Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-05-13 - Planning Commission MinutesX 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 MAY 13, 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, Todd Turner, Richard Klyce and new Commissioner James Powell. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. III. PUBLIC HEARING (continued): Terrebonne Community Plan — Staff. Commissioner Turner mentioned that his firm is working on the school addition, but he does not feel this will be a conflict of interest. Chair Brown and Nick Lelack discussed procedures. Public Testimony: Billy Hardin spoke about the difficulty of excavation in the area, both for commercial and residential interests. The area is not favorable for increased population density or intensive commercial use. Tom Gelker reiterated that the feeling is strong in Terrebonne, with citizens not wanting any changes in zoning. They cannot afford the cleanup costs from developers after they leave, either. Larry Wiehr said that during the 1997 period Comp Plan review, residents of Circle C submitted a request, which was granted, to be removed from the boundaries. Since 1997, no additional properties have been annexed into the Terrebonne community. There could be light industrial and commercial. At this time no use is planned, but since this plan is for 20 years, it could be a possibility. Quality Services Performed with Pride Steve Henderson discussed supporting the community plan and people who like the area the way it is. There is no sewer system, and they are not interested in any expansion that would cost money. Circle C opted out because of one man who ramroded it through. Today may be different situation. Boundaries are for zoning purposes and do not exclude anyone who lives outside the community. He also asked if the Commissioners are interested in the rules as they work, or interested solely in individual property rights? Some people have participated since the beginning, made suggestions, made recommendations that some land be zoned commercial, etc., but they do not want to see properties divided into small lots. Steve Myrin spoke about the clinic he built in 1995, with a plan to zone the property as commercial eventually. He did not build a commercial building on property that he did not intend to have as commercial, and it has been used that way for 30 years. It is next to an unused post office that has been vacant for 15 years. He has been told he is using the property legally now, but it is not fair that he has to sell his clinic as a house or conforming use in a residential area when he retires. Commissioner Klyce asked what happened and why the property was not rezoned. Steve said there were several community meetings during which it was mapped to be changed, but at a final closed door meeting it was decided to keep it residential. Gerry Soto said she represents herself and 10-12 of her neighbors. They want things to remain exactly as they are. There are enough commercial sites and also enough vacant residential sites without adding more. When the present vacant lots are filled, capacity will already be stretched. They choose to live very simply and would like to remain that way. They do not have city values and choose to live individual lives. When developers want to make a profit and meet up with a community that wants to keep things the same, the developers need to look elsewhere and leave people free to live their lives. Jerry Sherman agreed with Gerry Soto. The people who live in Terrebonne like it the way it is. The vet clinic where Steve Myrin is located should be changed to commercial zoning, but there are already buildable lots for others who wish to do so. There are 29 lots for sale on their own internal sewer system - there are plenty of buildable lots available. Mike Walker submitted a petition for zoning on the west side of Highway 97. It says that a described area is viable for commercial properties and shows that the west side is much more desirable for septic systems. Peter Gutowsky sent him a map of undeveloped lots in Terrebonne. Mike spoke about the difference between buildable lots versus those that are just undeveloped. He started checking on the shaded areas of the map, and there are houses and septic systems on many of the lots. There are a total of 48 lots in the Terrebonne area to build on. The map is not accurately indicating what is and what is not available. Peter's notes indicate lots that are not buildable. The school district just expanded and received DEQ approval for septic last week. Commissioner Klyce submitted another map and had questions about the map Peter had provided. Kay Walters represented herself and other residents — the people have already spoken. We have had many meetings and people do not understand why they need to go to another meeting. The County is going to make the decision it wants to — but she feels it is still important to state an opinion. She hopes that the Commissioners will take people's opinions very seriously. They know that the Commissioners are volunteers, but people will be talking to those who are elected. They are not ready at this time to have the burden that developers are trying to put on them. The developers do not live there. They want to sell the property, do what they want and leave. People are sick and tired of their counties 2 _r being