Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-02-11 - Planning Commission Minutes117 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 FEBRUARY 11, 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, Keith Cyrus, Todd Turner, Merle Irvine and Richard Klyce. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner; Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner; Terri Payne, Senior Planner; Chris Bedsaul, Associate Planner; and Laurie Craghead, Assistant Legal Counsel. January 7 and January 14, 2010 minutes were approved. I1. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. Ill. PUBLIC HEARING: TA -09-8, a Text Amendment to Chapter 18 of the Deschutes County Code adding minor variance criteria to recognize longstanding occupation of properties not located in Farm (EFU) or Forest (F) zones — Chris Bedsaul, Associate Planner. Chris summarized the proposal and the staff report. Vice Chair Criss mentioned other landowners in other areas (Ferndale, California, and Humboldt County) who had the same types of problems. Chris said he had not received any comments but did get information from a broker on behalf of Dave Bancroft, who provided code examples of Ferndale, California and another town. There are two code sections in California that have lot line adjustment criteria dealing with certain issues on rural lot line adjustments. He has not looked at it to determine if it is applicable here. Deschutes County has not historically had restrictions other than variance requirements for size limitations, so the Code does not address lot line adjustments in any specific section. Vice Chair Criss said he did ask Mr. Bancroft to try and get this into the written record. Chris said that based on his conversation today, it was submitted today and can be entered into the record this evening. Quality Services Performed with Pride Chair Brown asked if this would apply to other situations which Chris Bedsaul said was / correct. Chair Brown asked if we were currently aware of any other situations, and Chris said he did not know of any at this time — this is a submittal to try and solve this particular problem. Mike Barry, County Surveyor, testified and said there is another area maybe less than a mile away — the Huntington and Burgess intersection. Also, when the Surveyor's office started dealing with Mr. Bancroft they did look at the Ferndale Code, and this is very similar. There are other situations he has seen in the County where this would be beneficial. There are often unknown property lines that have been occupied for 10-20-50 years, and many times people have no other recourse other than going to court. Chair Brown opened the discussion for public testimony; there was none. Motion: Commissioner Turner motioned to close both the oral and written records at this time. Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. Discussion: Vice Chair Criss suggested that the written record be left open to give the landowners more time to comment. Chair Brown asked Nick Lelack when they would be deliberating on this proposal. Nick said the written record could be left open for one week with deliberation/decision on February 25. Chair Brown summarized the comments from the surveyor and the situation in Ferndale with the submittal from Mr. Bancroft. Chris Bedsaul stated that the document submitted today by Mr. Turner on behalf of Mr. Bancroft will go into the record as an official document. Chair Brown thought that perhaps nothing would be accomplished by delaying a decision, and he would like to get this forwarded as i soon as possible. Vice Chair Criss agreed and the oral and written records were closed. Motion: Vice Chair Criss motioned that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of Text Amendment 09-8 amending Title 18, Chapter 18.132, Minor Variances, by adding subsection 18.132.025(C) and adopts staff findings as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Turner. Motion approved unanimously. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance 2010-005 Amending Deschutes County Code 17.24.105 to Provide for Any Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Member's Signature on All Plats and Declaring an Emergency — Laurie Craghead, Deschutes County Assistant Legal Counsel. Laurie said that this amendment would allow all three Commissioners to sign plats, instead of just the Chair and Vice Chair. Technically, this is not a land use decision, but planning staff thought we should go through the legislative process and bring it before the Planning Commission. Motion: Commissioner Turner motioned that the public hearing, both oral and written, be closed. Seconded by Vice Chair Criss. Motion passed unanimously. Motion: Commissioner Turner motioned to forward 2010-005 to the Board with a recommendation for approval. Seconded by Vice Chair Criss. Motion passed unanimously. 