Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-06-10 - Planning Commission MinutesCommunity Development Department A 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 JUNE 10, 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, Richard Klyce and James Powell. Absent: Todd Turner, Keith Cyrus and Merle Irvine. Staff present were Tom Anderson, Community Development Director; Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter -z' Cutowsky, Principal Planner; Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. Minutes of March 25, 2010 were approved. It was decided to move Item III after Item VI on this evening's agenda. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS Lee Wilkins testified concerning the Comprehensive Plan. In fall of 2008, over 4,000 signatures were gathered to put the Local Rule on the ballot, and it was defeated by County vote. But the Local Rule is still deeply imbedded in policies and writings. In three days, they have gathered 250 signatures to ask the Commissioners to remove 2.7 and its various subsections from the Plan until there is a South County area. Section 2.7 does not belong where it is. Ill. PUBLIC HEARING: OMG-10-1, A Request for an Extended Outdoor Mass Gathering under Chapter 8.16 of the Deschutes County Code for a 40 -Acre Parking Facility for the Jeld-Wen Tradition Professional Golf Tournament at Crosswater Golf Course — Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner. Paul gave the staff report for this rgpgsal. Commissioner Powell asked if there have been any problems with contamination !in the Little, Deschutes from this activity. Paul said he did not know of any issues. Commissioner Klyce asked about complaints from the public and Paul he did not know of any complaints. Evan Byers testified and reviewed the 28 conditions from last year's permit, a copy of which was provided by Paul. He said that the documents they have provided are based on these requirements. Chair Brown and Paul discussed whether it was necessary to list the security Quality Services Performed zvith Pride officers in Item 16. Evan thanked the Commissioners and said Jeld-Wen appreciates the opportunity to give back to the community. Motion: Vice Chair Criss motioned to close the oral and written records. Seconded by Commissioner Powell. Motion approved unanimously. Motion: Vice Chair Criss motioned to approve the permit. Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. Motion approved unanimously. IV. WORK SESSION: Deschutes Junction Policies in Comprehensive Plan (public testimony may be allowed) — Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner. Chair Brown asked Tom Anderson to make a statement clarifying activities in Deschutes Junction. Tom said the signs advertising the adult business constitute a code violation since no application has been received; however, since the business had not yet opened, the only violation was the sign. We delivered a notice of violation on Wednesday and a representative of the business was in our offices on Friday afternoon, with whom we discussed the process needed to make a decision on whether the business would be allowed in that location. We also spoke about the terms of the code enforcement case and said that the signs would need to be covered or removed. They have been removed and the sign on the highway covered, so there is no violation on the property at this time. We have not as yet received any application from either the representative who was in our office last Friday or the property owner. Chair Brown and Tom discussed the operations of Code Enforcement, and Tom said that the actions taken by Code Enforcement staff are authorized by Tom as the CDD Director, separately from the Planning Division, although the officers do work with planning staff. Peter Russell spoke about the map he had distributed for Deschutes Junction. Staff has worked with the public for two years regarding the area and the Comprehensive Plan. There are several questions. First, should the current Comp Plan policies remain? Everything zoned rural commercial would stay the same, etc. Or should the language be revised to reflect new policies as indicated in the Commissioners' packets? If we do not change anything, no 45 -day notice to DLCD is required. The second question is whether we want the County to pursue establishment of an unincorporated community. If yes, we need direction to look at this — should staff do it, or wait for a private party to apply? Thirdly, if staff considers an unincorporated community, we need to know where boundaries might be. Nick clarified that we are asking the Commissioners for direction as to what we should bring to them as a proposal. Chair Brown asked if property owners initiate the action and we do not, do they have to be contiguous property owners? Peter said this was correct. Commissioner Powell asked about OAR 660 and said he understood there were certain criteria needed. He wondered if we had that criteria. Peter said that staff does not think so but can try if directed. The criteria are fairly strict — multiple residences, things that have to be in place such