run by money for construction and development. There is one slumlord right now who is not taking care of his septic system. He told his renter he will not do anything about it, and it is a major health issue. Mike McFarlane spoke about a piece of property he purchased. His kids went to Terrebonne schools, and he did not know he would be unable to sell the property. He does not want to do anything right now but may want to in ten years. There are many ways to get water, if people are concerned about that. There are small lots around him and he's tired of everyone telling him they like his big open space. He wants to sell it sometime. George Ortman, a board member of the Circle C water district, said they opted years ago to be out of the Terrebonne community. Their main concern for their water district is to protect this asset. If Terrebonne residents choose to expand, it is not Circle C's concern, but they want to protect their water. They have a series of four wells all hooked into one system. Most are in the 200-240 foot range. One well which was drilled three years ago went 400 feet and is tapped into a good aquifer, but the water table in their other wells has dropped. At this time they are only using two wells with two backups. Dennis Hanson testified in opposition to the development. They fear that development is a real threat to ruralization. Dave Molony said he understood the Planning Commission can set policy for this County, and the Commissioners are appointed to carry out the wishes of the County. He sees the planning staff, particularly Peter Gutowsky, as anti -growth. He spoke about the school having its own onsite septic system and about the cross -traffic situation which creates a problem. There is a need for development on both sides — the west side is not all residential, although that is the picture that has been painted. The water district, Christian center, fire station and school are there. Chair Brown spoke about whether the record could be closed/deliberations held and asked the other Commissioners for their opinions. Commissioner Turner said he was comfortable closing oral testimony and leaving written open for some time to allow people to submit comments. Dr. Powell deferred to the other Commissioners as it was his first meeting. Vice Chair Criss agreed with Commissioner Turner. Some commercial and some development could be allowed — what does the community want? He would like to hear from some people who are in the middle of the road and others in the community. Commissioners Cyrus, Irvine and Klyce agreed. Motion: Commissioner Klyce motioned to close the public testimony and leave the written open until May 20. Seconded by Commissioner Irvine. Motion passed unanimously. Nick mentioned that the Commissioners could choose to deliberate at the end of May or at the meeting in June. This body makes a recommendation to the Board, so there will also be other meetings. IV. DISCUSSION: Deschutes Junction Community Plan — Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner. Peter summarized the process, community input received to date, and the future schedule. Most residents do not think there is a need for a community plan, although there is disagreement about the level of development or whether there should be any development at all. We are looking at the policies in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Turner asked if there was any identification of boundaries back when Deschutes Junction was designated as a rural service center. Peter said that Terri Payne had looked for some maps; the state changed the definitions in the 1990s and Deschutes Junction did not fit the definition of an unincorporated community. Chair Brown mentioned that in 1979, when Deschutes Junction was examined by the Board for zoning, the bottom half of the purple area is now there solely because he testified about it. He held an option on the property from COI and wanted to protect the industrial status. He has not had any interest in it since 1980 or 1981, so he does not consider it a conflict. Peter spoke about the specific policies on Page 4 of the Memo to the Commissioners. Chair Brown mentioned the 19th Street discussions and the lack of information regarding Juniper Ridge. Is there any new information? Peter said there is nothing new except talk about a soccer field land use application which we have not seen yet. Commissioner Turner asked about commercial activities north of Deschutes Junction in the ag zone. Peter said he understands they are pre-existing nonconforming uses. Commissioner Powell said he did not think there was a map produced in the original plan for Deschutes Junction, as there was for the other service centers. There have been discussions of changes along the old Deschutes Market Road to link Redmond to Bend. Is there anything going on with that? Both Redmond and Bend are pushing growth toward Deschutes Junction. He wonders about the impact of those changes. Peter also said hearings have been held to add 19th Street, which has been approved in concept but denied as to the specific alignment by the Planning Commission. The Board has approved it. A second reading is coming up which would take effect in 90 days, if it is not appealed to LUBA. Commissioner. Powell asked if there would be any changes in the proposed Plan amendments if 19th Street and Juniper Ridge