2 V. WORK SESSION: Deschutes County Transportation System Plan Update — Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner. Peter presented an overview of the current status of the TSP. Nick mentioned that the Subway appeal period has expired with no appeals submitted. Peter spoke about the community meetings that have been held. Models through 2030 have been considered. Nick discussed the grant for work on the TSP. The grant expires at the end of June, so the committees and Peter will be working very hard for the next few months. We need to have a pretty solid draft to the State by the end of June, which can be amended as we go through the public process. Nick suggested we have monthly updates on this. Peter said that most of the County's road segments are fine. The only challenges will be Burgess Road from Meadow to Dorrance, north of La Pine; and a small part of the Kline Falls Highway, from Nutcracker to the 126 ramp. The rest of the County's roads meet the 9600 -vehicle -per -day standard. However, the State Highway system has some problems; 97 will have operational issues and will not meet ODOT performance standards from Lower Bridge Way in Terrebonne to the North end of Redmond. U.S. 20 will also not meet standards (assuming no improvements) from Indian Ford Road to the west end of Sisters and Gerking Market Road to the Deschutes River. For Oregon 126, it's Quail Road to the bottom of the grade, the dry canyon. Also, the Kline Falls Highway to 35th Street, and S.E. Sherman in Redmond to the Crook County line will not meet standards. For intersections, the County is in pretty good shape except for Powell Butte Highway at Butler Market and the Powell Butte Highway at Neff/Alfalfa Market, and S. Century Drive and Abbott Road (the roundabout leading into Sunriver). So only three County intersections won't meet standards. There are quite a few State highway intersections that will not meet mobility standards, including 97 and Lower Bridge Way, 97 and Smith Rock Way, the Baker Road ramps, U.S. 20/Cook Ave., U.S. 20 at the Powell Butte Highway and others. Commissioner Klyce and Peter discussed some of the plans for the Terrebonne area, including a possible interchange at the north end of Terrebonne. Chair Brown and Peter discussed Highway 97 and the capacity for expected traffic between Deschutes Junction and the South City limits of Redmond, and operational challenges in the Cook Avenue intersection. Commissioner Irvine asked if the TSP includes cost analyses for different options, and Peter said it does. Vice Chair Criss asked about ODOT closing the 97/Vandervert intersection. Peter said it is one of the options being considered. Vice Chair Criss and Peter discussed the potential trip generation and required traffic analysis if a destination resort is located at the end of Vandervert Road. Nick Lelack submitted a copy of his testimony on the destination resort bill and discussed funding sources for traffic -related improvements. Peter mentioned that the Bend Airport Master Plan will be included in the TSP. Chair Brown complimented Peter on the information presented. Nick and Peter spoke about coordination with other jurisdictions. Note change in Agenda order below. VI. DISCUSSION: Comprehensive Plan Update — Terri Payne, Senior Planner. Nick and Chair Brown presented a proposed schedule for the Comp Plan Update meetings, which all of the other Commissioners approved. Section 1.2, Community Involvement; Section 1.3, Land Use, and all of Chapter 4 were considered. The Commissioners had indicated their opinions on a matrix developed by staff, and Chair Brown suggested discussing only the important items, and those on which the Commissioners did not agree. Commissioner Turner suggested removal of a number of action items and combining them with policies. The action items and format may also be discussed at the next meeting. Nick added that the Commissioners should feel free to bring up their own ideas, in addition to those in the document. The Commissioners all felt that rights of ownership should be safeguarded and discussed combining some sections as well as some goals and policies. The relationships between staff work plans and action items were considered. Some of the Commissioners felt that action items were not appropriate for inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. Locations of Planning Commission meetings and adding a requirement for pre -application meetings were discussed. Section 1.3, Land Use Planning — Chair Brown felt that there should be more generality than specificity in Key Issue 1 regarding cooperation between agencies. Nick suggested revising the language to state "cooperation in partnerships leads to better long-range land use planning." County management of lands in Key Issue 2 was discussed and the current language approved. For Key Issue 3, Chair Brown said he would prefer to remove the word "information" and use something like "fact based." The Commissioners agreed that the word "but" in Goal 2 would be better changed to "and." Nick and Chair Brown discussed the Periodic Review process. Chair Brown, Terri and Nick discussed the relationship between Key Issues and Goals. The Commissioners felt that in Section 1.3.1, property owners' rights were not considered. Nick offered to provide copies of the Statewide Planning Goals. Public ownership along rivers and streams was considered. Commissioner Klyce wanted to delete 1.3.4 and 1.3.5 and mentioned someone who had testified recently before the Board that scenically valuable property was too important to trust to individual property owners. There is a long history of conflict in Oregon regarding streamside property ownership, for example, and these two phrases