Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-01-28 - Planning Commission MinutesCommunity Development Department I 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 JANUARY 28, 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, Todd Turner, Susan Quatre, Keith Cyrus and Richard Klyce. Absent: Merle Irvine. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner; Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner; Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner; Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner; Terri Payne, Senior Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. December 17, 2009, minutes were approved. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. III. PUBLIC HEARING: File TA -09-2 — A Text Amendment to the Deschutes County Code; Sections 18.116.250, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities, and 18.128.340, Wireless Telecommunications Facilities —Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner. Anthony summarized the main points of the proposed text amendment. Commissioner Quatre asked about the parameters for the proposal and whether some of the provisions were rather vague. Anthony said there were pros and cons to leaving the language more open-ended. Commissioner Turner asked if we were making the change to allow a co - location at an existing tower, where the equipment building square footage is restricted. Commissioner Turner thought that the main concern was the tower. Anthony said that even at 120 square feet, the carriers are easily meeting the restriction. This is just to match the building code. Chair Brown asked if the square footage of the cabinets needed to be specified and if a CUP would be needed for 200. Anthony said yes. There were no public comments. Quality Services Performed with Pride Deliberation: Commissioner Quatre indicated she was concerned about the open-ended building size. Chair Brown thought that since no building permit was required for 200 feet, it would make things easier. Vice Chair Criss asked about existing streetlights and whether they were being considered. Anthony indicated that one issue concerns the wireless industry's desire to site on this type of property, and another is whether or not there would be screening such as a tower or a light/flagpole, etc. The question is whether we want this on properties with no screening. Commissioner Quatre asked if there could be some language regarding the terrain and conformity. Anthony said some citizens are fine with the stealth type and some do not like the "fake" trees, etc. Some think that the artificial towers stand out more when they are located near real trees. Anthony said that with the current language, if there are no trees in a proposed location, a pole cannot be sited there at all. Commissioner Turner did not think this was appropriate — on Century Drive the power company put in a pole that was supposed to look like a dead tree and does not. He would prefer that if there is no screening, a different location needs to be found. Commissioner Quatre agreed with this. Motion: Commissioner Turner motioned to forward TA -09-2 to the Board with recommendation of approval. Seconded by Commissioner Cyrus. Motion passed unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: File TA -09-5 — a Text Amendment to Amend the Bicycle Parking Standards in Title 18 — Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner. Paul summarized the text amendment, and staff believes a second look should be taken at requirements for rural and resort communities. The Deschutes County Bike and Ped Committee has reviewed the packet and is concerned with any changes that would totally exempt some areas in the futures. Paul mentioned the recent example of the paintball park that was approved but did need to have bicycle parking available. Chair Brown asked if there was any type of "halo" that would be considered and mentioned his own fruit stand which was not in the city and needed bicycle parking — does this exclude that type of situation if something is close to the city limits? Paul said it would not be in a rural, unincorporated or resort community so it would not apply. Paul also said that Chair Brown's proposal was under Title 19 and this is Title 18. Nick Lelack said that if someone wanted a fruit stand in a rural area, it would be up to the vendor but bicycle parking would be required in rural areas. Paul also mentioned not seeing many cyclists on rural roads, and Commissioner Quatre spoke about homeless people who do travel by bike. Paul said his experience is that they stay more in cities and less in rural areas. Commissioner Turner asked about commercial activities at the Bend Airport and whether they should have bicycle parking. He mentioned that the location of bike parking is inconsistent, whether it needs to be 50 feet away or within 20 feet. There are some inconsistencies which need to be flushed out. Commissioner Turner said that in his experience, bike parking and shower facilities end up being used more by people who ride during lunch and do not commute on bikes. Nick Lelack asked if the text amendment included all urban unincorporated communities, which Paul said was correct (there was a mention of "zones" in the staff report). Commissioner Quatre asked about concerns raised by Chuck Humphreys which Paul said had been addressed. She and Paul also discussed the 6-8% ratio for students mentioned in Chuck Humphreys' email, and Paul said he was not sure where that came from, especially since student ratios can vary from year to year. Nick said that generally the school districts have their own standards, and