did or did not go through. Peter said no — 19th Street was a transportation issue and Juniper Ridge would involve land use changes. Policy 4.9.4 addresses this and suggests it may have to be revisited in the future. Public Testimony: James Lewis spoke about an email he sent today. He feels that in the past year and a half of working through this process, we still have policies that do the same thing. What happened to all of the testimony submitted, and why haven't the opinions been taken into consideration? He questioned policy 4.9.2 - why wait to do this? Also, Policy 4.9.4 says we will "plan to plan." At the last stakeholders' meeting, everyone wanted a plan. Inner and outer boundaries could be created within a % mile of the interchange. Policies could be put into the Comprehensive Plan to provide protection of the neighborhoods and control growth. We need specific policies. Janice Elrod has lived in the area for 55 years. She felt that the meetings regarding 19th Street provided a meaningful dialogue. The survey is a little troubling to her — it is not evenly divided between those who do and those who do not desire development. It turns out that employees also submitted comments, which tilted the results. She feels like the 4 City of Bend wants certain things to happen as does Redmond, but Deschutes Junction is in the middle and does not get much thought. She would like to see their involvement. One group wants 30 acres changed to industrial directly across from them; their air has already been degraded. She is concerned about growth. It is all rural on the east side of the track. Nick mentioned that the zone change is pending before a hearings officer and has been continued to June 8. Peter said that the zone change is only for storing aggregate materials, not new industrial operation, so it has an overlay zone. Janice said they are already operating on the land, and Chair Brown said this could be taken up with the hearings officer. Hal Keesling said the May 13 memo is misleading and does not do justice to the process. There are no numbers and issues seem to be jammed together from meeting to meeting. There was a vote at one of the meetings and groups of people are saying different things. The Commissioners should get those numbers at the meetings and they should be part of the public record. This has been an informal process, so there is no record. Regarding 19th Street - if it gets built, DSL has a legal mandate to request thousands of acres from BLM. BLM will give that land to the state, and it will comprise a large block that can be sold for industrial development. He would like to see the current character of Deschutes Junction maintained. Commissioner Turner asked if Hal considers himself a Deschutes Junction resident, and he said he did. Dan Rider testified against growth. He is having second thoughts about a purchase in Boonesborough. A small group of owners wants to change the zoning of land for profit, and over 300 homeowners' concerns may be ignored. How do we stop the influence of a select few? Tony Aceti said he owns property around the interchange. He wants to do something with his land and wants to compromise. He would like to see a rural service center and provided written testimony in support. He wants to serve the people living in the community. Let's keep the outer area rural. People enjoyed the overpass when it was put in. There are 1700 homesites within a two-mile circle, and until there was an overpass there was maybe 60% buildout. Once there was safe access it changed everything. There are ways to defend what he wants to do while keeping some areas rural. Commissioner Powell asked when Tony acquired his property. Tony said in 1995, just after Highway 97 became four lanes and Deschutes Junction became an issue with cross traffic. He was led to believe that putting a new road through farmland required an exception at the time, and he was threatened by ODOT. He had already taken out a permit for a second barn. Lisa Harris said the overpass impacted Deschutes Junction. This is a benefit for the local people to have services and jobs available. Planning for inevitable growth is responsible and necessary. The outer residents want to remain residential and have the core considered for the change, which would benefit everyone who uses the interchange. A plan should be developed to benefit everyone, unlike the situation with 19th Street. Dan Young indicated that James Lewis has summarized what Dan would like to say. There is a general County attitude - in Deschutes Junction in particular — "not in my backyard." In order to live in one of the fastest-growing areas of the nation, everyone needs to be in on the process of planning. He is a non-professional and would like the Commissioners to plan ahead for expansion. The cat's already out of the bag and 5 changes have occurred. One by one, there are and will be applications. Deschutes Junction will be rezoned and, without planning, not in the best interests of the area. Robert Fair spoke about the 1979 boundary from Tumalo Road to 61St. He got zoning for a rural service center before purchasing his property and has letters from the Planning Commission approving it. A lot of money was spent and there have been nothing but problems for the last few years. Regarding 19t`' Street, they were told that a frontage road would be put in and 