Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-03-28 Business Meeting MinutesDeschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2011 _____________________________ Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend __________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney and Tony DeBone; and Commissioner Alan Unger via conference call. Also present were Peter Russell, George Read and Nick Lelack, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; and approximately twenty other citizens. Chair Baney called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. 2. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of a Decision on File #DR-10-3, a Declaratory Ruling on the Permanent Residential Status of a Structure on the Northwest Quadrant of the Deschutes Junction Interchange. Chair Baney read the opening statement at this time. (A copy is attached for reference.) Commissioner Unger said he had nothing to disclose in the way of ex parte contacts, bias, pre-hearing observations or conflicts of interest. Chair Baney stated that other than noticed work sessions and what she has seen in the newspaper, she had nothing to disclose. Commissioner DeBone said he has met with various individuals in the past, but there is nothing he feels that is subject to disclosure. Peter Russell gave a brief Powerpoint presentation. He emphasized that the underlying zoning (rural commercial) remains the same regardless of the decision on the declaratory ruling. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 28, 2011 Page 1 of 11 Pages Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 28, 2011 Page 2 of 11 Pages Records show that the structure was originally built in 1934, and has been improved and used for a variety of purposes since then. “Permanent” is not defined in Code, and is critical when referring to the OAR’s. Therefore, dictionaries were consulted to define what this means. Staff feels that the rural service center designation does not apply due to the structure’s lack of a permanent status as a residential dwelling. The Board had no questions of Mr. Russell. Commissioner DeBone asked if a conclusion is to be reached today. Chair Baney said that this depends on what kind of testimony is given and if there are any questions at the end of the hearing that might merit a continuance. It was explained that the County is the applicant in this case, in order to bring forth a clear opinion of the status of the subject property. Tony Aceti presented documents and then offered testimony. He referred to a board with photos and other information. (A copy of these documents is attached for reference.) He feels that Deschutes Junction has always been an unincorporated community and there have been structures there since the 1920’s. People have resided in the subject property for many years. At one time there was a restaurant, a hotel and other buildings in the past. He feels that an error was made in 1995 by the Assessor. There have been many newspaper articles that referred to the area as a community, including the subject property. The County has the ability to correct this error. He referenced a building located at the corner of Highway 20 and Cooley Road. He was going to place the Hay Depot at that location some time ago. The building was established in 1925. This year, the Assessor still shows it as a residence even though it has been vacant for more than 15 years. The subject property has been occupied until recently. The subject property has been subject to applications to improve it in various ways, which were denied as it was not felt to be appropriate for commercial use. Therefore, it should remain a grandfathered use as residential if no other use is appropriate or approved. Mr. Aceti feels that correcting this mistake would allow for better master- planning of the entire area. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 28, 2011 Page 3 of 11 Pages Commissioner DeBone asked if there are bedrooms and bathrooms in the building at this time. Mr. Aceti said there is a kitchen and bathroom. The 1995 Assessor’s letter says there is no obvious heat source, but there is a chimney and fireplace. He feels that it is still a residence even though it is not currently occupied. Gene Carsey, who has resided at Deschutes Junction for many years and lived most of those years in the subject property, then spoke. He and his partner originally lived in a small building on the subject property for two years, in the 1970’s, then moved into the bigger structure that remains. There was no indoor plumbing at the time, but there is now. There has always been a heat source. Commissioner Unger asked to clarify if there was a bathroom. He was advised that there was none in that building at the time, but there was one on the property and there is one now in the building. Jeff Boyer said he supports the comprehensive work being done by staff, and agrees with their recommendation. He asked why the County, and not the property owner, paid for the application. Paul Dewey for Central Oregon Landwatch requested seven days after the hearing to respond to whatever new written material might be submitted today. He supports the staff report and feels that it is quite thorough. He said that the County has already been there in determining this is not a rural service center in 2002 and wondered why this issue is being revisited at this time. The OAR’s state that this can be revisited as circumstances change over time, but only if there are current changes. There is no indication that the property is being used as a residence, so he is unclear why this is being addressed at all at this time. The early history of the property would have been reviewed in 2002. There was a landscaping business and then it was vacated. He commented that the issue is the status of the so-called residence. Staff did not mention that to qualify as a rural service center, there needs to be more than one residence on a particular site. The OAR’s say that there need to be “some” residences, which might mean more than one or two. He is unclear why the County is going through this exercise. Even if this qualified as a residence, it still could not qualify as a rural service center. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 28, 2011 Page 4 of 11 Pages Chair Baney said there have been changes in that area, including discussions about potential development at Juniper Ridge. The comprehensive plan is also being revised at this time. It is important to clarify this as part of the overall issue, which is why the County called it up. Mr. Dewey feels that the overall plan is important, but he questions why the status of this property needs to be revisited again. David Allen, who represents the Fagen’s (the owners of the property), stated that it is important to make some clarifications. His clients are not in favor of staff’s opinion. In regard to the unincorporated community ruling, there are requirements to be considered. Permanent residential dwellings must have been in existence prior to 1994. Everything that occurred after that date is irrelevant. There is Oregon law to support this (Tillamook County). There is a lot on record about the property being a residence prior to 1994. A septic permit was taken out in 1978 and again in 2005, as a residential dwelling. Even staff’s report reinforces this. The 1992 decision was for a zone change, which was denied by the County. There is no reference made to there being no permanent residential dwellings, and 1992 was prior to the change in the law. The Hearings Officer stated that the Goal 14 issue was not properly addressed. In 1994 and 1997 inventories, the property was held as exempt. The property always has been developed. In 1999, as part of the periodic review, the rural service center designation was reviewed, but not much can be found to analyze this as a permanent residential dwelling. The hearing is about policies for the area, but there are questions about what you can and cannot do at Deschutes Junction. This scope of this application is very limited. There are a lot of residences in the general area that are not that old. The Board does not need to make a final determination. This would be done in the vacuum. No one has filed for an application. The 1.77 acres is one analysis, but it would be different if a wider net were thrown. This will inhibit the Board making good decisions on long-range planning there. The Fagens could literally put a renter in the property today and it would be a residence. No further testimony was offered by the public. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 28, 2011 Page 5 of 11 Pages Mr. Russell said that people have lived there, but it was not considered a residence. It was a commercial use with living quarters upstairs when Mr. Carsey lived there. All there has been in that location is commercial use. In 2002, the County did an internal review of unincorporated communities and the property was not listed, and in 1997 it was not listed either. There are no robust findings for 2002, but there are some. There have been findings in place since 2002. If it were to be a residence, changes would have to be made. Ms. Craghead said that it could be considered abandoned or was not legally used as a residence due to no internal plumbing and a time being vacant. Chair Baney feels more information is needed and would prefer to allow some time to get new evidence, including oral testimony. Commissioner Unger wants to be deliberate and allow adequate time. Commissioner DeBone said he’d like more of a big vision, to step back and figure out what this all means. Mr. Russell said they are intertwined, but the transportation and land use policies to come have to do with the area as a whole. Ms. Craghead said the big picture cannot be affected by this particular issue. Commissioner DeBone stated this is a long-term decision and he does not have a good feel for it yet. The hearing was continued to Monday, April 18, 2011 at the 10:00 a.m. business meeting. Commissioner Unger left the meeting at this time. 3. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 2011-005, Amending Code to Create Transportation and Land Use Policies for Deschutes Junction. Chair Baney read the opening statement for this item. (A copy is attached for reference.) Regarding ex parte contacts, bias, pre-hearing observations or conflicts of interest, none were disclosed. Chair Baney stated that she has received the same information that everyone else in the room can access. Mr. Russell gave a presentation that summarized the last few years of staff work on this issue. He explained the changes since land use went into place in 1979. There were a variety of uses until about 2002. The area was identified as a rural service center in the comprehensive plan rural development policy #13. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 28, 2011 Page 6 of 11 Pages These are compact commercial areas, with the intent to maintain the rural character of the area. In 1994, policies were developed regarding designations of resort community, rural community, rural service center, and urban unincorporated community. The rural service center designation refers to ‘some’ residential dwellings, but that could mean as little as two. A survey in 1994 found that the area did not fit the designation. It is part of the 1997 State survey of incorporated communities and it was found it does not fit. The County looked at this again in 1997 and in 2002, and found there was no firm proof of more than one residential dwelling. In 2002, it was designated as a commercial/rural industrial area, and this decision was not appealed. The commercial/industrial use would be limited and small. The comprehensive plan has been subject to updates since 2002. There have been open houses and hearings in the meantime to discuss the future of the area. All parties agreed that the interchange needs to be improved regardless of less or more development. There were a variety of opinions from the public on what should be done with the area as a whole, and little consensus. Most people wanted things to stay about the same. Most also felt that transportation was something that needed to be addressed regardless of the uses. Many people felt there was no need for a Deschutes Junction Community Plan. However, the property owners wish to reestablish a rural service center designation. Nothing staff has done preempts a private party from submitting an application for this designation. OAR 23.40.65, Deschutes Junction Policies would apply. A frontage road on the west side would be necessary in order to improve the interchange. OAR 3.40.65 (d) would encourage the County to establish an unincorporated community. Or, staff feels a master plan could be developed earlier if a private party applies for a change, or the County feels it is necessary due to development in the Juniper Ridge area or south of Redmond. Hal Keasling of Starwood subdivision said he would like to see the “new” 19th Street deleted and renamed. The findings do not mention 19th Street but it should be included. People around Deschutes Junction did not want this change to happen. This does not allow the rural character to remain. Neighborhoods need to be protected. Policies should be a general concept and not specific. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 28, 2011 Page 7 of 11 Pages Transportation should be improved, but that is up to ODOT. The policy needs to mirror the goal statements. There are three policies: maximize the rural community; have a safe travel plan; and if anything changes, the comprehensive plan would be reviewed. The findings should show the numbers of how many people are for or against certain things. The declaratory ruling on the one property needs to be included since it is part of Deschutes Junction. Commissioner DeBone asked about the name change of 19th St. Mr. Keasling said it needs to go back to the original name. He feels this road is not going to solve the problems of the cities of Bend or Redmond. Bert Swift, of the land use committee of Starwood, located about 1-1/2 miles west of the Junction, said that the concern is that any development will cause noise, congestion and traffic issues for the residents already in the area. (He provided a written statement.) He is concerned about what happens there and the potential ramifications. Open space and agricultural lands need to be encouraged and protected. Promoting a change needs to include the possible consequences of the change. Tracy Boyer of Boonesborough subdivision asked how many residents live in Starwood. Mr. Swift said around 600-700. Ms. Boyer spoke about the emotion impacts of potential changes. There are just a few people who want to change things, while most don’t. Jeff Boyer said this is not an issue of growth versus no growth. It is an issue of where growth is to take place. The response is very clear; the majority of residents want to maintain the current character of the area. He feels those who want change do not live in the area, so their input is not the same or as important. Sprawl does not make for good planning. The Planning Commission ignored the views of residents and staff. If the City of Bend wants to develop Juniper Ridge, the City should pay for change. The same for the City of Redmond. The County should not spend its money on this kind of thing. The Department of State Lands wanted land transferred to them from the BLM so it could be developed. The local citizens fought this for five years and won. The County wanted to build 19th Street from Deschutes Junction to Redmond. This issue was resolved and now it won’t happen. The question now is whether an unincorporated community is a done deal. It takes a high standard to show a strong need and no other available options. If he wanted city-type services near him, he would live in the city. Most of his neighbors feel the same way. He would like the Planning Commission recommendations removed from the plan. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 28, 2011 Page 8 of 11 Pages He brought twenty or more letters from others to share. (A copy is attached for reference.) Commissioner DeBone said the concept of an area with economic impact possibilities is important to consider. One piece could be future opportunities for someone to make a living locally. Mr. Boyer said there is plenty of land available for development and vacant properties. Commissioner DeBone feels that sometimes a shorter distance is better for some workers. The economy has to be the driver, so it is some time in the future. Tony Aceti stated that for two years the Planning Commission combed through information and witnessed a hand vote, and there was no predetermined reason to be there. Over 110 people showed up. The subject was Deschutes Junction with no predetermined reasons. The question is, should the Junction and its impacts in twenty years be different. Changes will occur. The Planning Commission made a recommendation after going through public testimony and staff reports. He disagrees with