Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAspen Lakes Agenda Docs0.-rESC v 0 2, Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.oig AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board Work Session of September 10, 2008 Please see directions for completing this document on the next page. DATE: August 11, 2008. FROM: Peter Gutowsky Community Development Department 385-1709 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: A public hearing on Ordinance 2008-021, Amending Title Chapter 18.113.025, of the Deschutes County Code to Exempt Existing Cluster Subdivisions from Certain Destination Resort Requirements If Converting to a Destination Resort. File No. TA -07-7. PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? Yes BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The applicant, Aspen Investment LLC proposes a text amendment to the Deschutes County Code (Title 18) to change destination resort requirements, permitting cluster development approved prior to February 7, 1992 to expand as a destination resort. Sections changed by this proposal include 18.113.025 A and B (Application to Destination Resorts). These changes would exempt setback and lot density requirements when a cluster development approved prior to February 1992 converts to a destination resort. For Aspen Investment LLC, the text amendments: • Provide a process for converting their cluster development to a destination resort; • Allow them to count existing residential units as a component of a destination resort; and, • Provide a process that enables them to build overnight accommodations. On June 12, 2008 the Deschutes County Planning Commission recommended denial, citing the Oregon Land Conservation and Development and County staffs interpretation of state statutue and Deschutes County Code. Specifically, the conversion of an existing subdivision or cluster development (where lots have already been sold) to a destination resort is not consistent with Goal 8 and ORS 197.445. The Oregon Court of Appeals in Annuziata Gould v. Deschutes County and Thronburgh Resort, made it clear that overnight lodging accommodations must be constructed prior to the sale of residential lots. This standard cannot be met if the conversion involves residential lots or parcels that have already sold. Given the planning commission recommendation, Exhibit B (findings) of Ordinance 2008-021 is no being presented. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: Allowing such conversions will allow additional development to build or finance overnight lodging. The Board will need to discuss the policy of whether financial assurances are sufficient to guarantee the building of overnight lodging for cluster developments in light of the Board's public statements that t is unlikely that the Board will use the financial assurances to actually build the overnight lodging. RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Open the public hearing, listen to testimony and recommend denial of Ordinance 2008-021 because the Planning Commission, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, and County si aff cannot recommendthe adoption of the text amendment. ATTENDANCE: Legal Counsel, Peter Gutowsky DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS: Peter Gutowsky Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97731-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ STAFF REPORT TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner DATE: August 11, 2008 SUBJECT: Aspen Investment LLC Text Amendment / Public Hearing The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board) will hold a public hearing on September 17, 2008 at the Deschutes Service Center, starting at 5:30 p.m. to consider legislative text amendments to Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 18.1 ISSUE: Shall the Board adopt text amendments submitted by Aspen Investment LLC (Aspen Lakes) to change Deschutes County destination resort requirements, permitting cluster development approved prior to February 7, 1992 to be exempt from certain destination resort requirements when applying to convert to a destination resort? RECOMMENDATION: Affirm the decision of the Deschutes County Planning Commission to deny the text amendments embodied in Ordinance 2008-021, Exhibit A (Attachments 1 and 2). BACKGROUND: The applicant, Aspen Lakes proposes a text amendment to DCC, Title 18 to change destination resort requirements, permitting cluster development approved prior to February 7, 1992 to be exempt from certain destination resort requirements when applying to convert to a destination resort. Sections changed by this proposal include DCC 18.113.025(A) and (B) (Application to Destination Resorts). These changes would exempt setback and lot density requirements when a cluster development approved prior to February 1992 converts to a destination resort. For Aspen Lakes, the text amendments: • Allow a developer to count existing residential units as a component of a destination resort; and, • Allow a developer to either build or provide financial assurance for facilities not yet built but required to qualify as a destination resort. 