that if there is a remote school, kids probably would not ride bikes as much. There were no public comments. Chair Brown and Paul discussed adding the Bend Airport. Motion: Vice Chair Criss motioned to add "airport" to paragraph A(1). Seconded by Commissioner Quatre. Motion passed unanimously. Motion: Commissioner Turner motioned to change language to delete "zones" and add "all uses within unincorporated communities." Seconded by Commissioner Quatre. Motion passed unanimously. Motion: Vice Chair Criss motioned to advance TA -09-5 with amendments to the Board. Seconded by Commissioner Turner. Motion passed unanimously. V. DELIBERATION: File PA -09-2 - Amend the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan (TSP) Map to Add 19th Street, a Future Rural County Arterial, between Redmond and Deschutes Junction — Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner. Commissioner Brown mentioned an email received after the record was received. Nick said the record could be reopened or the email disregarded. Chair Brown said they would disregard the letter. He also asked if the Commissioners would enter written documents that have been submitted outside the hearing, and he has maps from the City that he obtained a couple of days ago. Nick said that the record could be re -opened and the documents entered, but anyone else can also submit more documents. Chair Brown said he was not comfortable with doing that. Chair Brown asked for opinions from the Commissioners. Commissioner Klyce said this was probably a classic case of either planning for the future or going too far ahead. Commissioner Turner said he supported the extension of 19th Street down to Deschutes Junction, but was not supportive of the connection to Deschutes Market Road. He felt there are potential opportunities being missed with the current alignment as shown on the map, although this proposal may be the most cost-effective way. Commissioner Quatre agreed with Commissioner Klyce that maybe some of this is premature for the time and it may not be desirable to bring it to Deschutes Junction. Commissioner Cyrus said there is probably merit at some point with making the connection, but one issue is the location close to the railroad tracks. It may destroy opportunities to have properties with railroad siting and potential traffic out of the Bend/Redmond area. He would like to see Redmond actively involved with the development and control of the north end. He cannot at this time support the proposed location and would like it moved at least half a mile from the existing track. He would favor coming up with acquiring an easement so something else does not happen until we are ready to move forward. Vice Chair Criss was concerned with traffic problems that may call for an expansion of Highway 97. He does see the need for a possible alternative route, but does that justify taking this road across people's private properties? Highway 97 should be expanded; federal monies could be available. He knows some folks want better access, but if Highway 97 was expanded this might be provided and should be looked at first. Chair Brown said that Redmond's plan for the future seems to show facilitation of development on the south side of town. The traffic pattern for the Fairgrounds is a problem and has put pressure on "U" Avenue. He is not sure if the street needs to be brought all the way to Deschutes Junction. Juniper Ridge was originally designed for a lot of commercial development which has now changed and may include a soccer development. Also, Burlington Northern has said they will eventually need double tracks, although we do not know when or where. What if it happens near this right-of-way? He likes the north end of this with an interchange perhaps at Quarry Avenue, but the southern two-thirds does not make sense. Commissioner Cyrus said he envisioned coming out from the fairgrounds onto state land, staying out far enough so the land could be acquired for future heavy industrial demands. He would not like to see a road "loaded" on one side. Commissioner Turner said he would move it the other way — there has been a lot of work where the City of Redmond and ODOT looked at Quarry Road and 97 including an interim location and railroad overpass. The number of driveways accesses between "U" Avenue and Deschutes Junction is around 35 and would be a concern. Pleasant Ridge Road also extends a mile and a half up and hits the intersection with 61St; there have been a number of accidents. A good idea would be to get 19th over the tracks, continue down and tie into Pleasant Ridge Road, coming into Deschutes Junction on the west side of the tracks. Some private property would need to be acquired, but a mile and a half of existing road could be used. Chair Brown asked what the crossover would be, and Commissioner Turner said some sort of overpass would need to be connected with Quarry Road on the west side, perhaps a multi -lane overpass. Nick said that one solution would be Elkhorn, and Quarry Avenue would provide the interchange function. Chair Brown said he did not envision the connection with Deschutes Market Road, only Deschutes Junction. Commissioner Turner said Deschutes Market connecting with Deschutes Junction would probably be a good idea. Peter Russell said that the map submitted by Commissioner Turner was not in the previous record. Nick mentioned that Commissioner Turner did describe the map at the previous meeting. Nick indicated that the Commissioners could recommend approval as proposed; recommend a connection between the two; recommend approval of a segment; or recommend denial. Commissioner Klyce said he liked