Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-04-08 - Planning Commission Minutesjff[JJ t Community Development Department `tiJ .l t k 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 APRIL 8, 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, Merle Irvine, Keith Cyrus, Todd Turner and Richard Klyce. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. January 28, 2010 minutes will be reconsidered at the next meeting. Commissioner Cyrus requested an audio copy. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS Thomas Hill wanted to speak about the integrity of the Planning Commission's mission as it has been mentioned recently in the local media. He has known Keith Cyrus for 22 years, has done $6,000 worth of business with him. As citizens, they need to know of potential conflicts. He feels the media does not have first-hand information and the question should be aired in an appropriate format. He has great concern when the Commissioners' peers have left their positions of responsibility and then said there are issues. He is also concerned that speaking to staff in a less than comforting way rises to the level of undue influence. He spent 22 years in academia and has experienced differences of value. Keith Cyrus has only mentioned a concept to him once, when someone was trying to build a fruit stand and not receiving answers to questions. He hopes the Commissioners have an appropriate avenue to address credibility. Carla Powell, president of a small company in Sisters, said she recently helped start the Central Oregon Bioscience Industries consortium, which brings educational opportunities to the bioscience industries and is trying to bring a research center to the County. She was very concerned about the recent article because Commissioner Cyrus is a friend. The media needs to be very careful and not be so biased on one side. Many people in the area would like to see the County grow. She does not usually come to meetings because she is busy working. She feels very strongly about personal property rights and wants to let the Commissioners know that there are many people who support reasonable growth to bring up tax revenues and expand the County. Quality Services Performed zvith Pride Tony Aceti testified that he was upset about the situation involving Commissioner Cyrus. He has seen Commissioner Cyrus recuse himself in touchy situations. They are both stewards of the land and both have integrity. He believes also that the media is not informed and does not realize the time and resources the Commissioners have contributed. West Starr testified that he has noticed more pipes in canals and ditches in Central Oregon. Enclosing these will deprive groundwater flow. He would like to see ditches opened to keep the groundwater flowing. Nick Lelack added that the County does not regulate or install irrigation pipes; they are handled by irrigation districts. Peter Gutowsky added that the best thing would be to contact Kyle Gorman with the Oregon Water Resources Department. Pam Mitchell spoke on behalf of Commissioner Cyrus, who is her father. She feels that the Commissioners have responsibilities for researching any potential conflicts before they are appointed and that her father's name has been dragged through the mud by the media. We live in a free country and she does not see why property rights advocates are a problem. We need tax revenues to support services. She feels that Aspen Lakes has been unfairly scrutinized and hopes that the Commissioners will do the right thing and support Commissioner Cyrus. Matt Cyrus thanked the Commissioners for the work they are doing in an area which is divisive. He knows that we are taking a hard look at the County's rules versus what the State requires. He feels the media has not had access to all the facts. There was a quote that Aspen Lakes did not meet State or County requirements, which is false. County staff proposed that it be removed from the map. The Commissioners have represented in the past that they would like to avoid Measure 49 claim liabilities. Removing destination resorts from the maps would in fact create Measure 49 claims. Opponents should also not resort to personal attacks. Commissioner Irvine said that when he joined the Commission, it was after the debate and decision regarding Chair Cyrus' destination resort proposal, so he is not as familiar with these issues. He is concerned after reading the paper that Commissioner Cyrus is being accused of influencing the decisions of this Commission. Commissioner Irvine has been impressed with the fact that any time there has been an issue regarding the Cyrus property, Commissioner Cyrus has excused himself. There has been an inference that he lobbied this body, and Commissioner Irvine does not feel he has been lobbied by Commissioner Cyrus or his family. The accusation is misplaced and is a disservice to Commissioner Cyrus and this group. Commissioner Turner proposed that a question be raised to all the Commissioners as to whether they feel they have been influenced on any issue. He personally does not feel he has been, and this may put the controversy to rest. Chair Brown said he would be happy to honor that request. He asked the other Commissioners if they had had any contact which could be considered undue influence at any time. It has not happened to him. The other Commissioners all agreed with Chair Brown and said they had not had any undue influence placed on them, either. Chair Brown said that before he became a Planning Commissioner, he had sat on other boards and this is the most independent group he has been