HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-11-18 - Planning Commission MinutesCommunity Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils 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
NOVEMBER 18, 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, James Powell, Merle Irvine, Bill Rainey, Todd Turner and Richard Klyce.
Staff present were Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner; Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner;
and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary.
II. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
III. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance 2011-001, Destination Resort Map Amendments - Peter
Gutowsky, Principal Planner.
Commissioner Turner mentioned that his firm has worked on a number of destination resorts
in the County but has no ongoing relationship with any of them. Peter gave a PowerPoint
presentation. Vice Chair Criss asked how many of the grandfathered lots whose owners
want to remain on the map are 160 acres or more. Peter said none, because properties of
160 acres or more that are not in an urban reserve or deer migration area are not eligible. He
needs to confirm this. Commissioner Turner asked if there have been requests for eligible
land to be removed. Peter said there have — as an example, there is one in Aspen Lakes.
Commissioner Powell asked about a definition of "abut." Peter said he understands that the
"contiguous" and "adjoining" definitions provide enough clarity for the County to determine
which properties are contiguous. If they touch at a common point, they are considered to be
"adjoining" or "abutting," and they do not have to share a common border. Commissioner
Powell asked if any additions to the map were intended to be standalone destination resorts
or folded into an existing resort. Peter said he did not recall a discussion on that, but State
law requires a minimum of 160 acres. Eagle Crest went through three phases, each of which
had to be processed independently. We do not have a criterion today saying someone who
has an existing resort can add land of any size to expand that development. His
understanding is that the purpose of this map amendment is to identify contiguous parcels
that can accommodate a resort, and they have to demonstrate 50% open space, a minimum
Quality Services Performed with Pride
of $7,000,000 worth of recreational amenities, etc. A resort proposal has to be independent
of anything existing. There has to be a minimum of 160 acres.
Commissioner Powell asked if, in our consideration of the proposal, we do not have to deal
with whether or not a resort actually exists adjacent to any parcel, nor do we have to consider
cumulative impacts, transportation plans or anything else that would be part of the conditional
use process or the resort designation process? Peter said the intent behind the map
amendment criteria is to make this process clear, objective and straightforward. The master
plan process has been shown to be very litigious, as can be seen in the Thornburgh example.
We also have to demonstrate consistency with the Transportation Planning Rule.
Public Testimony:
Merry Ann Moore felt that the ordinances are very deeply flawed and they should be repealed
and the process started over. She said the ordinances do not produce an accurate map of
where resorts can be located. When you have 610 people who can be grandfathered in who
do not have 160 -acre parcels, they are going to believe that some day they can build a resort.
This will result in continued disputes. The ordinances contradict themselves as well as State
and County statutes, in such areas as whether subdivisions can remain (DLCD has said they
cannot become resorts, but Aspen Lakes and other clusters can remain in the map). Current
landowners can stay in regardless of their parcel size. How well are current resorts meeting
building requirements? How are the rules being enforced and monitored? The County needs
this information before it proceeds with a new map and the need for any more resorts is
considered. She would like the Commissioners to consider a disparity between (1) people
not wanting to be in the map not having their rights respected; and (2) others who have never
heard from the County on how to be removed. All property owners in the County should get
a notice stating how they can remain in the map, and the process should be repealed.
Steve Holtzberg of Pine Forest Development, LLC, agreed that their application meets all
objective criteria. He also responded to Commissioner Powell's question about adding land
and whether a resort had to be "standalone." Steve said that it appears that the resort would
have to stand alone but could be combined later on, providing it still meets criteria. The TPR
says there is a two-step process — whether or not there is a significant effect on
transportation. Just by merely adding property, you are not adding traffic to the roads. You
have to have a traffic study and deal with the County's very restrictive planning requirements.
We have found that because no trips are being added, it does comply with the TPR.
Toby Bayard agreed with Merry Ann Moore. Everyone should have an equal footing in
whether they will be on the map or not. The County's goal has been to shrink the map, and if
the ordinance goes as crafted, this will not be achieved in a clear way. Parcels will be on the
map that won't ever be eligible unless the owners get together for 160 acres. As we know
with Tetherow, multiple owners and financial interests cause problems. In this area of
shrinking budgets, how will the County follow these developments? There are plenty of
things we need — why create problems going into this? She would like to see this ordinance
repealed and feels it will cause problems in the future.