may be headed in that direction. Commissioners Klyce and Cyrus discussed Commissioner Cyrus' problems with developing a plat where at the last minute he was told he had to give up a 10 -foot conservation easement on both sides of a stream, after he was already financially committed. He felt it was extortion. There were many conditions attached such as maintenance of the area, keeping trash picked up — suffering all the costs with no benefit. It was essentially forced trespass. Nick felt that perhaps the Goal got to the key issue of effectively managing County lands. Commissioner Turner indicated that these two properties were not property rights policies, and this statement only says public property will be maintained where feasible — there is nothing about taking property rights away. Commissioners Klyce and Turner discussed public use and public ownership. Commissioner Cyrus mentioned taking out the word "increase." Commissioner Cyrus said he supported maintaining property someone already owns. Chair Cyrus asked the others if they felt these two policies should be deleted. Nick said the policies only cover what is already in public ownership. Commissioner Klyce and Chair Brown discussed Goal 2, which targets these items without being specific. Commissioner Irvine and Vice Chair Criss also favored removing the word "increase." Nick and Commissioner Klyce discussed maintaining County -owned properties, and Terri 4 will come up with alternate language. Commissioner Cyrus also mentioned that there is an "out," due to the words "where feasible." Goal 2 and management of County lands were further discussed. Terri spoke about keeping a list of resources for Goal 5 in the Comprehensive Plan. The reason for the Policies is to define the Goals more clearly and give more specific direction. Commissioner Klyce said he would prefer to keep things more general. Nick wondered if the list could be included with Goal 5, and Terri said that was possible. Right now we do not have an adequate list of Goal 5 resources and that is part of this process — we need to identify County -owned properties. Parklands in the County were reviewed — Terri said there are quite a few. We have two parks, the one across the street and part of the fairgrounds. There are a number of lands, mostly in South County, designated parklands mostly because they are near wetlands; the County decided a long time ago to retain them so they would not be developed. The park designation also has specific language regarding values. Chair Brown suggested revisions to make it clear that it refers to managing previously designated areas. Terri said that Property Management wanted some statements to reinforce what they are doing and make sure things get done. Terri and Chair Brown discussed whether there were costs involved — the County does not really actively "manage" the lands. Nick suggested "manage designated parklands for their intended purpose." Commissioner Klyce felt that this language does not need to be in the Comprehensive Plan; this is a management issue that we do not need to get into. Peter Gutowsky spoke about fuels reduction and coordination with forest lands which do require active management. Commissioners Irvine and Turner said they did not have a problem with the language. Chair Brown said we will continue to work on it. Nick and Chair Brown discussed counties no longer being required to do Periodic Review as of 2003. Cities are still required to do it. Chair Brown asked if there should be an open policy to update the Comprehensive Plan as needed, rather than using a specific timeline. Terri said that this already happens — the current Plan was written in 1979 and has been updated in pieces over the years. We looked at the farm chapter during Periodic Review but not in context with anything else — the thinking is that we need to step back to look at the whole thing once in awhile. Vice Chair Criss thought that it should be reviewed at least every 20 years — and a two-year review for problem areas. Chair Brown thought this could be an action item, and staff could point out issues to be addressed. Commissioner Klyce thought that 20 years was too long. Nick suggested that the Comprehensive Plan could be "evaluated" every 10 years, and the Commissioners agreed. The Commissioners agreed to move the statement in 1.3.9 (concerning copies of the Comprehensive Plan being available to the public) to the Community Involvement section. Terri spoke about the intergovernmental agreement language, which came from Kevin Harrison. The current intergovernmental agreements with the Forest Service and BLM have not been updated since 1984. Chair Brown thought this sounded more like an action item. The Commissioners discussed the use of population forecasts and whether this language should be included. Commissioner Cyrus and Vice Chair Criss agreed it should be eliminated. Commissioner Irvine said he did not have strong feelings either way, although planners do have to use population forecasts for traffic evaluation, etc., so it is something we already do. Policies should support the Goals. Even if you have to do something anyway, for some of these items the language should still be included as policy or action items, rather than assuming it will be done. But there could also be