19t" Street is taking the funds. Secondary access from Pronghorn needs to be looked at. Marion Woodall wanted to encourage the County to avoid adding more sprawl. There is no reason to create the sprawl that will result if businesses are added to Deschutes Junction. More commercial development will add inevitable sprawl, and hundreds of residents do not want it in this part of the County. Chair Brown and Nick discussed the future schedule. Nick suggested starting the public hearings in August due to having to issue the 45 -day notice. Commissioner Irvine asked about the adoption of these policies and whether it has to occur before the Comprehensive Plan and hearings are finished. Nick said the community plans do not have to be completed before the Comprehensive Plan is finalized. With Tumalo and Terrebonne as unincorporated communities, we are updating those sections. Chair Brown felt that if there is a way to complete these before the final Comprehensive Plan, we should do it so we do not miss anything, even if the schedule is a little more difficult. Commissioner Turner agreed and thought that the second discussion could be held in June. Nick discussed having one meeting with oral testimony and keeping the written record open. Chair Brown thought that we should try to do it in one hearing if possible. Vice Chair Criss had to leave at this point in the meeting. V. DISCUSSION: TA -09-7 AND TA -10-3, Minor Changes to Deschutes County Code for Guest Ranches and EFU Zoning (by statute not requiring a public hearing) - Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner. Nick spoke in Paul's absence. The intent of the amendments is to make County Code consistent with state law. Chair Brown and Nick spoke about guest ranches and small destination resorts. We have four guest ranches in Deschutes County, more than any other county in Oregon. One proposed change to state law is to allow fractional interests as it is very difficult for farmers to afford the entire investment. Nick and Commissioner Irvine spoke about the language regarding community centers, and Nick said that Paul may need to answer some questions about that. Chair Brown thought that this was actually an information session, since the Board can do it without input. Commissioner Powell said he had noticed that permitted uses under "Q" included geothermal, oil and gas. In the next section it says "conditional uses," and under "G" he is reading the same references. It caught his eye because of fracking. If there was a way for the County to be able to get its two cents' worth on fracking - if a gas company wanted to do that, rather than having them just come in and potentially contaminate the aquifers, it might be something if they could choose between an outright and a conditional use. Commissioner Turner asked about guest farms and wondered if a ranch involves a hay operation, is it a ranch or an agricultural operation? Chair Brown spoke about his communications with the Extension Service. Commissioner Turner also thought that there 6 was an assumption of an ongoing livestock operation and wondered whether the event venue issue could be involved. Could someone obtain 160 acres and use those for an event venue operation under the guise of a guest ranch? Chair Brown mentioned that he could operate his produce stand as long as no more than 25% of the revenue is from non - produce activity. This may be where the EFU issue is going. Commissioner Unger has also proposed a licensing process. Commissioner Powell asked about problems with guest ranches. He was thinking of Donna Gill's which has been here forever and has been an event center. Have there been any difficulties with that, and are there any lessons that we could learn from the existing ones that need to come in here? Nick said he is not aware of any problems; that would be under Code Enforcement. One of the issues could be that one of the differences between event venues and guest ranches is the minimum lot size of 160 acres. That issue was raised with the work group as to how we want to tackle these. Guest ranches are only approved via a conditional use. In 18.16.037, guest ranches are defined under conditional use. In this case, Deschutes County is not more restrictive than state law - unlike destination resorts where we are a bit more restrictive. Nick also mentioned that we do have bed -and -breakfast operations on EFU land in the County. Commissioner Klyce asked if the County has any high-value farmland. Nick said that as far as he knows, according to state law we do not; however, we will check further. High value farmland was discussed. The group decided to have Paul at the next meeting to answer some questions. Commissioner Klyce wondered whether we should just move on to the Comprehensive Plan Update at the next meeting, since the Commissioners were not making a decision on this issue. VI. DISCUSSION: TSP Update — Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner. Peter said that the County received a $150,000 grant to update the 20 -year TSP (the last one was done in 1998). ODOT is doing a transportation model. We are having a series of open houses in the communities. In Sisters, the main issues are about cycling and a group wants to pave Sisemore Road which does not pencil out. You can currently bicycle the route. The County currently has a moratorium on maintenance