as churches, schools, cemeteries, as of a certain date. Those things have not been there as of the required date. Chair Brown asked about an alternative approach. Peter said we have the policies in the April 29 memo and can go back and look at it if the rules change. A private party can apply, but it will probably have to be revisited in 2015. Nick also added that another boundary may exist; staff may have to rely on findings, provided by a specific applicant. Chair Brown asked if another boundary was proposed would it require the consent/application of all the property owners? Peter said yes. 4 Public Testimony: Hal Keesling testified that he was confused by the memoranda issued. He wanted evidence of public input for and against the proposals in the Comprehensive Plan Update. He also wanted to see data from 19th Street regarding Deschutes Junction. He only knows one person who wants zoning changes and 400 who do not. People do not want to see a rural service center- they would like to see the rural character of the area enhanced. There can be problems with zoning changes from EFU to rural commercial. The County should not initiate zoning changes. If the public wants to, that is fine; but he does not want to see his tax dollars going to changes that he and other people do not want. In 4.9.1, 4.9.2, 4.9.3, he is not sure that the County can ensure a successful business environment so most of it should be left out: He also feels we should look at 2.020 and not 2015. He felt that the Commissioners do not have a complete picture of what, may go on, similar to the current deliberations on 19th Street. Zoning changes will create urban blight and lower land values. Tony Aceti felt that the staff report was very good. Change is happening and when there are needs for populations such as Deschutes Junction's (4000, with no services), that is the appropriate time for change. He thinks that good planning is necessary and historically Deschutes Junction has fallen "through the grates." He has tried to initiate this change but does not have the means to affect the law. He respects the neighborhoods, and they should stay rural in nature. It was a mistake not to put a boundary around this in 1979. James Lewis wanted to address the points raised in the Memo, with which he agrees. In February 2009, a letter was submitted by Mr. Aceti's attorney laying out all of the requirements for a rural service center. Terri Payne and Doug White tried unsuccessfully to locate a map of the boundaries. There was a hearings officer's decision about a building being called a dwelling last July — the second dwelling — so that evidence is in the record. He spoke about changes since 1998 including 19th Street, closing of intersections which has been discussed, Juniper Ridge, ODOT looking at a barrier on the highway to prevent turns — all of which are agency initiated, not privately. Those impacts are being put upon private property owners, so master planning should be done within the area indicated on the map. It should be County -initiated because it affects more than one property. The questions about what land designations should be will have to wait until the master plan process. He would like to see goals and policies indicptjng, a; master plan process should occur. Chair Brown asked Peter if anything new has come down from ODOT regarding access lanes, ingress and egress, etc. Peter said no. ODOT has lengthened the deceleration lanes and is working on a concept to deal with crossover problems around Gift Road. Chair Brown asked about business enterprises along the frontage road and how they are cited. Peter said they are established nonconforming uses. Vice Chair Criss asked about the diamond interchange, and Peter said it was felt that the current interchan22e would work for another 20 years. Commissioner Powell asked about the timeline for 19 Street. Peter said that there really is no timeline. A line was put on the map and has been appealed to LUBA. Chair Brown asked about unincorporated community service districts and whether they have been County -initiated. Nick said the County determined the specific areas in conjunction with the State. Peter Russell said they were all put on pre-existing population centers. Peter Gutowsky said it was through Periodic Review and carried forward from the Comp Plan process in 1979. The County did take the lead role in working with the State. Commissioner Powell spoke about rural service center designations in areas such as Tumalo, Deschutes Junction, Terrebonne. There were maps for communities with residential areas and 3 commercial nodes. There was no map for Deschutes Junction because it was a commercial strip with the Funny Farm (currently the pink house where signs were removed). Sunriver, Black Butte and Eagle Crest were designated as resorts to cover their types of communities. The gas station did not exist at the time, so it never got a designation one way or the other; a commercial zoning was stuck on it. The problem that arose during some of this was that once zoning had occurred, there wasn't much control over what went into the zones. Nick clarified