associated with. Commissioner Klyce added that he moved here from New Mexico in 1992 and has learned a lot from Commissioner Cyrus. His historical perspective has 2 helped immeasurably in understanding some of the issues before the Commissioners. He would be very disappointed if that perspective was lost before we can make full use of it. III. PUBLIC HEARING: TA -10-1, Deschutes County Code; Sections 18.116.030, Off -Street Parking and Loading; 18.124.060, Approval Criteria; and 18.04.030, Definitions — Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner, for Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner. Peter gave a staff report and summarized the proposal. Commissioner Turner asked if the proposed amendment was part of the March 11 review, and Peter said he did not think so. Commissioner Turner asked if the costs of mitigation would be in addition to SDC's. Peter said that was correct. There are specific mitigations for the project and SDC's are assessed for properties outside urban growth boundaries. Nick wanted to clarify that we do not collect SDC's outside of the urban growth boundary in La Pine. Peter and Commissioner Turner discussed Section K, which was written by County Counsel and staff. County Counsel wanted to see mitigation defined more precisely. Commissioner Turner asked for a definition of "anticipated impact area," which Peter said would be the area of the traffic study. It would not be located very far away. The intersection of the roadway segments would be analyzed for the traffic study, such as a turn lane close to the area. Commissioner Turner asked about Section 4 and why it was not strong enough for this issue. Peter said that under the site plan approval we required a traffic study but nothing that said we have to mitigate based on it. Legal counsel suggested we modify the Code to specifically say we have to mitigate. Public Comments: None. Motion: Commissioner Irvine moved to close the written and oral records. Seconded by Commissioner Cyrus. Motion passed unanimously. Discussion: Commissioner Turner was concerned that Section K was based on the County Engineer's sole discretion as to what the mitigation has to be and would not allow anything to be built until after that. There is a fairness issue where the last applicant may show up with something that causes an intersection to fail and then be responsible for mitigation costs. He would like to see a way around that. Chair Brown thought that it had referred to pre-existing and had been taken care of. He asked Peter about other alternatives. Peter mentioned that he had worked for ODOT for 13 years and never saw the County use this and deny funding. If you have a land use and an intersection that is failing, you run into difficulties with having to issue a denial. If you have a 20% left turn problem, for example, you can't build a 20% left turn lane. The County, being much more rural, has less intense uses and gets less money. Although Commissioner Turner has a valid concern, we've never used the denial. Vice Chair Criss spoke about Subway in La Pine and said that when McDonald's moved into the old A & W, it caused a large traffic increase. The industrial area in La Pine will be used a lot in the future. If this stops at the County Engineer's discretion, someone who comes in after Subway and McDonald's and can't work out mitigation could be responsible, which may drive away business. He has spoken to people at Subway and does not want to see someone come into the industrial section who can't build, with a resulting loss of jobs. He understands that McDonald's set a national record for drive- throughs in their first couple of weeks. This is a big issue in La Pine and we do not want to chase away business. Peter said that a traffic feasibility study is being funded; industrial uses can be mitigated without construction. The most common way is to change the start 3 and stop times for shifts. For industrial, there are other tools that you don't have with restaurants because restaurants cannot easily change shifts. Vice Chair Criss said there are other fast-food enterprises looking in that area which may be chased away. Peter indicated that with the economic downturn, the volumes are so low in the state highway system, and with businesses that have come to La Pine since 2008, that the intersection may meet the standard. Subway did not have to mitigate because there was sufficient capacity on the highway due to reduction in traffic volumes. Commissioner Criss thought that we should take a long-term approach. Nick Lelack said that La Pine is developing its own codes, as well. Commissioner Brown asked if this language is required, and Peter said it would match the traffic impact code. Commissioner Brown asked for suggestions as to how to proceed. Nick asked Commissioner Turner if he was looking for something clearer or if the Commissioners were comfortable only recommending certain sections. Commissioner Turner said he had seen a number of projects go away when it was realized that the fees were too high. Motion: Chair Brown motioned for a vote of those in favor of forwarding this to the Board. Seconded by Commissioner Criss. Commissioner Klyce abstained; Vice Chair Criss voted no; the other Commissioners voted in favor. Note change in Agenda order. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: Terrebonne Community Plan — Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner. Commissioner Turner disclosed that his firm is the architect for a new school addition in Terrebonne, but he did not feel that this would affect his judgment. Peter gave a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the draft Plan. Commissioner Irvine asked about the commercial expansion area policies on page 21. Number 19 indicates that if the home occupation existed "prior to adoption..." and mentions expanding it. How is this possible? Peter Russell said the history is that there is a land use in Terrebonne with a pre-existing, nonconforming use. We looked at the area and it really is not residential in nature, so we tried to come up with a solution where ODOT would not disagree with the rezoning. This is an attempt to work through that issue. Commissioner Irvine, Commissioner Turner and Peter Russell discussed terminology and using the word "expand," which would only apply to this one property, which is in the commercial zone west of 97. It does not apply to all the commercial properties on the west side of 97. Peter Russell said staff could work on changing the wording. Commissioner Irvine also asked about page 23, number 12 which he feels should be moved under Road Development, Standard Policies because it has nothing to do with bicycles. Peter Russell said that would be fine. Commissioner Irvine questioned the sidewalk specs in number 9, and wondered whether the word "shall" could be used to avoid specific requirements. Peter Gutowsky said that there are requirements, which is why that word was used, and Peter Russell discussed being in conformity with ODOT. Commissioner Klyce asked about how the 221 buildable lots were arrived at, and Peter Gutowsky said he had referred to "buildable lots." Staff did not do an analysis of specific lots. Vice Chair Criss spoke about supporting the Hillman Plat regarding an onsite treatment system and asked if there was a problem. Peter Gutowsky said there are some cases 4 where the lots are too small for a septic system and drainfield. Commissioner Criss and Peter Gutowsky spoke about the replatting process and how this would be worked out. Commissioner Klyce mentioned someone who spoke recently about his property being rezoned from commercial to residential without his knowledge. Peter Gutowsky said that this is a policy document, so the specifics would have to be discussed. Nick mentioned that notice was sent in the 1990s, but the property owner was not the business owner. Public Comments: Kay Walters, a Terrebonne resident for 44 years, said she is now Chair of the Terrebonne Domestic Water District. She has worked with stakeholders and other groups. At one of their largest meetings, it was pretty clear that the majority of those who showed up wanted to keep Terrebonne as it was. There is a vet clinic and antique store, a storage place and other businesses around Highway 97. There is still room for more businesses. The community does not need more taxes and another board to rule over them. Her concern with ODOT is that if the east side of Highway 97 is opened up, what type of congestion will result? Some people are not aware that the middle lane is not a passing lane, and she has seen two trucks almost collide. How do they convince ODOT to put another flashing light around the speed zone? They are also trying to scramble for more water units. Most residents feel it does not make sense to move rapidly in these economic times. West Starr asked where a water treatment plant would be located and discussed the local terrain. Mike McFarlane, a Terrebonne resident for 20 years and general contractor, testified that he has done a lot of work there. He discussed ATT's which cost around $12,000 per household. He does not have EFU and thinks if a half -lot acre minimum is put on properties, that gives people time to split lots and put in sewer systems. Steve Myrin, a veterinarian with property on the west side, said that he had an opportunity to change existing land to commercial and was told by the County do to it because the Terrebonne zoning would be revamped anyway. He went to several meetings and it went behind closed doors and became non-commercial. He would like to see this made commercial because it has been used that way. He did negotiate with ODOT to reduce access to one area near his new clinic. He wonders what he can do to convince people to allow commercial where it is already used this way. Maria Forester, a Terrebonne resident, felt they had been listened to at the stakeholder meetings. She was concerned about taxable versus buildable lots. Having a minimum of 322 tax lots plus a sewer system would allow only 105 residents at 1.8 acres per person per household. In the future, she would like to see the lots stay the same size and not be too close to her neighbors. She would like to see a feasibility study for a sewer system but leave the lots large enough for activities and privacy. Dave Molony said he owns property just south of the veterinary clinic. It has been commercially used since 1948. He has an affidavit regarding its use as a boarding house since that time. Most of the Hillman lots were 25 feet wide. Only two properties in his area are not owner -occupied. He traded 17 accesses for one commercial access. He supports commercial zoning on the west side. Jeannette Bondsteel is a direct neighbor to the south of the Terrebonne area. She is speaking for 72 homeowners in a subdivision. They do not have a homeowners' association but do have a water district. They are in Circle C and moved there for the lifestyle. It has been an overwhelming request of these 72 owners that they retain the rural lifestyle. They have mostly two -acre parcels. She has heard testimony tonight about breaking six acres into half -acre parcels. She has issues with people