1 A public notice, announcing the September 17 Board hearing was published in the Bulletin on Sunday, August 31. Ninety notices were mailed on July 9 and nineteen emailed on July 7 and 8, to members of the public who testified on March 27 or submitted written testimony while the public record remained open. Quality Services Performed with Pride The applicant justifies the amendments by stating: • Cluster developments deserve the same flexibility that expanding destination resorts enjoy for existing residential lot sizes and density requirements; • Since Aspen Lakes was approved as a cluster development, standards regulating destination resorts have changed and pose an impediment to the establishment of a new destination resort; Owners worked with the county for over 20 years to develop Aspen Lakes with the understanding that it would eventually permit the entire property to convert to a destination resort; and, • DCC 18.113.025, 18.116.060, and Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197.445 can be interpreted differently than the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) and County staff interpret those regulations such that Deschutes County has the authority to adopt the text amendments (Attachment 3). • By themselves, these changes to the text do not guarantee approval of the conversion of a cluster development to a destination resort. The applicant will still have the burden of proving how it can meet all the other destination resort components such as wildlife impacts and the phased construction of overnight lodging. FINDINGS: 1. Deschutes County Tacks specific criteria in DCC Titles 18, 22, or 23 for reviewing a legislative zoning text amendment. Aspen Lakes, as the applicant, bears the burden for justifying that the text amendments are consistent with state statutes, and the County Comprehensive Plan. 2. The DLCD submitted a letter for the record on February 28, 2008 that substantiates staff's position (Attachment 4). Excerpts are cited below: "We have reviewed the proposed text amendment, along with the additional information provided by the applicant and staff, and agree with you that conversion of an existing subdivision or cluster development (where Tots have already been sold) to a destination resort would not be consistent with Goal 8 and ORS 197.445. We believe that the recent decision by the Oregon Court of Appeals in Annuziata Gould v. Deschutes County and Thornburgh Resort, made it dear that overnight lodging accommodations must be constructed prior to the sale of residential Tots. This standard cannot be met if the conversion involves residential Tots or parcels that have already sold." 3. Based on the following discussion of the legal issues, cluster development cannot convert to a destination resort. Nothing in the statutes talks about converting existing subdivisions into destination resorts. Additionally, the proposed text amendments conflict with DCC 18.116.060(A), which requires that "The destination resort shall, in the first phase, provide for and include as part of the Conceptual Master Plan" (emphasis added) all of the minimum requirements for a destination resort, with the exception of the phasing of the required 150 overnight lodging units. Furthermore, DCC 18.116.060(A)(5) says: 2 "facilities and accommodations required by DCC 18.113.060(A)(2) through (4) [, overnight lodging units, recreational facilities and visitor -oriented eating and meeting facilities,] must be physically provided or financially assured pursuant to DCC 18.113.110 prior to closure of sales, rental or lease of any residential dwellings or lots." 2 Emphasis added. The point of DCC 118.113.060(A) is that a destination resort is, from the beginning, supposed to at least have the ability to be a destination resort. Also, DCC requires each phase to be, by itself and cumulatively with previous phases, a destination resort. See 18.113.060(D) and (E). Aspen Lakes cannot comply with that purpose. Approximately 134 residential lots (Aspen Lakes Phases 1-4 and Rim at Aspen Lakes) have already been sold without overnight lodging and other destination resort requirements. Therefore, assuming this existing cluster development would be considered the first phase of the destination resort, Aspen Lakes already violates the condition that the first phase be able to stand alone as a destination resort. Furthermore, ORS 197.445(4)(b)(B) requires that "At least 50 units of overnight lodging must be constructed prior to the closure of sale of individual Tots or units" and DCC 18.116.060(A)(1)(a) requires that "The first 50 overnight lodging units must be constructed prior to the closure of sales, rental or lease of any residential dwellings or lots." Although the proposed text does not guarantee that a conversion application will meet all the other requirements for a destination resort, the provision in the proposed DCC 18.113.025(D) will allow for the bonding of the overnight lodging rather than the immediate building of such facilities. Therefore, staffs position is that the very fact that the existing development does not and cannot meet the first phase requirements of DCC Section 118.113.060, precludes the county's ability to adopt legislation to allow the conversion of the cluster development to a destination resort. 4. On June 12, 2008 the Deschutes County Planning Commission recommended denial, citing the DLCD and Assistant Legal Counsel's interpretation of state statute and DCC (Attachment 5). The conversion of an existing subdivision or cluster development (where lots have already been sold) to a destination resort is not consistent with Statewide Planning Goal 8 and ORS 197.445. Furthermore, the Oregon Court of Appeals in Annuziata Gould v. Deschutes County and Thronburgh Resort, made it clear that overnight lodging accommodations must be constructed prior to the sale of residential lots. This standard cannot be met if the conversion involves residential lots or parcels that have already sold. 5. The case file, reflecting all the findings and public testimony submitted to date, will be entered into the record on September 17. Attachments: 1. Ordinance 2008-021 2. Ordinance 2008-021, Exhibit A 3. Text Amendment Burden of Proof 4. DLCD Letter 5. Planning Commission minutes (June 12, 