too much reiteration in the Plan. Nick wondered if there should just be one policy that says "make land use decisions based on best available information..." Commissioner Irvine agreed that perhaps one general policy could cover this, and Terri will look at revising the statement. Commissioner Turner felt that from 1.3.1 all the way down the list, the action items could be combined into policy items. Chair Brown and the other Commissioners agreed. Terri will come up with draft language. It was decided to postpone Chapter 4 due to the length of time it took to get through Chapter 1. If the next item does not take too long, Chapter 4 may be reviewed this evening. VII. DISCUSSION: Destination Resort Remapping Code Amendment: Reconsideration of Recommendation — Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner. Peter summarized information provided to date. Commissioner Irvine asked about the decision on the irrigated lands being deferred to a later time. Peter said his understanding was that there a farm study as part of Periodic Review identifying lands that should retain exclusive farm use (EFU) designation. The Board did not revisit the issue of EFU lands, so once they had the farm study and incorporated it as a reference to the Comprehensive Plan, they designated/reaffirmed EFU lands and did not revisit whether the irrigation threshold defined in Ordinance 92-002 should be reconsidered. There was a 40 -acre threshold. Page 2 of the memo indicates "irrigated land zoned EFU having 40 or greater contiguous acres in irrigation," and then the bullet below is the non-contiguous EFU acres in the same ownership having 60 or greater irrigated acres. Chair Brown felt that this was a good time to ask the Board to reconsider or make that decision. Commissioner Turner clarified that this pertained to items 5 and 6 with 40 acres of water, contiguous, and 60 acres of non-contiguous land. Chair Brown asked if the Commissioners wanted to look at some of the County rules — they actually had voted on the 40-60 and split at.that time. Peter added that when the Commissioners were at the July work session with the Board, Commissioner Cyrus introduced the issue of whether EFU land should be revisited as part of this process. The Board and the Planning Commission talked about it for over an hour. The decision made at the time was that this process was not the right vehicle, given the amount of controversy it would generate. This is why staff went forward as they did in July — Dennis Luke was very involved in those discussions, as were Tammy and Alan. There was some direction that staff followed based on this consensus. Chair Brown related that in December there was a 50-50 split, and he wanted to re -address this issue with more Commissioners present. There is also something in the document that says it was never resolved. Peter said there are approximately 170,000 EFU acres, so the potential for adding lands to the resort map would be significant. There is a lot of EFU land that clearly does not meet the current irrigation threshold but would certainly provide opportunities if the recommendation goes forward. Commissioner Turner asked if there was some EFU property that is now irrigated but the owners gave up those rights — would they be eligible for destination resort inclusion? Peter said it would be up to the property owner to demonstrate they meet whatever criteria are established. If they met all the other criteria and could demonstrate that their property was no longer being irrigated to the extent required in the current Code, then they would become eligible. Again, the direction staff took is to make this unlike the entitlement M process for becoming a resort — which leaves a lot to interpretation — to make it clear and objective. Someone is either in or out, and the larger controversy should be left for when someone submits a formal proposal. Commissioner Cyrus felt there were vast discrepancies in the quality and availability of water. Having junior water rights — looking at the mountains this summer, we may not get much water — where do they fit in? Chair Brown discussed high-value farmland, and felt we can certainly justify a decision based on the information supplied to us. Nick said there were three options (1) remove; (2) recommend the Board direct staff to complete the review that was deferred in the 1992 ordinance; (3) clarify the criteria to add some caveats, such as irrigated parcels of 40 acres or more with these types of water rights, for example. Chair Brown felt that #2 sounded fine — how much would it take and what is the cost? Nick said he would have to do a general work scope. Chair Brown felt that the 100,000+ acres to be covered would be a significant challenge. He wanted to clarify whether the Commissioners are not re -voting what we passed to the Board — we have already recommended this set of regulations — so what we are doing is not taking it back and voting again. Nick said it was possible to re -vote if the Commissioners wish; that vote is in the books and is history - there can be a new and totally different vote. Commissioner Turner asked about the irrigated land zoned EFU having 40 or greater contiguous acres of irrigation — if he had a 160 -acre parcel and had 40 acres of irrigation rights on that 160 