coming into a rural area with intentions of subdividing — they should buy property in cities. The Circle C community would like to retain their two -acre parcels and have cows, chickens, etc. She also would like to request that the Commissioners consider not issuing further building permits of any kind in the Terrebonne area until water can be guaranteed. There is adequate water in Circle C because they did not overbuild. They enjoy something that Terrebonne is struggling with. It concerns them that Terrebonne may be looking at their water district for support if there is continued building. She appreciates everyone's work and the group that came out. Steve Henderson, a Terrebonne resident for eight years, said he is a chairman of a Terrebonne rural advocacy committee and has been involved as a stakeholder. He feels this Plan is excellent. There was good turnout at the meetings, and he knows 100 residents who want to see the community stay the same. He feels a sewer system is needed and perhaps land will be donated for a treatment center. On the commercial side, there should be some cleanup around the veterinary clinic since it has been used as a commercial corridor for some time. He has been happy with staff involvement on this project and feels that they have listened to the community. Some people outside Terrebonne want to see it develop for financial reasons, but the State has laws that protect communities so we cannot just divide things for personal gain. Commissioner Criss asked about Mr. Henderson's experience looking at sewer development. Steve said it is premature right now in his area, which is the Circle C district, and it will increase development if we get a sewer. He has not been very involved. Mike Walker said he remembers when Mr. Malone initially made application for his commercial lot, and during that time there were 10-12 people who testified in support of rezoning the west side to commercial. Since that time a group has started up which opposes development of any kind. He feels the Plan has some flaws — five to six people were requested for the stakeholders; but at the second meeting the first Circle C resident appeared, and by the third meeting there were 13 people, many from Circle C. The sign -in sheet from the October 19 meeting indicates that of 51 people, 13 were from Circle C and seven do not own property in Terrebonne. Many people who were voicing the opinion against development did not seem to have a right to do that. At the second meeting he asked Kristen Maze to provide him with a map showing how lots were dispersed. At the time it was claimed that there were 322 residential tax lots and of that number, it was insinuated that they were developable. He showed a map of tax lots that were not buildable and said it takes 10-12 of those lots to make one buildable lot. There are only about 20 residential lots that are buildable. That will not accommodate future growth at all. If there is no expansion, there is no way the existing lots will accommodate the projected population. There is the same problem with the indicated 84 commercial lots. You couldn't put a commercial building on that side. The land use on the west side would be much more accommodating to the septic systems of a commercial development. There have been threats and intimidation by people who do not want growth. Chair Brown asked Peter Gutowsky when the boundary of Terrebonne was set. Peter said it was around the time of Periodic Review and around the mid to late 1990's. 0 Chair Brown asked Peter Russell about ODOT's plans for signaling in Terrebonne, and Peter said they have none. ODOT is very reluctant to put a signal in Terrebonne but has looked at Lower Bridge Way and other options. Chair Brown asked Peter Gutowsky about testimony assessing the issue with lot sizes and what our plan does in that area. Peter said there are plan designations recognizing it, and wastewater is one driver for determining whether these lots can be developed. There are policies that recognize land use and public facilities zoning and incorporate carrying capacity of the land. Chair Brown mentioned the large parcels that could be segmented into smaller parcels. Peter Gutowsky spoke about the four zoning districts, with residential uses allowed in each one. Chair Brown asked if any stakeholders wanted to change land classification at this time. Nick said the overwhelming majority support keeping Terrebonne the way it is. Only 10-15% supported growth. Steve Myrin testified again that at one meeting, they were given stickers to voice their opinions on septic systems, lot sizes, etc., and he personally witnessed over -voting on the sticker issue by a huge number. He questions the 90% criteria if it was based on this. Mike McFarlane does not feel anyone should be able to tell him what to do with his property, and he pays taxes like everyone else. Kay Walters said that one of her main concerns is that contractors/developers/home builders are eager to slice up any kind of land that holds septic systems. She feels the developers come in and give nothing, build small houses too close together, make their money and leave. They are not people who have lived there for years and raised families. She is concerned that these are the people pushing for growth. Commissioner Cyrus asked who developed Circle C. Jeannette Bonsteel and Commissioner Cyrus discussed Circle C. Jeanette said that Circle C opted out years ago. She would like to make sure it is understood that they could lose their water system. Circle C is only against oversaturation of resources, not against growth. Nick