that a rural service center is a type of unincorporated community. Commissioner Klyce mentioned a land use application sign that has been put up. Chair Brown asked about the population in Deschutes River Woods; a specific number was not available. Commissioner Klyce said he would like to see a frontage road that would close off Gift. He thought that a small convenience area made sense to reduce traffic coming into Bend to purchase small items. Chair Brown asked if a frontage road would be a Deschutes County project or an ODOT project, and Peter said he thought it would be an ODOT project. Nick felt that private property owners would also participate. Commissioner Powell said that changes in land use characteristics were discussed quite heatedly in the 1970's. There is an option to not modify land use just because a road is there. There will be encroachment from the south, from Bend with Juniper Ridge, perhaps a push south from Redmond. There was an attempt to keep the corridor between the two cities clean in the past. If land use planning changes just because an intersection is added, is this what we want to see? He would like to see the corridor remain unencumbered. If we zone an area commercial, there is no way to control it. Chair Brown mentioned James Lewis' statement that this should be approached with a master plan. Adjoining property owners can make applications to the County. We need to be responsible and look at growth by identifying needs. James Lewis said that there are multiple projects occurring and we could look at existing zoning. Peter Russell added that 19th Street is being planned, Juniper Ridge is only planned for 500 acres, DSL is 935 acres (EFU), so there is not a lot of imminent development that will change the traffic patterns at this time; it has to be looked at over 20 years. James Lewis and Peter discussed the public process. James felt there are enough different projects going that they need to be addressed in coordinated fashion. Nick indicated there are three tracks — one is to do nothing; another is to allow for minor changes; another would be to provide a fairly specific direction in terms of planning for an unincorporated community, which would give us a starting point in the process. Hal Keesling said that it sounded like we are going back and working on a service center plan. The public has previously indicated they do not want a master plan. The target seems to be moving and the public process starting again at the beginning because someone did not get the answer they wanted. Chair Brown responded that considering a master plan.. ,, does not mean we are endorsing commercial development, just getting an idea as to where we are heading. Hal said that the public does not want to see the EFU changed at all and does not want to see urban blight. When you change zones, as Commissioner Powell indicated, you change use. Chair Brown said he did not want a master plan to change any zone. He would like to see it used to identify what we are trying to do with an overall strategy - we do not want to start this process over. Vice Chair Criss asked if Hal meant the community conversations, when he spoke of meetings. Peter Russell said we had an open house, followed by smaller meetings in specific locations. Hal said people are here now because they want things to remain the same. He thought that participants in the stakeholders' meetings also indicated that no one wanted a master plan. Nick 4 said that at the first meeting, there were about 100 people and a resident called for a show of hands for a vote. No one did a count so it was not exact. Different groups of people came to different meetings and we do not have all the data in one place. We have a flavor for what people said they want. Terrebonne, Tumalo and La Pine all have their own districts. Commissioner Powell discussed developing a master plan in an area that does not have a lot of pressure to go that direction, which will cause some development. Is there a way to look at progressive development, or is it possible to key it so it is triggered as the pressure on the system begins to develop — for example, if 19th Street comes through and some provisions have to be made for safety and in conjunction with ODOT's plans? There may be a different kind of pressure than what exists today. He has been on both sides of the argument and it is difficult to look at this issue. It is okay for people to want to change the zoning on their lands. Nick mentioned policy 4.94. Commissioner Klyce and Peter discussed Pleasant Ridge. Chair Brown asked for more detail as to what happened at the meetings, and Peter mentioned follow up correspondence that was submitted. Peter and Nick discussed Hal's suggested language change regarding "assuring" businesses were successful. Peter and the Commissioners talked about eliminating #6 and #5 in the proposals, and whether #4 should be a County -initiated process, Commissioner Powell asked if this had to be an unincorporated community to look at a master plan. Nick said a transportation master plan could leave the land uses alone. Peter Gutowsky mentioned that the