the idea of the northern segment if it included the Quarry Avenue tie-in. A straw vote was taken for this - Chair Brown, Vice Chair Criss and Commissioner Klyce were in favor. Chair Brown suggested that motions could be made for the northern section as far south as Quarry Ave; or for the extension of Quarry south to the edge of Deschutes Junction; or to connect at the south end with Deschutes Market Road. Commissioner Turner suggested a vote could be taken as to whether any part of the extension was proposed, or perhaps whether the Commissioners supported the general concept. Motion: Commissioner Turner motioned to see if members are in support of the extension of 19th Street to Deschutes Junction. Seconded by Chair Brown. Discussion: Chair Brown said he liked the idea of getting the initial concept on the record. Commissioner Klyce said he supported the idea of an additional tie between Redmond and Bend. Commissioner Quatre asked if she should vote "no" if she was in favor of widening 97. Vote: Commissioners Klyce, Turner and Brown voted in favor. Commissioners Cyrus, Criss and Quatre voted no. Motion: Commissioner Cyrus motioned to support extending 19th Street from the fairgrounds to to Deschutes Junction but added that the Commissioners need input and the opportunity to come back for review and approval to protect the industrial potential of railroad. Peter Russell and Chair Brown discussed the necessity of a conditional use permit involving more precise alignment data. Peter said the alignment is currently consistent with the Upper Deschutes Resource Plan and may not be revisable. Chair Brown asked if the Quarry Road interchange was approved and Peter said it is already on the current transportation system plan. Commissioner Cyrus said he supported the connection but did not know how they should go back and review different routing options. Peter said we would have to go back to the BLM. Motion: Commissioner Cyrus motioned to support the extension of 19th south to Deschutes Junction and go back to the BLM for necessary review for additional routing options. Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. Discussion: Chair Brown and Commissioner Turner discussed the motion and looking at alternative routes. Commissioner Cyrus spoke about potential outcomes with future railroad expansion. Commissioner Turner asked how to include something on the TSP and put budget numbers with it, if it is undefined. Chair Brown asked Peter for his opinion, and Peter said that the federal government would probably consider this a several -year process and probably would not give a favorable response to looking at another alignment. Commissioner Quatre asked how this is better than widening 97. Peter said there were two issues involved. Before ODOT would widen 97, they would raise medians and change connections to right -in, right -out. Widening a highway means physically larger lanes and shoulders, a bigger footprint and more cost than a two-lane County road. There is also the potential for more crashes when a highway is widened. ODOT's long-term goal is to have no direct access to 97 and link it via frontage roads. ODOT also supports parallel local facilities before widening state highways. Commissioner Quatre asked if access management solves some of these problems. Peter said if you don't have the frontage system - if you live on the east side and want to go south - you have to go to the next interchange. You wind up with a lot of out -of -direction travel and more U-turns. Commissioner Klyce asked about fragmentation of BLM land. Pronghorn will be required to put in access to Redmond at some time. Peter said they are working with the BLM to identify existing right-of-way use and trying to minimize disruption. There are some power line roads and existing roads that would need to be upgraded. Commissioner Klyce asked if it was possible to combine further movement to the east with an access road to Pronghorn. Peter said it would require modifying the Upper Deschutes Resources Management Plan. Chair Brown said there is already an existing paved road on the west side of Pleasant Ridge, and why not consider dropping on the west side of the tracks from Quarry to Deschutes Junction? Peter said there are property owners in the Deschutes Junction area who want a frontage road. ODOT wants to shut Pleasant Ridge to access. The cost of a bridge up and over the tracks is also much more expensive than coming from the east side. Adding a bridge added about $1 million which was one reason they considered the east side of the tracks. Chair Brown asked about a Quarry Avenue overpass in the future. Peter said there is a fair amount of private ownership on the west side, and the parcels on the east side also tend to be larger. The idea is to minimize disruption. Commissioner Klyce mentioned a mobile home park. Peter said that under the National Environmental Policy Act, you have to demonstrate that there is no reasonable alternative to miss that property. With this alignment on the east side of the tracks it is missed. If we went to the west side, we'd hit it. Commissioner Turner and Peter discussed the limitations on moving anyone in mobile home parks in the current economy. Vice Chair Criss asked about a south Redmond expansion plan and whether it included state land. Nick said it is conceptually industrial types of land. Vice Chair Criss and Peter spoke about not having representatives of Bend and Redmond present to answer questions. Vice Chair Criss also was concerned about inadequate compensation for land. Redmond and Bend will both be expanding and moving closer together with increased