Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-04-19 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, APRIL 19, 2010 _____________________________ Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend __________________________ Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack, Paul Blikstad, Peter Russell, George Read and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development; and approximately twenty other citizens, including Hillary Borrud of the Bulletin and other representatives of the media. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 10:03 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. John Russell, the Asset Manager for the Department of State Lands, said the State is interested in several parcels. They own section 11 outside of Bend, which he hopes will be within the urban growth boundary soon. The also own 945 acres south and are working on their property on Cline Buttes with Thornburgh Resort. Commissioner Unger requested that, as they move into the future, perhaps the State can provide a general plan for each and detail how the County can be supportive or provide input. Mr. Russell said that the State reviewed the asset management plan for Central Oregon recently, analyzing all properties and putting on paper what might be done with those properties. They will be meeting internally all summer and will start a public process with governments and stakeholders in the fall. They hope to get the plan to the State Land Board for final adoption in June 2011. It is an 18-month process, and they did something similar for Harney County and the Steens Mountain area. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 19, 2010 Page 1 of 13 Pages He added that there are three managers: one for eastern Oregon, one for western Oregon, and his position at large. His position focuses on enhancing the value of common school fund properties and repositioning the portfolio. 2. Before the Board were Deliberations and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 2010-007, Adding 19th Street to the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan Map. Commissioner Luke asked if a road is shown on the TSP, does that mean it will be built. Peter Russell replied that a timeline would be developed. All are dependent on funding. There is also an additional land use process with the conditional use permit. A road can’t be considered for development unless it is on the TSP map. TSP alignment generally shows planning division locations, based on engineering studies and the scale of the map. Commissioner Unger stated he would like to decide, vote, and move on. (He referred to an oversized TSP map generated by the County). He said that when you have high growth, most of the time you get behind with the traffic issues. You have to keep up or keep ahead of it. All main transportation routes are now located on the west side of Highway 97. All of them converge in the same general area, around Cooley Road and Empire, and they are already compromised. There needs to be alternatives where growth is happening. ODOT has already said that certain Redmond land can’t be rezoned because of traffic impacts at Yew Avenue. One solution is to have another way to get to Highway 97 from that area. Redmond is concerned about its economic development future. T-Mobile agreed to variable shift changes to handle this, or they would not have been allowed to build. There needs to be an eastside arterial, and Deschutes Market Road already has about 5,000 cars a day on it. Work has gone on for ten years to help Redmond and the area, and this is the solution that the collaborative group came up with. Using this route would mean the lowest cost, with primarily EFU and BLM land involved. Commissioner Baney said she has not been a part of the process. She agrees that job creation is huge and transportation improvements are needed, but feels there is not have enough information in this record to lead her to believe this is what needs to be done. It appears the County is the one having to pay for this also. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 19, 2010 Page 2 of 13 Pages If it is for job creation for the cities and it helps out the DSL, there has to be more done to show that it is critical and this is where it needs to be, and adds the capacity that will be needed. She is also concerned about the private property that this impacts. Commissioner Luke said that the Sunriver interchange project was frustrating, as they could not take into account that Caldera Resort was going to be built because there was no land use application, even though everyone knew it was coming. There is no land use application for Juniper Ridge, or for the DSL land located south of the Fairgrounds, but they know it will be done eventually. The City of Bend has talked about dumping Juniper Ridge onto Deschutes Market road because they can’t go to Highway 97. There is no application, but they will do it eventually. A sports park also wants to come into the area. This is not a road for today, but for the future. 19th St. will go to Quarry, which is not that far from Deschutes Junction. There will be an overpass there eventually. It won’t happen for a while because no one has the money to go forward yet, but nothing continues if it is not on the TSP. He has no problem putting it on the TSP, after which time partners can be sought and other work can be done. Discussions stop if it is not on the TSP. When you consider all of the discussions of different groups, often they are looking at their own little piece without considering impacts to others. Widening Highway 97 will work until you get to the cities, but then it is a problem with bottlenecks. In the next 15 or 20 or more years, there needs to be an alternative. Commissioner Baney stated that if it goes on the TSP, more money will be spent on this. She asked if anything be spent on alternative ideas. Peter Russell explained that if 19th Street does not change and DSL wants to develop its land, they’d have to go through a zone change. The County can comment on mitigating impacts at that time. Similarly, the City of Bend would have to do the same for Juniper Ridge, as it is EFU land. The same steps would occur if 19th Street is moved; another Goal 3 exception process would have to take place. Federal land would have to reopen their documents as well. This is what BLM wanted for an alignment, and is the result of years of discussions. Even if the County and cities wanted to put the road somewhere else, the federal government doesn’t have to open up the information again. This minimizes the amount of federal land impacted. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 19, 2010 Page 3 of 13 Pages Commissioner Baney asked about taking the road just to Quarry. Mr. Russell replied that staff does not agree with this idea. The County has control of the timeline. Bringing ODOT into the process does not make it go any faster. The Quarry interchange would cost about $30 million and likely would not make a lot of difference to someone who is already traveling on Highway 97. Tom Blust added that ODOT went through a separate planning process for south Redmond, independent of the function of 19th Street. The Quarry interchange is already on the TSP, and could be part of a solution, but would be very expensive, as it would be crossing the railroad tracks and would have a wider footprint. Commissioner Luke stated that Highway 97 is a corridor and does not operate separately for each city. The Redmond reroute was a priority project for all three cities because that was a bottleneck on the highway for traffic and for freight, and was critical for economic development. It has to be viewed as a transportation corridor. Commissioner Baney said that she understands that this is not a capacity issue per ODOT. Commissioner Luke stated that the County owns property near the airport, and it cannot be developed because of impacts to Highway 97. If Deschutes Market Road is improved and traffic from Juniper Ridge could get there, it would allow for that development. ODOT may say that a parallel road does not take traffic off Highway 97, but that is because it is hard to tell what the future impact is. Mr. Russell said they refer to links and nodes. Links are travel lanes, which are not at capacity. The nodes are the interchanges, and most have operational problems. Commissioner Unger said that there are four cities that need to work together with the County to create mobility. Sometimes it is hard to do because of land use laws. Cities, not the rural county, are where economic development occurs and that’s where most of the growth is. They may not be able to spend money outside the UGB. They all need to come to this together and create solutions to common problems. Commissioner Baney feels that there is a lack of partnership. It is cost prohibitive for any agency, but the County should not have to take care of the internal infrastructure. She would rather see more of a partnership. She thinks that although this has been discussed for years, not everyone is on board regarding the cost aspect. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 19, 2010 Page 4 of 13 Pages Commissioner Luke said all this does is add the road to the plan. Everything done to this point is theory, and no one will step up until is it real. That has to be done before land use hearings and looking for funding. It won’t be built today. The land use processes still have to occur. He agrees that it should not be paid for by just the County. Commissioner Unger stated that the DSL land will not move forward for development, since without a transportation solution, nothing will move forward. Commissioner Baney does not want to develop a project until it is all properly set up. Commissioner Unger said that there has been a lot of planning and discussion prior to now, and this is the time to take action. He added that the rural versus urban issue is always a challenge. Everyone is affected by that. The impact happens. People move further out because the land changes too much. The people already living where these people relocate to are affected by that change. Utilities, infrastructure and other things affecting livability have to progress as well. Commissioner Luke said this also solves some problems for Bend as well. People want businesses to come. The County cannot relocate businesses but the cities have to. He would hope through the pubic hearings process, clarification can be made. Putting this on the TSP allows for further discussion. Commissioner Luke stated that two people had signed cards to speak, but testimony can’t be taken at this time as the hearing had been closed previously. UNGER: Move first reading of the Ordinance. LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: No. (Split vote.) UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. The second reading and consideration of adoption will take place on May 3, 2010. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 19, 2010 Page 5 of 13 Pages 3. Before the Board was a Public Hearing (Continued from April 5, 2010) on Ordinance No. 2010-001, Amending the Comprehensive Plan to Adopt Destination Resort Remapping Goals and Policies. and 4. Before the Board was a Public Hearing (Continued from April 5, 2010) on Ordinance No. 2010-002, Adding Development Procedures to Adopt Destination Resort Mapping Amendment Procedures (Matrix). Chair Luke said that testimony on both Ordinances can be combined to make it easier for the public. Peter Gutowsky gave a brief overview of the item. The case file has been entered into the record, and written testimony received since April 5 has also been included. Paul Dewey wanted assurance that his March 1 testimony is included, and it is. The Board also asked staff to produce a matrix showing recommendations, which has been done. Staff’s recommendation matches that of the Planning Commission’s February recommendation. Kay Knott of Sisters submitted a letter supporting the recommendation of the Planning Commission. (A copy of her letter is attached for reference, and was also signed by her husband, Leonard Knott.) Merry Ann Moore of Sisters testified for the Sierra Club, Juniper branch. She wanted to make sure that 2008 documents are included regarding a text amendment involving a cluster development conversion. The position of the DLCD at that time was that it was a violation of Goal 8. Matt Cyrus said that in regard to DLCD’s opinion, he has conversations with them, and they were concerned because the housing units were already there. They are now comfortable with ideas of how the criteria can be met. The facts are different between mapping, siting and a previous text amendment. The previous discussions are no longer relevant or appropriate at this point. He asked the Commissioners to support the Planning Commission’s recommendation. He doest not see why a site can not be improved if all of the resort amenities are in place or feasible. A quasi-resort might be a good subdivision standard, and that would eliminate a lot of issues regarding tourism. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 19, 2010 Page 6 of 13 Pages Cluster developments were included because they have a lot of merit. There are four of them, all of which have open space. They would be natural to convert since they already meet the open space requirements. They only lack recreational amenities and lodging. Whether it was developed with that in mind does not matter. The open space already exceeds requirements, and the original plan was laid out over twenty years ago. It has the same amenities as existing resorts. This just finishes what was started. Criteria and siting still have to be met. They are different, mapping does not automatically mean siting. They wanted to avoid Measure 49 implications, and destination resort mapping or removal from that map may trigger a Measure 49 impact. (He submitted a letter from legislative counsel who worked on Measure 49 issues.) He said that this would help finish what was started in 1992. The current map that was adopted then showed that agricultural lands were not excluded from the map, just simply deferred. No determination was made, awaiting Phase II of the mapping process. Agricultural lands that are not otherwise excluded by statute are missing, such as irrigation or non-contiguous. Just having a water right does not mean it is good for growing things other than sagebrush. If a new resort is required to site outside of irrigated lands, they will still have to buy up acreage and let it dry out to the determinant of all, so they could have the water rights they need. Developing within irrigated lands has a lower impact. As resort models are examined, golf courses may not be something used in the future. Nationally, the demand for golf courses is down. He suggested that the County should be more flexible with siting to allow some new things that have not yet been presented. Commissioner Luke said that recreation amenities are needed, but not necessarily golf courses. Mr. Cyrus stated that agri-tourism might be a good way to go. This can only be done if agricultural lands are part of it. It has been said that the County’s Ordinance may not meet State statute. He would like to see the County’s version match the State version to keep things simple. Nick Lelack asked if the letter from legislative counsel was received by the Board. Commissioner Luke said that it will be part of the record. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 19, 2010 Page 7 of 13 Pages Lyn Mattei of Bend testified that in regard to viable family farming, this could dovetail into changes to allow small destination resorts that make small farms more viable. She toured a farm with the Extension Service and found there is a continuing need to address the sustainability and viability of small family farms. Possible changes in the tax code or in other ways may help farmers to pay themselves more money for their work. Another concern is a way to define what an internship is on a farm, to specify criteria so that the intern is not just a farm laborer, and can live on the farm during while working. Under existing tax codes and other regulations, it is hard for small farms to be sustainable. This is relevant, as it could dovetail with destination resorts. She is not saying that all of the changes to be made need to be under the guise of a destination resort. They are related, though. She is concerned and feels that the only way that mapping will stop is to do an economic analysis of the impacts and benefits of a destination resort. She was happy to read an article in the Bulletin that talked about this. If the County does study this, it would seem logical and prudent to continue the mapping process to obtain additional economic information. If the County does so, she would recommend that an environmental study also be included regarding wildlife habitat, riparian areas, and so on. This and some additional funding would also allow the wildlife working groups to map out a new wildlife study. This would help the County apply the information to its destination resort mapping criteria. She reminded the Board that the Interagency Wildlife Study exists in response to a request from Deschutes County to get up-to-date wildlife information for the County’s comprehensive plan update. Regarding Goal 8, under recreational planning, this is not in the record. It must comply with Goal 8 per State law. There are siting requirements regarding high-value crop areas within three miles. It is not in the criteria to include adjacent counties. Commissioner Luke said that the law says that they have to be three miles back from the County line already. Ms. Mattei stated that Goal 8 has provisions for small destination resorts of 20 acres or more. Lodging and other improvements are to be included. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 19, 2010 Page 8 of 13 Pages Peter Gutowsky stated that this process deals with large destination resorts, and small destination resorts are not a part of these Ordinances. Under State law, small resorts can only be sited on non-resource lands. There is a group addressing small destination resorts at this time, and it is also being addressed as part of the comprehensive plan update. Commissioner Baney noted that she feels that Ms. Mattei’s information is important, but it might not be relevant to what is being discussed today. Ms. Mattei said that she plans to attend as many meetings of the work group as possible. They need to discuss what is and isn’t working in the County. The State group has almost complete consensus that large destination resorts are not working. The County has a way to coordinate with some of the groups. She asked the Board to slow down, and open the discussion to sustainable farming and other things. Pam Hardy, on behalf of Thousand Friends of Oregon, submitted written