challenge staff runs into is that a master plan can be a part of the community planning process and vision based. The real challenge for planners and the community is trying to soften the wrinkles but still having the urban unincorporated rule that influences land use. Residents have expectations, but we run into walls with state law. To upzone :rural property, you need that designation. James Lewis wondered why we are doing a community plan if nothing can change. Peter Russell said the direction was to look at whether there was a consensus for what residents wanted and to consider what was possible under State law. Commissioner Powell and Nick spoke about possible triggers, such as the City of Bend expanding by a certain number of acres. A timeline of 2015 could be another trigger, and so could some significant development within a certain distance. Peter Russell said we could also consider the number of vacant lots, and Chair Brown added that another trigger could be the Board directing us to take another look. Nick and Chair Brown discussed policies 4.91 through 4.94. Commissioner Klyce suggested deleting the word "successful." If we use the word "consider," then we are not limited to County initiated or privately initiated revisions. Nick said the public hearing will be on August 26. The timing of bringing the information to the Commissioners was discussed. Vice Chair Criss spoke about citizen involvement. If people seek zoning changes individually, is the hearing process the only one that includes public involvement? Peter said yes. Vice Chair Criss and Peter discussed the public involvement process for a zone change in rural communities. Vice Chair Criss thought that if an individual wanted changes, the process would end with a hearings officer; it would be much more involved for a rural unincorporated community change. He felt that if enough of the public changes the zoning on their individual lands, it would necessitate even more participation by the public and an overall master plan approach. Peter said that much of the land is EFU and difficult to rezone. V. WORK SESSION: Tumalo Community Plan — Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner. Peter said we are waiting for the Health Impact Assessment. There will be a work session on July 8, with a public hearing in August. There are some extraordinary opportunities to link some of the regional trails between the State Park, Tumalo, etc. We need language coordinating with ODOT, safe access to Highway 20, etc. Chair Brown asked about the existence of developed homesites within the flood plain as was discussed when Kyle Gorman was here. Peter and Commissioner Powell discussed the soils in the area, which Peter said are generally poor. He will have more information in July on the flood plain and soil characteristics. VI. DELIBERATION: Terrebonne Community Plan — Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner. Peter spoke about the questions regarding the buildable lands inventory. The information is from the most recent Assessor's/GIS data and was not produced by planning staff. Commissioner Powell and Peter Russell discussed the TSP process. Solutions were considered for Lower Bridge Way and Highway 97. Nick summarized the proposed community plan amendments submitted by Chair Brown and Commissioner Klyce (copies in the record). Commissioner Klyce identified some areas where, if the owners would like properties redesignated as commercial, he feels the County should not stand in the way. He said that Terrebonne essentially wants to stay the way it is, and there are only a couple of minor tweaks we should consider. He drove through the town, checked the GIS/Assessor's map and found inconsistencies in four areas. He had looked for properties four years ago to develop and did not find many. He mentioned written testimony indicating only 40-50 developable lots, which seems low; the County's estimate of 200+ is too high. He spoke to a developer friend who feels there may be 100-150. It is probably not a good idea to include this map in the Comprehensive Plan because the information is too uncertain to be of real value in making decisions about Terrebonne's direction. He would like to see the map deleted until a more accurate version is available. The only way to really get a good handle is to go through the town lot by lot. Commissioner Powell asked about the criteria used by Commissioner Klyce. He said the area in the upper left corner is currently gravel, and Peter Gutowsky said it is zoned residential. Regarding the area outlined as #2 — there is no vacant lot there. Everything on that street is fenced and he questions,that. The area indicated as #4 shows a developed lot on the end and an undeveloped lot above it..., The developed lot had a house which was torn down and has not been replaced. The area marked as #3 is owned by the railroad to the best of his knowledge and may not be a viable residential lot. He only spent about 20 minutes and did not do an exhaustive survey. He just wants to point out that, due to discrepancies, he would not want to rely on this map to indicate the number of Terrebonne