development. Commissioner Turner felt that an opportunity to get onto the west side with a frontage road would make the properties more valuable. We've heard from Halligan Ranch about how difficult it is to get in and out. Commissioner Turner and Peter discussed overpasses at Deschutes Junction and not bringing a direct hookup to Deschutes Market Road; we also don't know about access to Juniper Ridge. Commissioner Quatre said she had a problem with Bend and Redmond not providing input, and how can we decide on the best action without it? Chair Brown said he was taking the approach that we have two letters from them on file. He has a problem with the southern part and likes the idea of looking at the parts they do support. Commissioner Cyrus said the properties on the west side could be spared the negotiation of the right-of- way. Commissioner Quatre asked if being on the west side would be less of an issue than the east side. Commissioner Turner said that the bridges could be under the railroad, and Peter discussed different clearance standards. They may not have a preference of over versus under, although you have to go through bedrock to go under. There are also drainage issues. Peter and Chair Brown discussed the approval of the Upper Deschutes Resources Management Plan and the approved corridor. Tom Blust, Road Department Director, said the BLM has specifically done environmental clearance on the alignment and granted a right-of-way, although this could change. The corridor identified in 2005 was fairly narrow. Commissioner Turner asked who was involved, and Tom said there were public hearings; the County, State and cities were involved. Peter said there was involvement from ODOT, BLM, National Guard, City of Redmond, Deschutes County and public hearings with ample opportunity for comment. Both Peter and Tom participated, and Commissioner Criss asked about public testimony. Tom said he could not recall how many people appeared. Commissioner Quatre thought that the audience members wanted to provide more input, and Chair Brown discussed that the public could go before the Board. Commissioner Turner wanted to provide a clear recommendation to the Board. Peter said the BLM probably not would want to reopen the Management Plan. Chair Brown and Commissioner Quatre discussed recommending this. Commissioner Klyce asked about the width of the right-of-way, and Peter said 100 feet. Commissioner Cyrus asked about the west boundary, which Chair Brown said he understood was the railroad track. Commissioner Cyrus spoke about moving the right-of-way to the east side. Peter said that under the current zoning there really is no economic potential. Chair Brown asked Peter to indicate a half -mile width on the map. Commissioner Turner said it sounded like this has already been locked in and the Commissioners are being asked to rubber stamp it. It may be the most cost-effective approach, but there are other opportunities to make improvements and perhaps the Commissioners are not being allowed to explore these. Chair Brown and Commissioner Turner said they may not be comfortable with this. Perhaps we should add language to explore options on the east side. Commissioner Cyrus said we may not need to go to the BLM. Chair Brown said we may need to amend the motion to add "other governmental agencies." Nick said perhaps it could include language about exploring other options and leave that open. The motion and second were withdrawn. Motion: Commissioner Cyrus motioned to support the extension of 19th south to Deschutes Junction and explore other options within and outside the approved 'h mile - wide corridor with appropriate agencies and stakeholders. Motion passed unanimously. Motion: Commissioner Turner motioned to consider whether or not the Commission approves of the 19th Street extension route as presented in the staff report. Seconded by Commissioner Quatre. Vote: Opposed unanimously. VI. DISCUSSION: Comprehensive Plan Update: Where Do We Go From Here? — Terri Payne, Senior Planner. Terri spoke about a summary she provided to the Commissioners. The public is overwhelmingly opposed to destination resorts, and South County would like its own community plan. The matrices submitted by the public will be on the website by next week. There are concerns over the water, much of which is trust issues over the Local Rule backlash. Many matrices showed that the South County citizens did not want discussions of water in the Comp Plan at all. Chair Brown thought that we would be discussing this in February and March so it can be digested — the matrix and what to do with the Plan. Nick and Chair Brown spoke about setting a deadline and getting dates for public notice set up, etc. Commissioner Quatre asked Chair Brown if he was only discussing the checklist, not the entire Comp Plan Update. Chair Brown discussed samples of what other counties had done and said he liked the sample from Lane County. Nick spoke about the CDD work plan starting July 1. Chair Brown asked if the action items should be separate and wondered how to develop a workable document. He would like to take the action items out for the most part and make them separate from the goals and policies. Commissioner Quatre said that the Comp Plan, with or without action items, does not affect this cycle. The staff's activities for the work plan take place every year — we do not have to decide for this fiscal year if they are in or out. She has heard people talk about how having action items helps them get funding — agencies and special interest groups. Commissioner Cyrus also said he would like to see the action items set aside. Vice Chair Criss