acres, he would not be eligible? Peter said that was correct. Nick added that a fourth option was to keep things as is. Commissioner Brown asked Commissioner Irvine his opinion, and he said he was not sure due to not knowing the pros/cons, impacts, whether the rights are interruptible, what sorts of caveats could be added. He felt he needed more education on the impacts and pros and cons. Commissioner Cyrus said he was hearing that if you take the water off, you qualify; if you irrigate, you have to mitigate and go find someone else who is willing to dry up. Commissioner Irvine said that was what was bothering him — the way the regulation is right now, you are forced to "brown up" land. This seems to be too much of a bureaucracy. Chair Brown said there are regulations right now saying that high-value farmland cannot be included. It was obvious to him that we have climate problems and a lot of folks classified EFU according to soil classifications who should not be. If someone has water on their property, but it is marginal soil, it seems as though it should be appropriate for a destination resort. But if it is good soil, perhaps that should not be the case. Nick said that he thinks the only limiting factor in the County is the water. Peter discussed criteria, and Commissioner Cyrus discussed potatoes being rotational crops. Chair Brown said he had looked at the term "irrigated land," and it may not be the correct term. He discussed water rights versus irrigated land. Water rights can come from the ground or stream flow; those rights can be put in -stream if they are not being used, but you have the right to get them back later. We need clarification on what irrigation is. Commissioner Cyrus said he thought you could get acre -for -acre if it was surface water. Commissioner Irvine and Peter discussed the Deschutes Groundwater Mitigation Rules and State law. Chair Brown said that, per his letter, we need to try to protect the ability for farmers to earn income but also recognize that it is not always a profitable venture. Commissioner Klyce mentioned that you can buy and sell water rights and transfer them. There is no point in trying to lock them into a particular piece of land. 7 Commissioner Cyrus mentioned that when you say "resort," people envision a golf course, but the open space can be other things as well, such as irrigated pasture or gardens. The focus has been tunnel visioned - there are a lot of other options. Commissioner Turner said he has done quite a bit of work on destination resorts — in his book, they are at a "destination." When you look at Eagle Crest, they chose that spot along the Deschutes River and have grown from that, but there was a destination. Even though Black Butte and Sunriver are not destination resorts, they were focused on a destination. He has an issue with Pronghorn and the one on the west side that just take a parcel and create a destination. He is not too thrilled with taking EFU land and making a destination resort just because someone can do it. He respects Commissioner Cyrus' testimony about trying to farm in this country, but EFU land is EFU land. There are sections of the Deschutes River that wind through some of the DR zone, and maybe it is appropriate to have resorts there. But if you look at Arnold Market Road, which is pasture and irrigated land where they may only get one cutting of hay a year — how appropriate is a destination resort in that location? Chair Brown said he is all for the preservation of agriculture but that we need to take a practical look at it — most people's perception of how agriculture works is not correct. It does also provide the view, open spaces, irrigated lands, herds of deer you can look at in the evening— but we need a better criteria than water to make the determination. We have land that can't grow anything, and yet because of its designation or because someone put a water right on it, we are stuck. He likes the 160 -acre protection. Destination resorts are a reality, but the question is where they should be sited. We have done a poor job of designating EFU — irrigation should not be the criteria. He wondered if we should give a vote to the County Commissioners that says the Planning Commission feels this particular item should/should not be included and that it warrants their inspection. He would just like to vote on the piece, not the whole thing. We are just re-examining something that we voted on 2-2. Commissioner Turner asked about the consequences of taking these two EFU designations out of the criteria — it sounds like it would more than double the size of destination resort -mapped land. Does this Commission feel good about that? Chair Brown said not at all — that is why there needs to be another component besides water to set the criteria. He thinks it has to do with soils more than anything else. Commissioner Turner said we have already recognized we do not have the quality soils, so that will not solve the issue. Peter said another option - in terms of the EFU piece and it staying where it is — could be a recommendation that, prior to the next remapping deadline, the Board will or should complete this farm study and re-evaluation of agricultural lands to address these fundamental issues the Commissioners are wrestling with right now — determining