Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-07-08 - Planning Commission MinutesCommunity 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 JULY 8, 2010 - 5:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Vice Chair Ed Criss. Members present were Richard Klyce, James Powell, Todd Turner, Keith Cyrus and Merle Irvine. Absent:. Chair Chris Brown. Staff present were Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. Minutes of April 22, 2010 were approved. 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. III. PUBLIC HEARING: — TA -10-4, initiated by Deschutes County, to amend Deschutes County Code, DCC Chapter 2.28, Historical Preservation and Historical Landmarks Commission. The amendments primarily revise existing restrictions in DCC Chapter 2.28 - Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner. Commissioner Turner mentioned a possible conflict of interest due to his work as an architect, but he did not think it would affect any decisions he might make. Peter summarized the work to date. He recommended that the written and oral records be kept open until July 22 - until after he has asked members of the Historical Landmarks Commission if they would like to be present at that meeting to provide input. There is a also a move among some of the local municipalities to break away from the nine -member Commission and form their own. Bend may initiate an ordinance to create its own Commission and Code for historic issues in the community. If this happens, the County would amend its own Code. Redmond and Sisters may also go on their own. These municipalities would be eligible to receive $10,000 a year from the State if they form their own Commissions. Commissioner Irvine asked if the entire Historical Landmarks Commission had reviewed the proposal. Peter said an email had been sent, and they will receive a packet similar to that sent to the Planning Commissioners. Quality Services Performed with Pride Commissioner Powell asked if this is primarily voluntary in terms of instituting the registration of a building or property. Peter said that is his understanding and there are procedures in the Code for adding/demolishing properties. This would really address whether there needs to be an expansion on a property and how that occurs, how to add a property to the roll of the Landmarks Commission, etc. Commissioner Powell asked if he owned a property and wanted to have it registered, could he apply to the Commission to do that? Does the designation go with the property if sold, and is the next owner obligated to follow the provisions of the registration? Peter said yes. Commissioner Powell asked if another entity could petition an owner to add something to the register, or if the owner has to. Peter said he would carry this question to the Commission, and what he has been told is that this is a State requirement. Any interest in adding a site to a historic register must have the endorsement of the property owner. Commissioner Powell asked about language regarding receipt of a request "from" the Landmarks Commission, and another phrase later which indicated "by" the Landmarks Commission, on pages 5 and 6. Peter said he would raise that question to the Landmarks Commission at the next meeting. Commissioner Klyce asked about an item on page 2 concerning architectural significance having been substantially altered/destroyed; an item referring to minor/major alterations which is out of alphabetical order; and the definition of "structure." Perhaps it should follow with the County's definition of structure for consistency including having a fixed connection to the ground such as in Title 18. Also, should there be a mechanism for removal from historical designation? Structure of some of the wording was discussed. On page 6, in the Procedures section, he would feel more comfortable with definite timelines. This seems pretty open ended and things could drag on forever in some situations. Peter said that he asked at a recent staff meeting how many times they have administered this ordinance, and the planners said none. He would be happy to explore timelines with the Landmarks Commission. Commissioner Turner agreed with the need for timelines. Peter said if it is quasi-judicial issue, and property is located in the City, they have to make a decision within 180 days; 150 days of it's within the County. Commissioner Klyce also asked who has control over signage as mentioned in 2.28. Peter said the Landmarks Commission would like to have the final say beyond the Deschutes County Sign Code. Commissioner Klyce asked if the Landmarks Commission could include an individual who has current knowledge of methods and materials for construction. In Appendix E, great emphasis is given to people from various disciplines, but no one from a trade is mentioned. Peter agreed and we could look to modify that.. The goal is to have adequate public participation. Peter said that staff would recommend continuing the hearing to July 22. Motion: Commissioner Irvine motioned to leave oral and written testimony open and continue the hearing until July 22. Commissioner Cyrus seconded. Motion passed unanimously. IV. WORK SESSION: — Tumalo Community Plan — Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner. Commissioner Powell mentioned that he and his wife have owned property in the area for 20 years — next to the unincorporated community boundary but not within it. He does not feel this presents a conflict. I•! Peter said that the hearing has been scheduled for August 26. Commissioner Klyce spoke about the Industrial Area Policies on page 25 and felt they might prohibit development of a lot in the R & D zoning area. Commissioner Turner mentioned that Bend Research has operated in the area for a long time. Commissioner Irvine commented on the Health Impact Assessment and the stated "emerging practice in the U.S. to influence traffic." He mentioned the prohibition of fast-food locations which is occurring certain areas. Peter said it was not contemplated in this process and certain uses really cannot be prohibited, only their structures regulated. One way that some communities have tried to get away from what they consider "blight," signage, etc., is to limit drive-throughs. But