asked Nick if there are any action items that would draw money in the immediate future and need to be looked at. Nick said that we have applications made on some of them, but we can look for ways to redraft policies. Chair Brown asked if the work needed to be in the Comp Plan if we are applying for grants. Chair Brown mentioned being sensitive to budget issues. Vice Chair Criss discussed going over the community plans and budget items first, making decisions and getting those off the table. Chair Brown repeated that we are trying to decide what we need from staff and whether we need to separate the action items unless there is a need to incorporate them into the Comp Plan. Commissioner Turner felt that a number of action items could be combined with the goals, and others did not belong in the document. He was concerned that some action items were too specific. Commissioner Klyce spoke about the sample comprehensive plans he had reviewed. Maybe we should see how we feel about some of the policies and goals and figure out if we can come up with a unified thought about the form of the Plan. We may not yet be at the point of deciding what the physical Plan should look like. Commissioner Turner said he did like the format. Chair Brown said he is used to dealing with codified documents, but the document is difficult to manage due to its size. There could be cross references. Commissioner Quatre said she reviewed the different plans and got very confused with Lane County's. She likes the format we have here and finds it easy to locate information. The column with references was helpful. Chair Brown said he liked Lane County's plan with less minutia. Commissioner Klyce suggested background text followed with goals and policies. Commissioner Quatre said she liked the historical information. Commissioner Klyce said he had no objections to having the text accompany goals and policies. Terri said she understood that the Commissioners were fine with text that relates a story but not with too much detail. We can either tweak the format we have now or come back with two or three other versions. Chair Brown said he felt Chapter 1 would be the easiest to approach. Commissioner Turner asked if they could say if there are five or more in support of an item, we do not spend hours trying to wordsmith something. The Commissioners discussed this and Commissioner Quatre said she would like to reserve the opportunity to discuss something if needed. Commissioner Klyce mentioned reading in the Jackson County plan that attitudes have changed over time, and concerns are not shared equally by all residents, so clear direction was not always provided. Terri said she had listened to planning commissions debate over "a" versus "is" for hours. Commissioner Klyce suggested that in the text portion, he would prefer not to see dated references because things change over time. He brought this up because we were discussing rewriting the text for the first section. Chair Brown said it looked like Chapters 1 and 4 will have some issues but will be relatively easy to address. Terri said there are many comments indicating that people want different modifications, and she also used a four -vote majority. Chair Brown said he wanted to see how the conversation goes and just wanted samples for next time. Commissioner Quatre mentioned using the latest and best available information instead of dated information. Nick said maybe we should get through all the goals and polices in the Plan and then look at the text. Terri indicated that staff has heard the document needs to be simplified and tell a story. Nick said that if we can focus on goals and policies for now, we can look at the narrative later. Chair Brown mentioned doing goals and policies first - an initial review - and then looking at different formats. VII. DELIBERATION: Destination Resort Remapping Code Amendment: Reconsideration of Recommendation. Chair Brown indicated that they are not re -voting but offering additional testimony. Nick said that there has been one vote, but a different vote can be taken and a different recommendation made. The record will not be reopened. Peter Gutowsky summarized the matter. The written record is open until March 1. A spokesperson could carry a recommendation from the Commissioners to the Board. Chair Brown said he would like to just take a fresh look at the information. In the recommendation that was forwarded to the Board were a number of pieces that were state guidelines being repeated in the ordinance. He does not know if that is appropriate. He would like to consider changing the wording in that first section to indicate we are reaffirming the state guidelines, rather than actually saying what those guidelines are. Peter Gutowsky said that if the Commissioners want to revisit how the ordinance is framed, everything is on the table. Nick summarized the question of just citing the statute as well as any local criteria we could establish. Peter said eligibility criteria should be listed to make the document more understandable. Chair Brown said he is concerned that the state could change things. Commissioner Turner said he does not have a problem listing criteria at all. Peter said that once the criteria are adopted, it sets in motion the 30 -day map amendment process. But we can still come back to the Planning Commission and revise criteria. It would be the "rubber stamp," but this does not mean that the Comp Plan cannot be shortened. Chair Brown said perhaps we should just leave it as is and make changes where necessary. Commissioner Klyce said he liked the idea of County Code automatically following state changes. Commissioner