Tia Lewis, representing Agnes Delashmutt, agreed with the discussions about the TPR. She
wanted to address the eligibility issue raised in the presentation in relation to the 40 -acre
parcel that is part of their application. Rather than being presented as an issue for the
Commissioners' consideration, it was concluded in the presentation that the 40 -acre parcel is
ineligible. This is the Commissioners' decision to make, and it is unfortunate that staff chose
not to present it that way. There are two separate criteria — a mapping criteria requiring a
2
minimum of 160 contiguous acres, which the applicant has. The State criteria requires 160
contiguous acres, and this land is zoned for destination resorts. Their 40 -acre parcel can be
developed in conjunction with other lands, contrary to what Peter said.
Paul Dewey commented on Tia's comment about the staff making recommendations. He
disagrees with several that were made by staff tonight, but that is a normal process.
Liz Fancher, representing Belveron Real Estate Partners, said that their property is over 160
acres and they have a neighboring property that was also included with the application. They
are located on the south side of the road, and the idea on that one side is better suited for
open space, while the other would be better for lodging/homes.
Peter Gutowsky said that the maps showing lands to be added are in the case file and
represented by 2011-001, Exhibit A, and 2011-002, Exhibit A. Chair Brown said that
Ms. Fancher spoke about an applicant having 160 acres alone, who came in with another
property so they more than met the rule; but on the other side, if anyone who is adjacent to
another parcel wants to come in, they have to be 160 acres alone. If someone wants to be a
part of this and adjoins another parcel that is 160 acres, what is their option? Peter said they
would have to initiate a legislative amendment to change the criterion — they have a parcel
that is less than 160 acres adjacent to lands that are designated. This is not the case today.
You have to have 160 contiguous acres under one or more ownerships today to add lands to
the map. Liz Fancher's clients meet that. Tia Lewis' example is one 40 -acre parcel that does
not. The County can make changes no more frequently than once every 30 months. One
could initiate a legislative amendment to modify the criteria.
Commissioner Rainey said he would like to see a written statement from Ms. Lewis as to the
arguments she presented orally. Chair Brown said that what we are doing is the ordinance,
but Commissioner Rainey said he would like to see her argument in writing. Chair Brown
cautioned against evaluating individual applications. Commissioner Powell and Peter
discussed staff's interpretation of the criteria. Peter said he had conferred with our own legal
counsel and also indicated this to Ms. Lewis in September.
Motion: Commissioner Irvine motioned to continue the hearing until January 27, 2011 and
keep the written and oral records open. Seconded by Commissioner Turner. Motion
approved unanimously.
IV. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance 2011-003, Comprehensive Plan Update — Terri Hansen
Payne, Senior Planner.
Terri gave a PowerPoint presentation. Commissioner Turner asked about a definition for
private parks and agriculture and whether this is the first time they have been mentioned.
Terri said that they have been discussed before.
Public Testimony:
Joe Stutler, Deschutes County Forester and Project Wildfire Chair, submitted written
testimony with some suggested revisions.
Tony Aceti spoke about changes on EFU land and indicated that the bar will be high. He will
be interested in seeing how this develops over time.
Hal Keesling, of Starwood, spoke about transportation planning issues in Deschutes Junction
and that they need to be coordinated with the Comprehensive Plan.
Jon Jinings of DLCD said they were pleased for the County and appreciated the opportunity
to be involved. This is the project they would like to see all the counties undertake. They are
still reviewing the document and have emailed Terri about a couple of very small changes.
Sharon Smith testified on behalf of Tumalo Irrigation District. She had submitted information in
June. The District recently made some changes to its headworks and diversion dam to comply
with a new fish screen and fish ladder requirements. They would like to see this information
included in the current Comp Plan to make it accurate and more efficient — this item can be
crossed off the list. Commissioner Brown and Terri spoke about technical corrections to the
Comp Plan. We had decided to re -do Goal 5 after the Comp Plan is done, and we will still end
up with a resource list that is incorrect for that Goal. Chair Brown, Vice Chair Criss and Richard
Klyce all agreed that it would be best to put the most current information into the Comp Plan
rather than wait and do Goal 5 later.
Terri and Chair Brown discussed defining private parks and events on farmland.