said that the record could be kept open for further comments and information to be provided by staff; the oral or written could be closed this evening, etc. Commissioner Turner asked about draft ordinances with numbers being included in the packet. Peter Gutowsky said it is a new policy based on Legal Counsel's recommendation. Chair Brown said he would like to leave the written record open for two weeks. Peter Gutowsky said he would like to make some corrections such as the 1.8 to 1.9 per household. Also, Tables 2 and 5 have numbers that should be clarified. Chair Brown spoke about the public testimony questioning how many lots it takes to make a buildable lot. Peter Gutowsky said we could make up a map using our GIS system. Commissioner Klyce asked if the Assessor's data could be superimposed and Peter said it could. Nick suggested the oral record be kept open until this information is available. Vice Chair Criss asked why the lots would be combined, and Peter and Nick said it was because they could not meet the requirements for septic. Peter said that Todd Cleveland of the staff could provide more information. Vice Chair Criss said he would like that and specifically asked about Angus Acres. Motion: Commissioner Irvine motioned to continue the hearing until May 13 and leave oral/written testimony open. Seconded by Vice Chair Criss. Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Turner asked about some owners who have worked out access with ODOT and whether those properties need to be considered separately. Peter Gutowsky said that staff had tried to add a policy recognizing the prohibition of zone changes in Terrebonne, and he could provide a summary. V. PUBLIC HEARING: TA -10-2, Deschutes County Code; Sections 17.16.115, to Distinguish Performance Standards Between County Roads and State Highways - Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner. Commissioner Turner indicated that he has a project in site plan review which will not have any impact on his participation. Peter provided a staff report and discussed volume capacity and level of service standards. Commissioner Irvine asked about definitions for two-lane and four -lane roads. Peter said we have mostly two-lane roads in the County and discussed what was currently in the Code. Commissioner Cyrus asked about amber lights and whether they are adjusted based on speeds. Peter said that the lights have a fixed amount between red/green but there are "dumb" and "smart" signals. Smart signals have sensors in the pavement and change according to traffic. We only have one, in Sunriver. Vice Chair Criss asked about trip generation and forecasting, and an alternative data source not in the ITE manual. Peter said that some things are not in the manual, such as fruit stands, and alternate data sources may be used. Motion: Commissioner Turner motioned to close the public record. Seconded by Vice Chair Criss. Motion passed unanimously. Motion: Commissioner Turner motioned to forward TA -10-2 to the Board with endorsement for approval. Seconded by Vice Chair Criss. Motion passed unanimously. VI. NEW INFORMATION FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - Nick Lelack. Nick submitted revised Sections 2.2 and 2.3. Commissioner Klyce spoke about the first part of the County Code, describing Planning Commissioners' "powers and duties," which include carrying out the Comprehensive Planning program. He asked the other Commissioners what that phrase meant to them. Chair Brown said he thought it indicated that they are in charge of authorship of the document. Commissioner Turner thought it meant carrying out the process of the program, updating it every 20 years, and keeping in mind the goals and policies in the Plan as part of decision making. Commissioner Klyce discussed answering questions as to where the Comp Plan goes and what it covers, and also spoke about citizen input. In addition, at the end of the meeting, Commissioner Klyce cited DCC 2.52.100(A)(1), under the Planning Commission's Powers and Duties, which states, "To carry out a comprehensive planning program..." Commissioners Klyce and Irvine stated their interpretation of this section to be that the Planning Commission should be the author of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioners Turner and Criss believed the current process, with the Commission's ability to review, amend, etc. the draft Plan is the correct process, and to carry out the Plan means that staff should base policy decisions/recommendations on the Plan. Commissioner Klyce added that he believes the manner in which the draft Plan was prepared (by staff) and only delivered to the Planning Commission at the same time it was delivered to the Board was a "violation of the Deschutes County Code." Nick and Peter explained they had 1-2 years of work sessions and panel discussions to discuss key elements of the Comp Plan and had specifically asked for input on changes; however, we received very few, if any, comments on changes. Therefore, staff drafted the Plan as a starting point for discussion. They asked why Commissioners are now not involved in sub- committees, for example, to work on redrafting the language for the Comp Plan. Commissioner Turner reminded them that they discussed this approach months ago and it was rejected by the Commission - the current format of meetings and topics was the preferred approach. A couple of Commissioners said they were ready to make their recommendations on the Comp Plan Update, but Peter reminded them that we have not noticed nor conducted public hearings on the Plan Update yet. Commissioner Irvine