Luke had said that platted subdivisions are ineligible by state law at one meeting — he did not realize that they are eligible. If he had had a list, he might not have made that mistake. There is an enormous amount of misinformation as to what is actually allowed by law, so he likes the flexibility and perhaps, in addition to listing criteria, we should add additional language saying "subject to change by state law." Commissioner Turner, Chair Brown and Commissioner Quatre spoke about being more restrictive than the state, that we cannot be less, and how we handle it if the state drops a restriction. Chair Brown said he would trust staff to bring it to them if that occurs, and Commissioner Turner said he was fine with that. Nick mentioned that it is probably a legal question and we should separate state and local criteria, but Chair Brown thought that referencing state law may not be the best option. Vice Chair Criss spoke about showing new criteria and felt that we do not need to add any new criteria. There are already plenty of restrictions, and we really need lands on the map that are legal. There is no reason to have land on the map that is not legal by existing state or local criteria, and adding new criteria at this time really overcomplicates the issue. He feels that the platted subdivision issue at Aspen Lakes is a target — it is an existing situation and complicated issue. There is plenty of public process for this to go through, with an existing subdivision and golf course, and we do not need to get in the way of the process. It will be tough row to hoe as it is with public hearings, etc., and to add new criteria at this time is a problem. The people in South County do not want to see new destination resorts, but when he polled them about what's happening in Sisters, they asked if it wasn't something that needs to be addressed up there. They don't want Sisters dictating what to do in their area. We need to look at the existing State and County criteria, which are fine the way they are. Let's do a remapping project with those. The only thing we talked about at the joint session was new criteria for long-range transportation planning. He is not sure about the platted subdivisions — it seems that there is only one place in the County where the platted subdivision problem is occurring, and this will shut down the public process. Peter responded that the platted subdivision affects all of South Deschutes County and platted subdivisions were not targeted to a specific property. Platted subdivisions owned by multiple owners are probably not going to be cited for destination resorts. A lot of public testimony, including that at a CAG meeting, was vehemently against destination resorts "in the backyard." On December 10, the Planning Commission agreed that if there are property owners who want to retain the existing designation and are mapped today, they could maintain their mapping with a grandfather clause. Chair Brown mentioned discussing this with Nick, and Nick said there were four reasons for including private subdivisions: (1) lot size; (2) the Thornburgh decision where the first 50 units of overnight lodging must be built before real estate is sold; (3) DR's, which are required to have 50% open space (most platted subdivisions do not; however, cluster developments such as Aspen Lakes do — they have 60%, so an important factor is whether conversions should be allowed on cluster developments); (4) economics — resorts make money through the sale of real estate, and subdivisions by and large are already sold. Platted subdivisions could be kept on the map — Commissioner Luke may have been thinking of Thornburgh. Commissioner Klyce asked if any subdivisions in the County have been platted but not sold. Nick said there are probably bits and pieces, and areas where the homes are hit and miss. Commissioner Klyce asked whether, if a subdivision has any development, the cost would be too high for a resort. Where the land has been set aside for intensive residential use, it makes sense to do that. If you convert an undeveloped subdivision to a DR, you need to add more open space. Commissioner Klyce asked if a DR had to be a minimum of 160 acres, and Nick said yes, if the desire is to sell real estate. Commissioner Klyce confirmed that neither state nor County cares how you get to the other 160 acres with Nick and Peter. One of the criticisms from the public is that one parcel has to be bigger than 160 acres to qualify, which is not true. Commissioner Klyce said that really any parcel of any size is eligible. Peter said that the Planning Commission has made statements that can lead the public to believe that the map could increase lands, and the grandfather clause could add land as well. Commissioner Klyce said he is still finding new information through this process. Peter said that the Board recognized from a public policy that the 112,000 acres do not accurately depict where DR's will be sited. From a public policy sense, it makes good sense to get the map to designate which properties could truly accommodate a resort. Commissioner Turner thought that Nick's comment about economic limitations did not have a place - a new model will probably come forward to change some of the criteria. Also, regarding subdivisions not being feasible as DR's, a fire could sweep through and wipe out a group of houses and make a DR more possible. He also wondered whether allowing contiguous parcels would be indicated on the map or allow people to get remapped. Peter said if an owner is unmapped, and the criteria are adopted, several owners could file an application and demonstrate that