testimony. She asked the Board to look at their original vision. People don’t envision Deschutes County as a sea of sagebrush subdivisions. It needs to be primarily open space. She asked them to be especially conservative regarding the economic development benefits of large destination resorts. A cluster development only make sense if it is primarily a residential development, and that is not the purpose of a destination resort. The Board should keep those out of the destination resort designation. Christen Brown, the current Chair of the Planning Commission, spoke for himself and not as a representative of the Commission. He said that the issues addressed by the Planning Commission relate to 1992’s Ordinance 001, referring to irrigated lands. A lot has changed since then. This Code is out of date. He voted to remove portions of the section, as the group felt it was inappropriate to use what is not up to date. Mr. Brown said that if water is placed back in stream, it is technically not irrigated land anymore. This does not work. It is out of date and does not apply to current regulations. The County avoided the problem in 1992 with this. Commissioner Luke stated that instead of irrigated, it still held a water right. It used to be ‘use it or lose it’. Mr. Brown said that they tried in 1992, but did not finish the job. Furthermore, there is no really quality soil in the area. A lot of people are looking at this problem daily. The most appropriate question is whether land is suitable for farming only, and most of it isn’t. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 19, 2010 Page 9 of 13 Pages Subdivision rules were brought forward to the Planning Commission last July regarding what should be included in the mapping process. The Planning Commission made the right decision Subdivisions of some kind should still be allowed to be included- so-called paper subdivisions, and cluster subdivision. There needs to be an accurate representation of what should be in the destination resort map. Citizens don’t want their rights taken away, and to do so is problematic. Pam Mitchell testified that the County should not remove blanket destination resort overlays on property. If it now has that designation, it should not be removed. There should be respect for private property rights, and normally protecting this right should not fall on the shoulders of the owners. People say that destination resorts burden streets and schools, but she disagrees. If you do a proper study, it will be found that most destination resorts create very few negative impacts. Some people feel that all farmland that is farmland should remain so, but it often has a negative value to the farmers. And it is an injustice for the County to burden those property owners further. If it is not making money, they should not be forced to continue that boneless. She encouraged careful consideration of the situation. Peter Gutowsky stated that the entire legislative history of destination resorts is in the record for review. He said that there probably would not be any new information submitted. The February recommendation from the Planning Commission was to loosen the criteria. The Board needs to determine policy regarding eligibility. Discussion took place at this time regarding whether to allow more testimony and, if so, when to close testimony. BANEY: Move that oral testimony was closed, with the written record left open for submissions until 10:00 a.m. on May 24, 2010, at which time deliberations might begin. In the meantime, the Board will have a work session with staff to discuss any issues that need clarification. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 19, 2010 Page 10 of 13 Pages BANEY: Move approval of the Consent Agenda. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. LUKE: Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items 5. Approval of Minutes: ƒ Business Meeting: April 14 ƒ Work Sessions: April 14 CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 911 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 6. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 911 County Service District. No action was taken, as the amounts are not yet available. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION AND 4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 7. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District. No action was taken, as the amounts are not yet available. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 8. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County. No action was taken, as the amounts are not yet available. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 19, 2010 Page 11 of 13 Pages 9. ADDITION TO THE AGENDA. Before the Board was Continuation of a Public Hearing on an Appeal of the Hearings Officer’s Denial of a Wireless Telecommunications Facility in the Surface Mining Zone. Chair Luke opened the hearing, which was continued from March 15. Paul Blikstad gave an overview of the item. Laurie Craghead said that it was continued to today and testimony should be taken. It could be continued again to be able to take further testimony. Notice is not required to be sent out. Kevin Martin, representing the application, said he is prepared to do a full presentation at this time. He submitted additional information a week ago, but since the Board has not received these documents for review, he has no problem allowing more time for preparation. He will extend the deadline. Commissioner Luke said that this does not happen often; normally they get the information well ahead of time. Commissioner Unger stated he has some specific questions about the map and would like to talk with staff about it. He wants to know why they chose the location and whether two towers instead of one would be appropriate. Commissioner Unger asked if this afternoon would be appropriate. Commissioner Luke said that he would like to allow more time for the public to know about the change, so the hearing was continued to Wednesday, May 5 at 10:00 a.m. Citizen Kathy Giles of Redmond commented that she wants to hear what is said and wants an opportunity to comment afterwards. Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 12:15 p.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, April 19, 2010 Page 12 of 13 Pages