections 18.116.030, Off -Street Parking and Loading; 18.124.060, Approval Criteria; and 18.04.030, Definitions — Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner. Anthony summarized the proposal, which covers three separate sections of the Code. Chair Brown asked about building conversions, particularly where the uses are Quality Services Performed with Pride agricultural, such as buildings which are used to store hay, and questioned how to interpret other uses. Is there a way to determine partial uses, for example, in the case of 3,000 square feet of a 20,000 square -foot building? Anthony said we have seen this in multiple -use structures, and we rely on what the applicant tell us about use. We apply parking standards based on that use. V. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT REPORT: Terri Payne, Senior Planner. Terri spoke about the Plan goals and the current report, which will be sent to the State Community Involvement Committee. Chair Brown asked Terri about whether notification is required regarding the Comp Plan update, and Terri said there is no requirement — it is a courtesy that we started a few years ago. The Commissioners approved Terri sending the report to the state. VI. CDD PLANNING DIVISION WORK PLAN: Nick Lelack, Planning Director. Nick discussed the work plan and new format. Chair Brown asked about the interface with action items in the Comp Plan. Nick mentioned a discretionary item on page 3 to develop a 20 -year action plan to implement the new Comp Plan once updated. It would be possible, for example, to have short, medium, and long term projects in the action plan for each year. The short term items could be in the "required" category. Commissioner Klyce asked if we were going to review the Comp Plan every 10 years and wondered if we should shorten the 20 -year cycle, which Nick said was possible. Commissioner Klyce asked about HB2229; Nick mentioned using the word "develop" when referring to the recommendations. This would mean that HB2229 requires a work plan submittal to the LCDC as a first step, which is a set of recommendations to implement HB2229. Chair Brown felt that the Commissioners are pretty unanimous about moving ahead on this. He suggested wording indicating a direction to "establish a process to implement the Big Look within the framework of HB2229." Nick and Chair Brown spoke about the difference between developing the process and moving forward, and Chair Brown wanted to indicate that we actually get started. Nick suggested "establish and initiate a process...". Chair Brown and Commissioner Klyce discussed the importance of clear language. Vice Chair Criss wanted to indicate that this is a priority. Nick said it is in the "required" category. Vice Chair Criss asked if recom- mendations could be made by the end of the year. Nick responded that this timeline would be realistic, assuming we move through the adoption of the community plans and other items early in the fiscal year. We might be able to start by early November. It would be desirable to have another organization assist us if possible. Commissioner Irvine suggested language indicating initiation of "...a process to implement the Big Look within the framework of HB 2229." Motion: Chair Brown motioned to revise Paragraph 6 of page 3, under Comprehensive Plan, to say "initiate a process to implement the Big Look within the framework of HB 2229." Seconded by Commissioner Irvine. Motion passed unanimously. Nick discussed #11 on page 3, under "discretionary," regarding coordination with the Landmarks Commission and property owner/s seeking National Register status for Whited Farmstead, which we do not have the expertise or staff to accomplish right now. 2 Nick also mentioned adding, on Page 7 under Coordination with other Agencies, a request by Sisters for providing assistance to them in establishing a urban reserve area. Chair Brown asked how to plan for 50 years, which Nick said is done under State law and based on population estimates, buildable land inventory and other information. Chair Brown and Nick discussed restrictions during this process, and Nick said usually it does not involve taking anything away from owners. Commissioner Irvine and Nick discussed how the resources and expertise would be provided to Sisters. William Kuhn also would like to add an item to prohibit the issuance of land use and/or building permits if the property has a pending code violation. Chair Brown asked about coordinating with the City of Bend on the UGB amendment. Nick said that next week the City will be defending its submittal to the LCDC and a decision on the appeal will be made. This would eventually be an amendment to our Comp Plan, and we may coordinate some of it with the City, but we do not know the level at this time. Chair Brown was concerned about further straining County staff resources. Nick mentioned the Airport Master Plan which will require significant time and resources. Chair Brown asked Anthony about the previously discussed text amendment (TA -10-1) and our involvement with the City. Anthony said that as of now, the City has no problems with it. Nick discussed prioritization of staff time, meeting involvement, etc. Chair Brown mentioned adding something at the beginning of each section about the limited resources available for the County. Nick said that the statement at the beginning of the document could be further reiterated through the document. Commissioner Irvine asked about the intergovernmental agreement with the City of La Pine, which Nick said has no timeline and the County is compensated for it. Commissioner Irvine questioned the estimate of 3000 customers; Nick said it is based on volumes over time and not 3000 actual applications — it is an estimate of 3000 interactions with customers. Chair Brown asked if the average transaction is becoming smaller and resulting in less fee revenue. Nick indicated one example is that we are seeing more extensions. Commissioner Klyce asked about number of building permits, and Tom Anderson spoke about current volume (we had 50-60 total permits for February, seven for new houses, and a few applications for some very large commercial projects). Tom said there is a very slight increase in residential applications right now. Redmond's applications have also increased. Commissioner Klyce asked if #11, page 2, regarding enhancing the pre -application process, could be moved up in priority. Nick said it is not a required process now, and we would create a more formalized process and perhaps require it on some applications and charge a fee. Commissioner Klyce felt that the pre -application process would have helped with the event venues, and indicated that it did help with his own experience in Redmond. Chair Brown and Commissioner Cyrus also thought it would be beneficial to move this item up to "Priority" status. Chair Brown asked about William Kuhn's recommendations regarding code enforcement, and also wanted to discuss "proactive" code enforcement. Tom Anderson said it is overwhelmingly complaint driven and we act on complaints that come in with a few exceptions such