the most productive farmland and calling out the land that doesn't meet that to be considered for eligibility. Chair Brown read (from Goal 8) that "... in Deschutes County, numerous soils are considered to be prime farmland when irrigated." He does not have enough information or the list that was mentioned. He does not want to slap 170,000 additional acres on the map, but if we have 20,000 or 5,000, that is a different conversation. There are other issues such as RR -10 and MUA-10 that are also not resolved. Nick added that they could move through this process right now with the recommendation that the farm study be completed but no remapping done until then. Then we are not 9 subjected to the 30 -month clock. Commissioner Klyce asked if we bring more land into eligibility, does that trigger the transportation plan? Nick said only if someone wants to be added to it. You could take these two criteria out, and now all the land is eligible to be added; but it would only be added if the property demonstrates compliance with TPR. Chair Brown said he would like to know how many acres of these unique soils we are talking about. He does not know where to go to find the information which is supposed to be in the record. Peter said he would look. All of the dry EFU land that made it through the 1992 filtering is eligible. Irrigation is what determines the viability of raising crops or growing some type of vegetation, a Class 4 or 5. When it's dry, it gets the higher number. Chair Brown felt there is too much information out there to resolve this tonight. Nick said we can change the criteria/code/standards any time we want. Peter mentioned that Sunriver LLC is the only group that has stated interest in the remapping project. Commissioner Turner asked if there is anything in SB 1031 that could affect the mapping criteria. Nick said that only big change that has occurred since our 1992 mapping is that properties wanting to be added to the map have to comply with the TPR. That is also State law. The only other avenue you may choose to take is to recommend to the Board to direct staff to amend the siting criteria to ensure that resorts only locate in the areas meeting the new definition of "destination." Commissioner Irvine asked how long it would take to do the analysis of the acreage and complete the 1992 study. Nick said he did not know. Peter spoke about the Big Look bill and the re-examination of farmland. The first phase may be identifying EFU farmlands and looking at attributes; the result could then guide further discussion. Commissioner Turner. felt that this study is 20 years old and should be updated. Chair Brown spoke about the grandfather clause that was added and the new platted subdivision section. The way the grandfather clause was forwarded to the County Commissioners was that the notification requirement was set up to tell the landowners that they are in the DR and if they want to stay, all they have to do is fill out a piece of paper and turn it in. The other side is that they are all in the DR and would have to tell us if they do not want to be. This does not account for someone who went to the South Pacific for a year and didn't hear anything about it. He asked Nick to explain the "safety valve." Nick said that it depends on which approach the Commissioners want to take. Is it that someone is out unless they tell us they're in, or is it the other way around, with no need for a grandfather clause? Chair Brown asked if someone has a method of getting it corrected if they were out of town and did not know. Nick said that the County would take a path of least cost and waive the regulation, if it were subject to Measure 49. Commissioner Cyrus felt that the safest option is for people to opt out. He has heard differing opinions as to whether the County would have 49 exposure. It would be simpler if people could opt out. Commissioner Irvine asked if we go the route for people to opt out, then the map does not change? Chair Brown said yes. Commissioner Cyrus mentioned smaller areas by Black Butte. Commissioner Turner said he was in favor of the opt -out and asked if the grandfather clause includes heirs. Chair Brown said he had talked to Liz Fancher about how to identify the landholders. It's a right that is assigned to the dirt. Nick said there is another option to de -map everything once we recalibrate our criteria with the State and do the opt -out with the balance. Commissioner Cyrus wondered about language on page 6 referring to RR -10 and MUA-10 which, if he reads it right, can be adjacent to the urban growth boundaries. He thought there might be a condition for resources lands. Peter spoke about these being called out in the Code. 0 Chair Brown mentioned platted subdivisions as a new piece of the puzzle and asked whether they should be addressed and included. He and Nick have spoken about this and the possible exception of cluster developments with their open space requirements. We want to do the right job with this map. He heard the other day of a local individual who has bought up 600+ lots in the last year — in his business they refer to those people as "vulture investors," and they are going to start coming in; it would be fairly easy for them to round up undeveloped subdivisions and create their 160 acres. Commissioner