they are contiguous and be mapped. Commissioner Turner asked if someone who owns 50 acres would be unmapped and then could be remapped if they combined properties other contiguous parcels. Commissioner Turner felt it was unfair to take this away from landowners. Peter discussed the grandfather clause recommended by the Planning Commission to allow this to occur. Commissioner Turner felt this was taking something away from the land owners. Nick said that one of the things we were charged with is to reduce the map but we can go in any direction the Commissioners would like to go. Chair Brown indicated that there was concern for the "taking" of something when resorts are remapped, and if someone wanted to remain on the map, that could be considered as an option. Nick said that we can only do one map over 30 months, and people who qualify under the new criteria may apply. It will go from the current map to a new map. Peter said there were approximately 40,000 acres where there were platted subdivisions, and individual owners with less than the 160 acres. Commissioner Turner felt as if the City of Bend arrived at a conclusion about the UGB and the criteria were being changed to fit with the conclusion. Commissioner Quatre said she had a problem with the grandfather clause because a 50 -acre parcel is not eligible. Why would you grandfather someone who does not qualify in the first place? Commissioner Klyce spoke about land being eligible and how someone could buy aggregate parcels and be eligible, and this could not be done if all the parcels were mapped as ineligible. Commissioner Turner mentioned smaller destination resorts, which Peter said is a totally different map with different criteria. This would also be a multi-year process. Peter said that he is hearing some discomfort with taking off lands that are already mapped and maybe there are almost no changes to the map. Commissioner Turner asked if the "green" map showed State and County requirements. Peter spoke about areas of critical state concern which prohibit resorts. Peter and Commissioner Turner discussed 1992 requirements and their affects on the map. Nick asked if we could come back with a map that shows the 1992 state criteria plus the area of critical state concern, plus the wildlife area combining zone and Redmond area urban reserve as a baseline. Commissioner Cyrus said he had seen an ad for a large property identified as 22,000 SE of Newberry and represented as being within the DR overlay. Peter said it is federal land unless it is in Klamath County. Nick asked the Commissioners if they would like to see any scenarios in the criteria so they have the next two meetings to look at it. Chair Brown asked if we want to address any existing County criteria first. Commissioner Quatre asked if a map of proposed and existing areas could be provided. Peter thought that perhaps the Commissioners should define their core interests. Commissioner Klyce mentioned not "downzoning" someone and asked if non-contiguous, less -than -160 parcels could be shown on a map — those that have no chance to ever be eligible. Commissioner Quatre mentioned not being comfortable with personal values — we should look at what is legal, supported, what we do without the grandfather clause, etc. Peter discussed the procedures the County used to arrive at the map. Commissioner Quatre mentioned her own personal value system against destination resorts but that she did not want to impose her values on the rest of the County. Vice Chair Criss asked about the definition of a cluster development versus a subdivision. He said he also did not like destination resorts and thought that Aspen Lakes needs to be looked at differently. Also, lands less than 160 acres are currently not eligible unless joined together, so he does not see a "take away" situation. He does not think there is a takeaway, Measure 49 or Measure 37 claim. He does not want to see a map showing 50 -acre pieces where no one has yet made a decision. Commissioner Turner asked for some history at the next meeting, specifically about the EFU land. Commissioner Cyrus mentioned a neighbor who is mapped and asked about the quality of water which is dependent on snow. Chair Brown mentioned focusing on this, Commissioner Turner's request and the grandfather clause. Peter offered to provide more history and maps to the Commissioners. Commissioner Turner asked for map showing the current baseline of what properties are zoned for destination resorts today. Nick asked the Commissioners to consider the very opposing points of view as to whether someone should remain who is mapped and whether we should send notice regarding their mapped or unmapped status. Commissioner Klyce mentioned the transportation planning rule and how it affects people getting back on the map. Nick spoke about the state stakeholders' group Peter Gutowsky asked the Commissioners what areas they wanted shown on a new map of currently eligible lands for resorts. Vlll. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. IX. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS Nick discussed the agenda for February 11. Peter Russell discussed the transportation system plan timeline. Nick mentioned having a retreat in March. On February 3, the Sunriver Feasibility Study will be on the Board's agenda. Next Thursday is the DEQ -led South County meeting. Nick mentioned the status of pending destination resort legislation. X. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 777: d, 4�� Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary NEXT MEETING — February 11, 2010, at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97701