lots that can be developed. Peter said we could request that our GIS analyst attend a meeting. There are 221 undeveloped parcels, and Commissioner Klyce has identified only four discrepancies. Peter mentioned that we have overwhelming community consensus to keep the community as it is now. Nick said that the properties in question could be underdeveloped, and this does not necessarily mean buildable. The purpose of the map was to use it as a tool to look at undeveloped property. Peter said he did not see the map as the red herring — the issue is wrestling with the perspective of most of the community wanting to stay the way it is versus allowing more opportunities for growth. Commissioner Klyce said the community had spoken very clearly, and they want to stay the way they are. He just wanted to point out that the information on the map is inaccurate and perhaps should be re -labeled. Commissioner Powell asked if a buildable lot meant that it is approved for septic. Peter said that some of the lots were platted before statewide planning existed and sold to unsuspecting buyers. 6 Unincorporated communities can have sewer systems. It comes down to being able to meet the State's onsite wastewater requirements. Nick summarized current zoning. Peter Russell added that there was an attempt to limit development to the east side of 97 to minimize traffic crossing over from the west side of the highway. Commissioner Powell asked about the school's impact on traffic. Peter Russell said the enrollment is the same, but there has been additional residential development. The vet clinic was discussed as well as the abandoned post office nearby. Lot sizes, zoning and building size limits for urban incorporated communities were discussed. Commissioner Powell and Peter Russell discussed upzoning and eliminating direct access to the highway to improve safety. Peter suggested changing the "alternate access" language under #19b on Chair Brown's proposed amendment, because ODOT does not grant alternative access. Commissioner Powell asked Peter Gutowsky about community concerns and Peter said that most of the work had been done by a staff member who had been laid off. Nick said that the amendments could allow building improvements that might otherwise not exist, and/or add building uses that do not currently exist, but they could also lead to more traffic. Chair Brown mentioned the problems with trying to leave Terrebonne as it is, if that is what the residents want, but also improving crossing over the highway. Vice Chair Criss said that the DEQ had submitted a letter saying that if commercial development took place in Terrebonne, they would have to go to a sewer. Peter Gutowsky said this would be a case-by-case issue for residential lots. The DEQ provided policy language about allowed uses and densities that can be served by an approved onsite system until such time as a community sewer system is available. Peter and Vice Chair Criss discussed DEQ's comments, which said that the construction of large commercial development required a community sewer system. Commissioner Klyce mentioned that the carrying capacity of much of the soil is low, which limits development, and putting a sewer system in would really intensify the development that residents do not want. Motion: Commissioner Klyce voted to accept #19 as amended. Seconded by Vice Chair Criss. Motion approved unanimously. Motion: Chair Brown motioned to support the privately -initiated Commercial Expansion Area Map Amendment to the Terrebonne Community Plan and zone change from Residential to TeCR Commercial -Rural District for properties at the southeast corner of F Avenue and 13th Street. Seconded by Commissioner Klyce Discussion: Commissioners Powell and Klyce discussed whether there was a need to do the zone change. Commissioner Powell said that lots across the street would be impacted. Vice Chair Criss asked if Hal meant the community conversations when he spoke of meetings. Peter Russell said again that we conducted a Comp Plan open house and then smaller meetings in specific areas. Hal said people are there now because they want things to remain the same. He thought that in the stakeholders' meetings it was also indicated that no one wanted a master plan. Chair Brown mentioned that some Commissioners had also attended the meetings. Nick summarized the show of hands and general flavor for what people said they wanted. 