2008) 2 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/dccode/title18/docs/chapter%2018.113.doc. See DCC 118.113.060(A5)) 3 REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Chapter 18.113.025 of the Deschutes County Code to Exempt Existing Cluster * ORDINANCE NO. 2008-021 Subdivisions from Certain Destination Resort Requirements If Converting to a Destination Resort. WHEREAS, Aspen Investments, LLC (Aspen Lakes) has proposed a Text Amendment to Chapter 18.113.025, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, to make changes to destination resort requirements, permitting cluster development approved prior to February 7, 1992 applying for conversion to a destination resort to be exempt from certain destination resort requirements; and; WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Planning Commission held a duly noticed pubic hearing on Manch 27, 2008, and on June 12, 2008 denied the proposed changes to Title 18 as described in Exhibit "A"; WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") held a duly noticed public hearing on August 8, 2008; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAII\S as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.113.025, Destination Resorts Zone— Application to Existing Resorts, is amended to read as described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and language to be deleted in trik gh. /// PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2008-021 (08/04/2008) Section 2. FINDINGS. The Board adopts Exhibit "B" to Ordinance 2008-021, and incorporated herein by this reference, as its findings to support this Ordinance. Dated this of , 2008 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ATTEST: DENNIS R. LUKE, Chair TAMMY (BANEY) MELTON, Vice Chair Recording Secretary MICHAEL M. DALY, Commissioner Date of 1st Reading: day of , 2008. Date of 2nd Reading: day of , 2008. Record of Adoption Vote Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Dennis R. Luke Tammy Melton Michael M. Daly Effective date: day of , 2008. ATTEST: Recording Secretary PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2008-021 (08/04/2008) 18.113.025. Application to Existing Resorts and Cluster Subdivisions. Expansion proposals of existing developments approved as destination resorts or proposals to convert subdivisions or portions thereof platted as cluster development approved prior to February 7, 1992 and which include at a minimum, an 18 -hole golf course and dining facilities, hereinafter "cluster subdivision," shall meet the following criteria: A. Meet all criteria of DCC 18.113 without consideration of any existing development; or B. Meet all criteria of DCC 18.113 for the entire development (including the existing approved destination resort development or cluster development and the proposed expansion area), except that as to the area covered by the existing developments, compliance with setbacks and lot sizes shall not be required. C. If the applicant chooses to support its proposal with any part of the existing development, applicant shall demonstrate that the proposed expansion will be situated and managed in a manner that it will be integral to the remainder of the resort. D. When new facilities are required to bring existing developments into compliance with current destination resort law, those facilities shall be provided, or where allowed, financially assured, prior to any other development in an expansion area. (Ord. 2008-021 § 1, 2008; 92-004 §13, 1992) PAGE 1 OF 1 - EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2008-021 (08/04/2008) regon Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor February 28, 2008 Department of Land Conservation and Development Central Oregon Regional Off, ce 888 NW Hill Street, Suite 3 Bend, OR 97701-2942 Rural Regional Representative (541) 318-2890 Urban Regional Representative (541) 318-2899 Community Service Specialist (541) 318-8193 Fax (541) 318-8361 Web Address: http://www.oregon.gov/LC'D Peter Gutowsky Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Bend, Oregon SUBJECT: Proposed Text Amendment Local File TA 07-01 Dear Peter. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed code amendment to allow existing cluster developments approved prior to 1992 to convert to destination resorts. We have reviewed the proposed text amendment, along with the additional information provided by the applicant and staff, and agree with you that conversion of an existing subdivision or cluster development (where the lots have already been sold) to a destination resort would not be consistent with Goal 8 and ORS 197.445. We believe that the recent decision by the Oregon Court of Appeals in Annunziata Gould v. Deschutes County and Thornburgh Resort, made it clear that overnight lodging accommodations must be constructed prior to the sale of the residential lots. This standard cannot be met if the conversion involves residential lots or parcels that have already sold. Please enter this letter into the record of these proceedings. Feel free to contact me at 541-318-8193 if you have questions. Community Services Specialist cc: Mara Ulloa (DLCD File 001-08) I. CALL TO ORDER Community 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 JUNE 12, 2008— 5:30 P.M. Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Cyrus. Members present were Kelly Smith, Robert Otteni, Susan Quatre, Todd Turner and Robert Klyce. Brenda Pace attended via conference phone for the deliberation on the Text Amendment to allow cluster development in Aspen Lakes. Staff present were Catherine Morrow, Planning Director; Terri Payne, Senior Planner; Kristen Maze, Associate Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. Minutes of May 22 were approved. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS None. III. WORK SESSION: Recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners on a Bend Municipal Airport Urban Renewal Plan, to Provide a Funding Mechanism for Infrastructure and Safety Improvements — John Russell, Economic Development Director, City of Bend. Vice Chair Turner recused himself due to a conflict of interest. John Russell presented a summary of activities at the airport. The Oregon Department of Aviation recently completed a study of airports around the state, which showed that the Bend Municipal Airport has an economic impact of $580 million, Redmond $125 million. The Bend Airport provides many jobs to the area, and those jobs need to be supported in addition to expanding the facility. Perhaps the County would consider an urban renewal area that would benefit the airport. The City has retained a consultant and prepared the draft plan on the agenda for tonight. Elaine Howard, who works with urban renewal planning, presented a PowerPoint summary. The purpose of urban renewal is to improve locations that are poorly developed Quality Services Performed with Pride or underdeveloped. It has been used in large and small areas of the country. There is already an agency in place to implement urban renewal (as of April 23, 2008). Financing can be done through "tax increment financing," which establishes a base area — increases in assessed values for that area result in higher taxes to finance urban renewal projects. Infrastructure at the airport needs to expand to accommodate existing business growth and tourism. The area includes 526 acres, 415 of which are currently devoted to airport use. Some options for improvements include reconstruction, widening and lengthening of runways, addition of an air traffic control tower, additional fencing and parking, increased meeting space, hanger and heliport construction. Maximum indebtedness for the urban renewal plan would be $9,700,000 (the amount that can be borrowed for projects over the 25 -year length of the plan). The FAA also helps with financing, up to 95%. Chair Cyrus asked about privately -owned property in the area. John Russell said that Mr. Gisler, who was in the audience, owns three houses; but he is the only property owner in the vicinity. Chair Cyrus also asked about the sizes of potential restaurants and whether the size should be limited to 2500 square feet. Chair Cyrus also wondered about the availability of overnight lodging for flight crews who come in late at night. The FBO (flight base of operations) is only open from 6 a.m. until 7 p.m. for fuel purchases. Commissioner Smith asked about the EFU lands and whether they are used for agriculture. They are currently sitting vacant. A letter was read from Mr. Gisler in support of the urban renewal plan and describing his property which lies within the proposed boundary. Motion: Commissioner Otteni moved to recommend adoption of the proposed Municipal Airport Urban Renewal Plan to the Board. Seconded by Commissioner Smith. Motion passed. IV. DELIBERATION: File No. TA -07-7, Text Amendment to Title 18 to Allow Cluster Development, Approved Prior to 1992, to Convert to a Destination Resort. Planning Director Catherine Morrow presented a summary of the proposal. Commissioner Smith asked the other Commissioners for short summaries and their thoughts regarding previous discussions. Commissioner Otteni thought most of the Commissioners supported the idea in principle but did not see the need for a text amendment change. Commissioner Pace thought that this would allow for consideration as to the status of the open space. Commissioner Klyce compared Pronghorn to Aspen Lakes, where Pronghorn followed the destination resort rules but locals cannot use the golf course or eat at the restaurant. Aspen Lakes is close enough to Sisters to be an asset to the town — short commutes if locals want to work there. He feels that the approach used by Aspen Lakes is not something that was in state statutes and the discussions should continue at the Board level. Commissioner Quatre felt that a process was in place which had been well thought out. She did not like the idea of setting a precedent for approving a cluster development for a 2 specific property owner. The applicant should not have been told to use this route to get destination resort status, as is claimed. Commissioner Pace thought that the point of destination resort zoning was to bring in tourists, not to be a service for the local population. If this proposal is approved, the main source of income for Aspen Lakes would be permanent housing, not overnight housing. Vice Chair Turner compared the current proposal to Sunriver, which was also directed towards a specific applicant. He did not think the conversion process was considered when state law was written, and he is not a lawyer trying to determine if something not expressly forbidden in state statute is allowed. He does not feel concerns about other cluster developments would cause problems. Commissioner Quatre thought that this proposal should go through a variance process rather than a text amendment. Commissioner Pace felt that the open space issue was very different from Sunriver, which does not involve designated open space. The cluster development plan for Aspen Lakes does include designated open space. We should not encourage developers to avoid destination resort rules and convert designated open space. The rules should be as consistent as possible. Commissioner Smith thought that some of the policy issues were troublesome, but the important thing is the combination of legal issues which were talked about by our own legal counsel and DLCD, stating that this is