as health/safety violations. Tom said we proposed proactive code enforcement to the Board a few years ago using a systematic approach - a list is generated and site visits are made to determine uses as time allows. A letter may be sent if a violation is noticed and an opportunity is given to address the situation. In other 3 situations, such as someone wanting to build a house and having to tear down the old one, a check is made 90 days later to verify that the original dwelling was torn down. Chair Brown asked about the process for removing a violation that has been issued and is visible online. If a permit cannot be issued due to an outstanding violation, how is it removed from the record? Tom said code enforcement staff places cases in different categories, such as "pending," "citation," etc. Once the violation is fixed, the case is closed and it comes off the DIAL report. Chair Brown asked how the owner knows it has been cleared. Tom said we do not send a letter, but an owner can call in or check online. Commissioner Cyrus mentioned his own experience with code enforcement and electrical issues and felt that anyone with a gripe (neighbors, etc.) could create a problem. Tom indicated the County has to determine whether a violation exists, and if so, a certified letter is sent. We have to verify a violation before we can continue with code enforcement. Probably one-third of the complaints do not result in letters and the alleged violators do not even know one was filed. Commissioner Klyce asked Tom about an initial investigation phase and whether it is proposed that a land use action not be initiated during that phase. Tom said it would involve an active case. Commissioner Klyce and Tom discussed the proposal and Tom said a case becomes active once we send the letter to the owner. If we reach an impasse, we then request that the Sheriff's office issue a citation; in 86% of the cases we worked with in 2009, they never reached the citation stage. The resolution to some cases is the issuance of a permit, so the proposal to not issue any permits until a violation is cleared up would not always work. Commissioner Irvine asked if failure to give an easement where one is required is a code violation, and Tom said yes. This proposal could be useful in some situations; perhaps the intent should be more towards a new development or large development rather than one new house. Commissioner Criss asked if this pertains to any type of code violation, such as someone cutting down a tree in a yard. He and Tom discussed someone cutting down a tree on a riverbank, which would be a code violation, and whether more specific statements would be needed. Commissioner Irvine said he felt the question was whether to add this to the work plan and how much time and effort would be needed for it. William Kuhn testified and said that his proposal specifically related to conditions of approval, rather than code violations. Chair Brown asked Tom for his opinion. Tom said if we were charged with proposing a text amendment to initiate this, it probably should be a little bit broader than just conditions of approval. Tom also spoke about the distinction between a publicly -initiated code enforcement complaint, which is usually more specific, versus one initiated by staff which would be more general. William Kuhn and Anthony discussed his current situation with the Commissioners and the changes in the way applications have been handled over the years. Commissioner Irvine and Nick talked about the pending budget, and Nick said that at this time we do not know what the final numbers will be. We are assuming current staffing levels will continue. Nick summarized that the Commissioners would like an amendment to the HB 2229 language; to remove the word "discretionary" under the current planning list, last item on page 8; add language recognizing staff and resource limitations; and support the Sisters UAR language. Commissioner Criss asked whether the reference on page 5, #6, to "groundwater quality" is specifically concerning South County. Nick said it concerns the County in general. Commissioner Criss also asked about #7 on page 3, and how the Regional Problem Solving Chapter would be updated/replaced/supplemented. 4 Nick said that it is open at this time and refers to the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Criss asked if a South County Chapter would be separate or part of the Regional Problem Solving Chapter in the Comp Plan. Chair Brown thought that perhaps it would be a separate chapter within Regional Problem Solving. Vice Chair Criss also asked about #10 on Page 3. Terri said we are working with DLCD on the language and whether we can update the Comp Plan without updating Goal 5 inventory. So far it appears to be all right; currently we only have new inventories on wildlife with maybe a dozen changes. Some inventories under Goal 5 are very old, such as surface mining inventories. Vice Chair Criss asked if the Comp Plan update could be held up, and Terri said Jon Jennings thought that if it became a problem, the Comp Plan could be amended to look at Goal 5 after the Comp Plan update is completed. Vice Chair Criss asked if we had a $100,000 grant to do a wetland inventory and whether there were other grants; Nick said it is comprised of two grants. Vice Chair Criss spoke about revising destination resort criteria and said he had found more support for small destination resorts. Vice Chair Criss mentioned #6 on Page 7 and asked if there could be a mention of BLM land acquisition in connection with moving a pivot system in La Pine. Tom Anderson said that one of the risks of only looking at the Planning Division work plan is that we haven't looked at the other divisions' work plans yet. There is a section on groundwater in another part of the work plan regarding our assisting DEQ as an advisor, and looking at a sewer alternative. VII. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS. Nick discussed the next meeting, part of which will involve the Board, and asked what topics the Commissioners would like to discuss. Chair Brown asked if we could prepare an agenda to be sent or emailed early next week so the Commissioners could discuss it ahead of the final agenda. Nick said he would send an email to Dave this evening for some suggestions. The Comp Plan should be discussed; the Big Look and HB2229; Deschutes Junction; the limitations on building in the eastern part of the County and the continuing issue with farmland. Terri Payne said she had been reviewing applications for site plan review in that part of the County. Nick said we had received 11 applications for the vacant Planning Commissioner position and the Board has decided to interview all 11. Chair Brown mentioned being on the interview group and said he may need some help due to his current schedule. There will be a video conference on HB2229 implementation on March 29 from 1-4:00. VIII. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respe Ily submitted, Sher Buckner, ministrative Secretary NEXT MEETING — March 25, 2010, at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97701 5