7 Vote: Commissioner Klyce and Chair Brown voted in favor, Commissioner Powell and Vice Chair Criss voted against. Vote split. Chair Brown and Commissioner Powell discussed PUC regulation. Staff will research this further before it is sent to the Board. Vote: Sending the policies forward to the Board as amended, approved unanimously. (Note: No motion was made.) VII. DISCUSSION: Follow Up on South County Citizen Initiatives — Nick Lelack, Planning Director. Nick spoke about Mr. Neary's proposed resolution and Mr. Ray proposing that the Planning Commission make a resolution (but he did not submit anything specifically stating it). Vice Chair Criss discussed being a resident of South Deschutes County and being in a class of people who would be affected by the "back door Local Rule." He is not currently a member of the Citizens' Action Group. He would like the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the Board that Ordinance 2008-19 be rescinded. A number of people have been adversely impacted by this. The DEQ and the citizens are in the process of forming a committee, and this ordinance is in the way. It was originally a part of the Local Rule. He continually hears about how hard times are financially, so why are we wasting money when this, if rescinded, would allow us to come up with a clear, sustainable plan. There are 24 folks who are affected. They may have to pay for an onsite system and perhaps another burden later of hooking up to a community system. They do not feel there is a threat of lawsuits against the County if this rule is rescinded. These systems are already required for new construction. Motion: Vice Chair Criss motioned to recommend to the Board that the Back Door Local Rule, #2008-19, be rescinded. There was no second to the motion. Commissioner Powell felt that this issue is larger than just South County. It has to do with not only the water but how people perceive they are treated by governmental regulations. Is there a way to take all of this and forward it to the Board and ask them to look at this — other areas as well as South County? Chair Brown agreed that we need to be careful in how we look at these important issues. Funding needs to be considered. Commissioner Powell wanted to pass on the concerns of the people to the Board. Chair Brown suggested that it appeared there was an oversight, and one ordinance was repealed and the other was not. Commissioner Powell discussed the issues with an unrecognized member of the audience. Chair Brown said he would like to take something to the Board saying that we recognize the public's concerns and ask the Board to take a look at the proposals. The Commissioners discussed how to make a motion to bring this forward to the Board, in their capacity as an advisory body. Vice Chair Criss discussed the BLM land the County owns and the "intent" as to how the money would be used, which is not legally binding. There is concern about statements made by the Board that they cannot pass down binding financial commitments, but they do this with budgets so that statement does not make sense. There are at least 26,000 people being affected. Chair Brown said he had heard and read that the County had done its job, and he would want to be really careful about what is true and what can be relied on. If the County is performing as they need to, with the monies that they have available, this would be a problem if we do not have accurate information and base something on threats and emotions, which can be intense. He is uncomfortable making an endorsement and the Board already has the information. M Commissioner Powell felt this is important enough to pass on. Chair Brown asked Nick if we have any purview over the budget items, and Nick said we can make recommendations. This is already in the budget document and the funds have been set aside. The Commissioners discussed possible language and forwarding to the Board in its advisory capacity. Commissioner Powell discussed not wanting to cut off any receptivity and setting the stage appropriately. He mentioned the possibility of attending a Board meeting and making a presentation. Chair Brown spoke about the problem of whether or not the speaker is authorized by the Planning Commission to represent all of them. Nick said that if the Commissioners want to address the issue as part of the Comprehensive Plan, a meeting could be scheduled with the Board in July during an update and more information given to them at that time. Commissioner Powell wondered.; if a motion should be made making this part of the Comprehensive Plan update process and the�specific language worked on later. Commissioner Powell suggested that they motion to forward the information to the Board, preferably in a Plan update format, and indicate that the Commissioners have concerns that they hope will be addressed in the Comprehensive Plan. Because of its pertinence to current activities, the Commissioners would like to make sure there is no delay in forwarding the information to the Board. He felt that everyone's concerns are important, but someone has to weigh them, which will not please everyone. You have to acknowledge the people who take the time to express their views, and this appears to be the problem. The manner in which it was perceived and handled, and people thinking they have not been acknowledged, appear to be the problems. VIII. OTHER ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA None. IX. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS. Nick mentioned meetings for the( subcommittee on the destination resort work group and the upcoming tours of three resorts on Friday, July 16. X. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respec Ily submitted, S er uc ner, rnstrative Secretary NEXT MEETING — June 24, 2010, at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97701 9'