some of the numbers as well. He was looking for more commercial development in the area, not less. The important issue is that Deschutes Junction has always been a community. A full townsite was platted, with a train depot, restaurant, hotel and more. This history should never be lost. In other parts of the county and the cities, history is appreciated and protected. In the map provided, there are over 1,750 homesites in the area. It is approximately 88% built out. Planning needs to be done for those numbers. There will be changes if the frontage road does come in. All of that traffic makes an impact, so planning for those impacts need to happen. The rural communities a mile or two away should not dictate what happens to those in the development area. There is an opportunity for a twenty-year plan to benefit everyone. Things will change, so planning is needed. After a lot of work, the Planning Commission made a strong recommendation for a master plan as an unincorporated community, and it is important to follow their lead. Paul Dewey for Central Oregon Landwatch said that this would be unprecedented. When compared to Terrebonne and Tumalo, it is not the same. The OAR’s talk about settlements, but there really is not a settlement there at this time. The nearby rural subdivisions are not a part of an unincorporated community. It is a junction of roads and not a community, just some people who want to up-zone their property. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 28, 2011 Page 9 of 11 Pages Staff has recommended a good solution with options. There is the potential for someone to apply for change later on. The Planning Commission’s recommendations potentially conflict with Goal 14. Marian Woodall of Boonesborough said that there is no Deschutes Junction community and there does not need to be one. The 19th Street decision distinguishes between want and need. Nothing has been shown that there is a need. The history of the area is charming but there is no need for what is there now, or to create more. If Juniper Ridge develops, there still is no need for development at Deschutes Junction. There is no such thing as a little development, and that is a slippery slope. Encouraging development there creates possible sprawl between the two cities. (She provided a handout.) Robert Fair owns property at Deschutes Junction. He said in 1978, the rural service center designation was put in so that some development could occur. There was no development then because the economy was bad, and after that development was addressed primarily in the cities. There were two homes there and he lived in one of them. The County Planning Commission was hard to deal with after 1994, and it cost a lot of money, more than most people can afford, to try to make a change. Few people will have the money to keep up that fight for long. Mr. Fair said his property was zoned rural service center and is located just north of the interchange around Gift Road. David Allen of Madras stated that there is nowhere on the main thoroughfares between Madras and Bend for easy access for fuel. Between the city limits of Bend and Redmond, with ODOT shutting down more access points all the time, this will be the only spot to stop. It is an important location for the County. He is curious about the master planning aspects. He asked if the applicant would have to develop the master plan, or whether it would be in place so that it would be known if one is even possible. Mr. Russell’s’ first comment was that the rural commercial zoning on the property is not going away regardless of this decision. It is important to remember that there are a lot of uses allowed outright and conditionally. Someone could have a gas station now. There are industrial uses across the highway that will remain. Shutting the gate behind us is not going to work. The unincorporated community rule is an off-shoot of Oregon’s view that farm ground is sacred. If something is non-rural at the time, it could remain. Rural housing development has already taken its toll on agricultural land, and the rules were not developed to protect homes where there used to be farm ground or open space. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 28, 2011 Page 10 of 11 Pages Without Deschutes Junction being in place, none of the subdivisions would not have been allowed. The interchange was not put there for just the houses. There are a number of interests there that need to be fairly balanced. Without any specific requirements for the master plan, it is beneficial for other areas of the County. Wade Fagen said that rural land needs to be preserved but also the commercial and industrial uses that area already there. The rules are there to protect those, too. There are a lot more residences in the area and the services for those residences should also grow in conjunction with that. Regarding urban sprawl, he is a descendant of people who came to this area over 100 years ago. Many people moved here because they like the semi-urban environment. You will always have growth or no growth issues. Free enterprise works. The ‘close the door behind me’ attitude has always been here. People who complain the most about something changing are those living in the middle of it who have impacted it in the first place. No further testimony was offered from the public. Laurie Craghead was asked how to proceed since Commissioner Unger needs to review today’s information. She said that continuing to a date certain would be required. The hearing was continued to the April 18, 2011 business meeting, at 10:00 a.m. 4. Before the Board were Additions to the Agenda. None was offered. Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m.