Turner spoke about the term "undeveloped subdivisions," and asked if the Commissioners can define what that means. Is it platted subdivisions with less than 50% undeveloped lots? Commissioner Klyce asked if that definition would be self -determining by market forces. Chair Brown said Nick had explained to him that platted subdivisions and clusters are still platted subdivisions. Clusters on their face are not exempted from the subdivision statute unless it is spelled out. This is tough for him because this is a new piece. We have to decide and do the right thing. He has some issues with platted subdivisions and wants to see where everyone else is on this. Commissioner Irvine spoke about replatting subdivisions that have been developed and felt that someone should be able to do that. Other criteria would have to be met — but just because there is a plat and some property points, and nothing else, should not disqualify someone. Peter mentioned the DLCD decision in Commissioner Cyrus' case — they cited the Thornburgh LUBA decision, which was not appealed and said a subdivision cannot be converted into a destination resort because real estate has already been sold. You have to build the first 50 overnight units for visitors before selling any real estate. You also have to meet TPR for any new applications. Commissioner Irvine asked if one person owns a subdivision, has it platted and then sells it in total to someone who wants to make a destination resort, would that be impacted by that decision? Peter said yes. Commissioner Klyce felt that with a platted subdivision, you have land that has been set aside for intensive residential use. Whether it is a subdivision or destination resort does not make a difference. He would not like to see platted subdivisions taken off the map pending legal cases. There is a question as to whether destination resorts are viewed as subdivisions or whether they should be forced to coalesce around a destination of some sort, but this has to be resolved at the State level. Vice Chair Criss thought that they were originally designed to be near an area where there would be a draw — some economic development for the rural areas. Commissioner Klyce said that brings up "how near is near?" Commissioner Turner said that right now the State requirement is less than 160 acres to be excluded. It is not in our existing County ordinance right now. It is in the proposed ordinance. If people have less than 160 acres, we would have a process for them to come in if they join up with someone. He does not like the process. Vice Chair Criss felt that anything less than 160 acres should not be on the map. Commissioner Turner said that two people who own 80 acres, both of whom are on the map, could join up. What if one person wakes up and is not on the map? Commissioner Klyce said that, while State law says a destination resort has to have 160 acres, they do not care how you get to it. So you would be eligible to be on the map. He has a problem with the 160 acres. Commissioner Irvine asked about showing that on a map — people can join together for the 160 acres. Commissioner Klyce asked about isolated parcels that are less than 160 acres and are not contiguous with other parcels that meet the criteria. Peter said there are a lot, and Peter, Nick and Commissioner Klyce discussed whether they could be combined. Commissioner Cyrus asked if Pronghorn was mapped. Peter said it was. 10 Chair Brown asked about proposing to throw out the EFU irrigated acre sections, that the platted subdivision section be removed, that the County additional requirement for 160 acres was removed, and the grandfather section be changed — would a map be prepared to show those changes? Peter said the Board would probably want to know how it would change the existing numbers. Another option would be to keep the map the way it is and let people apply. Peter summarized that Vice Chair Criss did not want platted subdivisions to be eligible; Commissioners Irvine and Turner were still undecided; and everyone else seems to be saying to not make platted subdivisions ineligible; there is no consensus on the EFU piece; you don't need the grandfather clause if you keep the existing criteria. Chair Brown felt they needed to digest this for a couple of weeks and vote on it. Vice Chair Criss said his position is really about South County because they are adamantly against any more resorts, but the only two on the radar screen are in that neighborhood. The DEQ is saying there are not going to be any new subdivisions in South County until the groundwater issue is dealt with. He thinks there should be a simple remapping because it removes most of the ineligible property in his area. He would like to see a map showing the 160 acres because that is how his community feels. Peter said the Commissioners could also recommend that a South County -specific area be ineligible. Chair Brown suggested tabling the decision until the next meeting. VIII. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS. Nick and Terri spoke about the recruitment for Commissioner Quatre's position and the current status of HB 2229. IX. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary NEXT MEETING — February 25, 2010, at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97701 11