for new roads. Commissioner Cyrus asked about winter deer range if Sisemore was paved. Peter said some of the roads are subject to seasonal closures, and Sisemore is not gated. In Terrebonne, there is some concern about bioswales. The main concern was about the Lower Bridge Way intersection and the number of trucks using Smith Rock Way. Commissioner Klyce asked about the trucks. Peter said they usually come out of the rock sites in the County, and Smith Rock Way has less curves than O'Neill Highway. In Tumalo, many people are interested in the intersection on U.S. 20. Peter said that most of the traffic movement would not be changed. Commissioner Klyce wondered about future licensing fees for bicycles to help cover costs. He also thought that shoulders should be added to Lower Bridge before cycling signs went up. VII. DISCUSSION: Possible Water Questions for Kyle Gorman — Nick Lelack, Planning Director. Chair Brown mentioned asking about aquifers, runoff, etc., and said he had asked if Kyle was available to answer any and all questions. There is a Comprehensive Plan meeting 7 scheduled on that date, so we should try to prepare questions ahead of time. Chair Brown also said someone from the Extension Service could come in to answer questions about agritourism during the same meeting. Chair Brown and Commissioner Powell discussed possible questions to be submitted to staff by next Thursday for forwarding to Kyle. VIII. AG SUMMARY COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS (note this is an additional agenda item). Chair Brown and Commissioner Turner discussed expectations of the Comp Plan update. Commissioner Turner said he expects staff and the County Commissioners to have their own ideas about what should be in it, and the Commissioners would be providing edits to assist. Chair Brown said his expectations were to do some things to repair the process, and the Comp Plan has a lot to do with that. Nick said that communities handle all types of different things — some of our changes echo the Lane County Plan. One thing Terri wanted to see was for Goal 3 to cover protecting agricultural lands and not the industry. The subzones are unique to the County and allow significantly smaller parcels than State law allows. If we are going to change the subzones, there needs to be a basis to do that. Commissioner Cyrus discussed changes in agricultural practices. Commissioner Turner and Chair Brown discussed possible language changes regarding tools to determine appropriate uses in agricultural land and the definition of agriculture. Nick indicated that state law is much more restrictive than the County's. Chair Brown suggested that we do not want to go against the state. Nick said it would just be leaving the door open for future possibilities. Nick suggested that the County could suggest a definition but not pick a fight. Commissioner Cyrus mentioned problems with what used to be cash crops and having less options for making a living on the land. Nick said a section could be added indicating we would like to lobby for a change in State law for the definition of agriculture, due to the County's unique characteristics. Commissioner Klyce felt there needs to be a change in policies regarding agriculture. Commissioner Powell and Chair Brown discussed smaller farming practices in other countries. VIII. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS. Nick talked about a recent decision from the Court of Appeals dealing with converting farmland to other uses and also the upcoming budget hearings. Our work plan will be heard on Wednesday, May 26. Nick has not heard back from the Board regarding re- appointing Commissioner Klyce and whether to extend Commissioner Cyrus' term. Two trials are coming up for event venue Code violations on June 8 and June 10. Commissioner Turner asked about mediation attempts. Nick said the topic came up in November and that everyone thought- Oregon Rush Soccer was going to propose event venues and submit an application. We had hoped that the application would go through a hearings offer and a decision would have been made by now. There are ongoing discussions about other avenues and how to proceed, but most is happening through legal counsel. So far neither side has moved forward to resolve the issue. The destination resort work group subcommittee will meet on May 24 and June 14. The full destination resort work group will meet next door on July 16 and will tour three resorts in the morning, followed by a three-hour meeting. There are 12-15 people in the work group, but there could be a lot more for this meeting. The Board will deliberate on May 26 concerning destination resorts. t:3 Chair Brown mentioned discussing representation of the Commissioners before the Board and meeting with County legal counsel. It was recommended that when we have a tough issue going to the Board, we can authorize one or two members of the group to answer questions. There is some latitude. Commissioner Klyce and Nick discussed a recent case under RLUPA about banning churches within a UGB. Nick said that the settlement was for DLCD to address it through rulemaking. IX. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectf Ily submitted, aAALA--- Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary NEXT MEETING — May 27, 2010, at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97701