we have not heard this at all during this Comp Plan update. Commissioner Powell said that the Beaver Lane area is not shown zoned correctly on the map — it is not a five -acre residential minimum. Peter said he would provide context on the 26tH Commissioner Turner added that the parcels might pre-exist zoning. Commissioner Powell also mentioned the Laidlaw Water District. For both Terrebonne and Tumalo, are we creating a problem by specifying the water district? If this is for a 20 -year period of time, he has not heard of problems with Laidlaw but has heard of problems with the Terrebonne Water District. Are we setting the stage for future problems if we put specific districts in control of development? Peter discussed privatized districts and can check with Legal Counsel on further details as to what rights they have. Water districts and costs were considered, and Peter said he will try to provide more information next week. Commissioner Turner asked about coordination of sewer districts. A few years ago he recalled a DLCD representative saying that development of sewer districts outside a UGB was not acceptable under State law. Peter said that an exception is not needed for urban unincorporated communities. Commissioner Powell said that the people he had talked to in the Tumalo area really appreciated staff coming out to meet with them. Commissioner Klyce said he was curious about land on either side of Tumalo Road and whether it was a gravel pit at one time. Commissioner Cyrus said it was a reclaimed surface mine a long time ago. Vice Chair Criss asked about a sewer facility for the area and people being required to put in ATT systems where the sewer may go. He is concerned that people may have to install ATT systems unnecessarily, such as in the case of South County. It seems that communities developing small lots need to look at this. Peter said if there is someone who wants to develop today, they have to meet State requirements, which may mean meeting onsite requirements. If there is a movement in the future to develop sewer, that is a separate issue. The challenge in South County is entirely different — a sewer district has not been formed in Oregon since before Statewide planning. They are extremely expensive, which is why they are not popping up everywhere. Commissioner Klyce asked if there was a general requirement for ATT systems in Tumalo. Peter said he would get more information. V. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS. Commissioner Irvine mentioned the last two BOCC hearings on destination resorts. He looked at the written information submitted to the Board. There was an ordinance and findings (Exhibit B) and a section that referred to the Planning Commission's recommendation on December 2. It was completely silent regarding the recommendation made on February 25, and he was curious as to why that was omitted. Peter said that the February 25 recommendation was entered into the record on March 1 for the Board's public hearing; his approach was that, procedurally, the Planning Commission did make a recommendation and the Board held its hearing on January 20 based on the Planning Commission's desire to revisit to the recommendation. It was 3 modified as stated on February 25. He did not articulate that, in part because throughout the hearing process, he asked the Board for its policy recommendation. They said they wanted to reduce the map, which informed Peter to structure the staff report that way. The February 25 recommendation from the Planning Commission was entered into the record and that was the approach he chose. Commissioner Irvine felt that it should have been part of the findings as to why the ordinance was adopted. Right now it looks like the Planning Commission made a recommendation that was ignored. Peter said that was the first time in his experience that a recommendation was made such as this while a hearing was going on before the Board. Peter spoke about this Planning Commission making two recommendations regarding opting in and platted subdivisions — the findings justifying the ordinance reference the first Planning Commission recommendation. The second recommendation did not go the way the Board had directed staff. Peter had to structure the burden of proof to justify the Board's final decision. Peter said there was a written account of the Planning Commission's February 25 recommendation. Three Planning Commissioners testified on June 30, and it was also reiterated on April 19 (based on the February 25 recommendation). Commissioner Baney asked Peter for a recommendation based on the December 2 Planning Commission recommendation. Commissioner Cyrus felt that if this ever came up again, it should be made clear if a vote will rescind an original decision. Peter said that it should have probably required a new hearing and been rescinded. It gets really messy because of a new hearing and possibly a new Measure 56 notice. The matter was also complicated in December when the Chair said he wanted a decision to be made. It could have been held off and more consideration given until after the new year. Commissioner Cyrus said he remembered that Commissioner Irvine was reluctant to vote due to the water issues. Commissioner Powell and Peter discussed the history of the meetings and ordinance. Commissioner Turner felt that it seems like there are times where no matter what the issue, meetings are scheduled when decisions have not been made; and perhaps things need to be continued and the schedule changed. Commissioner Klyce asked if the Commissioners would be willing to appoint a press liaison officer. Commissioner Turner said he has told the media when they contacted him that he would not speak to them on the record, and he would be against it. Commissioner Klyce asked if all comments should be off the record. Commissioner Powell said there is really no such thing, and Commissioner Irvine felt it was a case-by-case issue. The Commissioners discussed representation during Board sessions. VI. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectf Ily submitted, Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary NEXT MEETING — July 22, 2010, at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97701 4