not allowed. The applicant can still proceed without the text amendment. It seems fairly straightforward to recommend against the proposal. Motion: Commissioner Otteni motioned to encourage the applicant to proceed but to recommend denial of the text amendment as proposed. Commissioner Pace suggested that the motion be separated into two motions — a recommendation on the application and a recommendation on the text amendment. Motion was not seconded. Motion: Commissioner Pace motioned to recommend that the Board deny the application because of the legal issues presented by County counsel and staff and because of the ability of the applicant to apply for variances. A variance application would better handle issues of open space and other items relevant to a destination resort zone. Seconded by Commissioner Smith. Vice Chair Turner opposed mentioning open space considerations as part of the motion. Commissioner Pace was willing to amend the motion to eliminate the last sentence. Commissioner Klyce asked whether they could just vote on the proposed text amendment as a yes or no. Catherine Morrow mentioned that the Planning Commissioners had discussed improving communication with the Board and more specifically informing the Board as to the reasons for advice given to them. Commissioner Pace has incorporated some of the reasons in her recommendation of denial. Motion passed with four in favor, and Commissioner Klyce and Vice Chair Turner opposing. 3 There was discussion regarding whether to forward findings to the Board. Commissioner Pace asked for Commissioner Otteni's thoughts about making two recommendations to the Board. Commissioner Otteni said he wanted to support the applicant in trying to obtain a variance. Commissioner Quatre asked whether staff should draft findings and a minority report. Commissioner Pace thought it was important for the Board to understand the Commissioners' thoughts. Catherine Morrow said that the Commissioners relate their own findings, and those could be deliberated as a way to improve communicating with the Board. Commissioner Smith thought that perhaps Commissioner Quatre could draft findings, which Catherine Morrow said could be distributed in a meeting packet. Commissioner Turner felt it might be difficult to summarize previous meetings and discussions. Commissioner Otteni thought it was too much to state specific findings every time a decision was made. If there is a minority view on every single issue, then preparing separate findings every time should be a consistent process. Vice Chair Turner felt that it was not the place of the Commissioners to tell the applicant how to proceed. V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION: Terri Payne, Senior Planner. Terri summarized the status of the Board -recommended Comp Plan update. A web page devoted to the Plan is now being developed, and the Plan will be revised over the next couple of years. Kristen Maze and Terri Payne showed PowerPoint slides of the preliminary website and working Plan, including timelines for public input and process. The Planning Commission's ideas on the following will be presented to the Board on June 25: The Role of the Planning Commission — Terri suggested a role as a steering committee, managing the Comp Plan policy, and devoting one meeting a month to the Plan. The Commissioners could also host a citizen involvement committee and conduct public hearings. Commissioner Otteni thought the process was very broad and should be narrowly defined before any public meeting was held. Each meeting should have a specific focus. Terri said that was the idea, and it would be thought through before the public input process. Commissioner Otteni asked about the initial process for the original Comprehensive Plan, and Catherine Morrow said that there were regional advisory committees. Since this Planning Commission would be meeting on the Comp Plan update once a month, there would be continuing input. Vice Chair Turner suggested adding it as an agenda item every meeting. Commissioner Quatre asked about having technical experts present at meetings with specific comments. Terri said that they would be working with agency partners and experts. Catherine Morrow said that the City of Bend created one technical advisory committee — in contast, we would have, for example, wildlife specialists providing information specific to their area of expertise. Vice Chair Turner asked if certain Plan sections would be revised one at a time. Terri said that this is a total revision of the Plan. We currently have a working Plan which will be used for comparison, and this will in turn be used to build the new Plan. Commissioner Smith approved the idea of having regular involvement. He felt that the Planning Commission has done very little "planning" per se over his term. Specific 4 applications are addressed and public hearings held, but the role of the Commission has been very limited. Recommendations made to the County Commissioners are not always worth the amount of time invested, as the County Commissioners also conduct their own hearings that include public involvement, making the County's efforts somewhat superfluous. He questioned how useful the Planning Commissioners' opinions and recommendations are to the Board and suggested a more active role in planning. The public could submit ideas for changing aspects of County government and revising the Code, and the Planning Commissioners could push forward the ideas with which they agree. Commissioner Smith has been a little frustrated and would like to see the roles of the Commissioners become more meaningful. Catherine Morrow agreed with Commissioner Smith's opinions and thought his ideas were good. The