Commissioner Turner and Terri discussed defining private parks in the Comp Plan. Terri
thought it would provide a starting point for discussions. Commissioner Turner mentioned the
whole issue of the definition of private parks having to be recreationally oriented. If we take
that definition and try to mix it with agriculture, there may be some disconnect.
Commissioner Klyce spoke about testimony that Nick gave during Kelly Brown's trial as
private parks being viable for wedding events. Commissioner Turner agreed that there are
people with opposing views and wondered why we are trying to insert this controversial issue
into the Comp Plan. Chair Brown spoke about whether we need to address a definition of
private parks. Commissioner Turner questioned why we would have a definition in the
glossary. Terri said if we put it in the glossary, we would have to add a paragraph in the
agriculture section as to why it matters. Commissioner Powell asked if this definition would
only apply to agricultural lands, or would it be a more global definition applicable to any
lands? Terri said she had not given it that much thought — she just was asked to bring it up to
the Commissioners for them to discuss.
Motion: Commissioner Klyce motioned to ask Terri to explore the definition of private parks
further. Seconded by Vice Chair Criss.
Discussion: Commissioner Powell said he was in favor of exploring it, but he is seeing a list
of unintended consequences. Chair Brown thought that if the Commissioners decided to
pursue this, it would go to the Board for their determination. Terri mentioned that she had put
a definition of "agritourism" in the glossary.
Motion passed, 6-1.
Chair Brown spoke about the State wanting us to look at agricultural zoning. Terri said that
as she understands it, the idea is that right now, besides the Big Look, HB 2229, there is a
separate process to go through. You can do a goal exception and show that you shouldn't be
zoned agricultural, or you can have the soils tested and show that they don't meet the soil
classification for agriculture. You also have to show that your land is not needed for
agriculture. Commissioner Turner asked where this came from — Terri said people have
been talking to Nick. Terri and Commissioner Turner discussed spot zoning.
Jon Jinings testified about the test for the definition of agricultural land. It is in statewide
planning Goal 3. They would think that it would be beneficial to think about a program to
establish a policy and decide what areas to focus on. Commissioner Powell said that one of
the problems in dealing with agricultural lands in 1979 was that the practicality of many of the
lands was questionable. If you used criteria such as soils and allowed spot zoning, there are
places where soil accumulations and soils vary. Is there a potential problem in having an
area with water delivery methods allowing zone changes within parcels or groups of parcels,
which could impact the viability of surrounding parcels? How do we look at these types of
parameters? Jon said that he would be concerned about that. You could consider what
alternatives you might offer for lands that do not need to be protected for agricultural
purposes. That does not mean they can have a one- or two -acre subdivision, and the County
can make those choices.
Chair Brown felt that there is EFU land in the County that should be reclassified — not
necessarily for subdivisions but perhaps another way. Commissioner Powell wondered what
impact that would currently have on the Comp Plan. This is one of the key resource protections
that the Plans are required to address, so do we want to proceed forward with the Plan in terms
of definitions and policies and then come back to look at this? Chair Brown was concerned that
the agricultural section needs to apply to agricultural lands. There is a broad stroke of EFU
land in the County, and at times the zoning may have been misapplied — we should just
recognize this. We have even discussed calling it an "EFU reserve." Commissioner Turner
mentioned Policy 2.2.10 which refers to "accurately designated EFU lands."
Peter Gutowsky said this is a three -tiered process. First, we need to look at whether there is
interest from the Planning Commission as to the concept and examine whether new policies
should be added. Second is to consider the possibility of, more refined draft policies that guide
the County into exploring a work program. Step three would be some program after the Comp
Plan update — we would have to address types of new uses, come up with new criteria, etc.
Commissioner Turner and Peter discussed current language in the Plan regarding this topic.
Motion: Commissioner Rainey motioned to continue the hearing to December 2. Seconded
by Vice Chair Criss.
V. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS.
Commissioner Turner asked about the process for people to request to be removed from the
map. Peter said that outside of Aspen Lakes, parties can come in through the current process
and request that they be unmapped. Commissioner Powell commended the staff on their work.
VI. ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitt�d��//�
er Buc ner, Administrative Secretary
NEXT MEETING — December 2, 2010, at 5:30 p.m. at the
Sisters City Hall, 520 E. Cascade Ave., Sisters, Oregon