mentioned going to the Board with the draft Plan and felt that their role is to pass on their recommendations as to what the Plan should say. Staff proposals also come up and he wondered how they go forward — as a minority report or recommendations, etc. He said in his experience staff could always make comments and also throw in their two cents' worth if they had an issue or wanted to add or remove anything. That was part of the process. Chair Brown felt that when there is a text amendment, it should include what part of the Comprehensive Plan applies. Vice Chair Criss agreed that, as a citizen advisory group, they do not make decisions. In the process, they should be in the forefront of the Comprehensive Plan and perhaps should have been involved in the initial drafting of it. Commissioner Klyce said he recalled it was Dave Kanner's decision to release the entire draft to the Commissioners and the public simultaneously. Commissioner Klyce felt that this violated County Code not to let them review it first. Peter Gutowsky indicated that there two/three years where this Commission was given overviews of chapters, context, etc., and there wasn't much input from the Commissioners. Terri was hired to do the Comp Plan update, and the Commission did not have much to say as things went on. Staff spent enormous resources to prepare the Commissioners for the update, both when Catherine Morrow was here and since that time. Commissioner Cyrus spoke about the process and how difficult it was to remember information they received two years ago. Commissioner Cyrus mentioned the experimental station and how it was often the target of budget cuts; perhaps we should support OSU. Nick said he felt that he had heard from Commissioner Irvine and Commissioner Klyce that they should be the sole authors, but the Board has asked us to participate. We can just keep our participation on the side, but we need to find a way to move forward. Commissioner Irvine wanted to support staff and spoke about his experience with committees. He feels the staff and Commissioners should feel free to offer their own interpretations and suggestions for the Plan. Chair Brown mentioned that they are the first contact between the public and staff. Peter Gutowsky added that the hearings in the fall will be extensive. Commissioner Klyce said he has heard comments indicating that the public feels the document is not reflective of their interests. Peter and Commissioner Klyce spoke about quorums and the public needing to have access to documents that are distributed. Commissioner Turner and Commissioner Klyce discussed having subcommittees and certain Commissioners contributing more expertise in their areas. Commissioners Irvine and Klyce felt that the public thinks the Commissioners are "railroading" the Plan. 0 Commissioner Brown mentioned Lane County's Comp Plan and how it is updated a piece at a time, rather than the whole document every 20 years. Vice Chair Criss and Peter Gutowsky spoke about the high groundwater work program in La Pine, and Peter reminded the Commissioners that the community wanted to wait until DEQ came up with a comprehensive plan. They also wanted to wait until the sewer feasibility was done which only recently came out. Nick discussed the amount of resources staff has put into the City of La Pine, including helping them with their Comp Plan, a population forecast, an urban growth boundary and other projects. Vice Chair Criss mentioned a Freedom of Information request that was submitted and turned down. Peter said that DEQ was a co- author of the requested report and bought off on the studies, so they have all of the information. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS Nick and Peter Gutowsky spoke about asking the Board for direction on the destination resort map. Commissioners Unger and Baney said they wanted to reduce the map, so our recommendation is the December 2 recommendation, including the grandfather clause. Chair Brown mentioned eliminating subdivisions, except for two cases, and felt that the conversation with the Board was different, and it was said that the Planning Commissioners wanted to leave subdivisions in, which was not the case. He felt that the process was not understood at the time. Nick mentioned Chris Bedsaul's retirement from the Planning Division and our budget deficit. The County Administrator has recommended that we remain on a 36 -hour week and also cut four more positions. The service reductions are going to be very significant. We may close one day a week and a number of projects will be delayed, other than the Comp Plan. We will have a very different work plan if this is the case. Our current planning applications are not significantly reduced, so we have people who are still very busy. There is also a 15% fee increase proposed, effective July 1. There is a work session before the Board on April 26, and COBA and the realtors' association will be in attendance. The 19th Street deliberations will take place on April 19. Nick said we will also be in La Pine soon to work with them on their Code. The Board will be appointing James Powell as our new Planning Commissioner on April 14. Nick said that Jackson County is also interested in implementing HB 2229. Commissioner Turner mentioned a 45 -day comment period for the West Butte wind turbine project. He personally does not like the way they look but has mixed feelings. VII. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Resp ully submitted, er Buckn dministrative Secre NEXT MEETING — April 22, 2010, at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97701 i[7