Commissioners, County staff and the public could do more genuine planning work on the future landscape of the County. Vice Chair Turner mentioned the event venue (wedding hosting) proposal currently before the Commissioners, which is the tip of a County -wide issue and involves real planning. Commissioner Quatre thought that the Commissioners could be more involved in reaching a compromise in situations such as this. Catherine Morrow quoted from the Code regarding the advisory duties of the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Otteni said he preferred devoting one meeting a month to the Comp Plan update. Chair Turner agreed. Commissioner Quatre asked about scheduling an extra meeting to accommodate the update. Catherine Morrow thought that it was not necessary yet but may be an option in the future. Terri said that the public meetings would be staff - run but hosted by the Planning Commission. The public involvement process was discussed. Commissioner Otteni asked whether the role of the Commissioners was advisory or whether they make actual changes to the Plan. Catherine Morrow said that there would be hearings with the Board, but that most of the work, such as mapping and policy recommendations, would be done by the Commissioners. Catherine Morrow mentioned that one of the CDD planners is preparing information for the Planning Commissioners regarding wind farm power generation in the County, a proposal which is currently being brought before the Board. Commissioner Quatre asked about solar generation such as panels located in the desert to provide electricity. Terri said that this could be discussed. Commissioner Klyce mentioned possible changes in Oregon land use and asked about the timeline for the Big Look. Terri said they have a set of recommendations, which she provided to the Commissioners at this meeting. Commissioner Klyce asked about possible conflicts with the Comp Plan. Terri said she had not seen any and is currently looking at how to combine efforts and recommendations. We need to pay attention to the Big Look due to the potential for major changes which could involve disgarding some or all of the Goals. The Big Look committee advises the legislature, similar to the way the Planning Commission advises the Board. It was agreed to devote one meeting a month to the Comp Plan and that the work plan should be forwarded to the Board. 5 VI. UPDATE ON CITY UGB PROCESS FROM LIAISONS: Kelly Smith, Susan Quatre and Brenda Pace. Commissioner Smith attended the meeting last Monday, most of which covered the framework plan. The City Planning Commission reached a consensus (not unanimous) about second -home analysis and rights-of-way allocation. This will be a much larger expansion than what was proposed a year ago. The City Council has given the City Planning Commission instructions to "go large" - about 5500 acres now. They are now meeting once a week and will have two alternative boundary maps at the next meeting. Catherine Morrow mentioned an MOU that was considered by the City Council and Board but not adopted. The process will be to complete the hearing on the proposal with all of the findings; the County Planning Commission will wait; the City Planning Commission will deliberate and make a recommendation to the City Council; and the City Council will make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board will seek recommendation (without another hearing) from the County, on whatever the City Council has decided. V. OTHER ITEMS OF CONCERN Terri thanked Commissioner Smith and Catherine Morrow for all of their efforts. Planning Commissioner terms of service/expiration dates were discussed. Commissioner Otteni said he had spoken to Barbara Rich about the Local Rule and point of sale, which would become effective immediately upon adoption by the Board and with which he disagrees. He would like to see the point of sale of currently listed houses as 48 months. It is hard enough to sell a home right now, and if a buyer has four years to buy the house within the ten-year total, it might stimulate sales. He wanted to make a recommendation to the Board to allow a grace period. Commissioner Smith said he was not comfortable enough to recommend a specific grace period but that it could be considered. Motion: Commissioner Otteni motioned that, in the event the County Commissioners adopt the Local Rule, the point-of-sale determination could include a grace period of a number of years to be decided upon. Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. Motion passed. Catherine Morrow suggested a memo be drafted to the Board by Terri with background reasoning included. This was approved. Vice Chair Turner expressed a concern about participation in meetings via telephone. Commissioner Otteni felt that accommodations should be made in the case of sickness or disability but not for vacations. Catherine Morrow said that it is legal to do, as far as she knows, but it is not necessary. Commissioner Smith said he is on several boards that use telephone conferencing. Everyone participating has to be able to hear everyone else. Vice Chair Turner wondered about public perception and whether non -visual communication was sufficient, since it does not include body language. He mentioned the recent meeting where Commissioner Quatre wondered about the tone of voice of one of 6 the public participants but could not see the person testifying due to being on the conference phone. It was agreed that most of communication is body language. Upcoming Meetings: June 26 — Joint City/County UGB Meeting VI. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary NEXT MEETING — June 26, 2008, at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97701 7