Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-01-06 - Planning Commission MinutesCommunity Development Department _f Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://wvvw.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701 JANUARY 6, 2011 — 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, James Powell, Merle Irvine, Bill Rainey, Todd Turner, and Richard Klyce. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner; Terri Payne, Senior Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None. III. CONTINUED DELIBERATION: Ordinance 2011-003, Comprehensive Plan Update, Discussion About Adding a Preamble - Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner. Commissioner Turner asked about staff's position regarding a preamble, and Terri said that staff had tried to include balanced statements per the public's request during our outreach meetings. Commissioner Rainey spoke about the last preamble he had received via email (Commissioner Powell's) and said had attempted to make some revisions to make it more understandable. Commissioner Klyce spoke about his proposed preamble and said he had written it after he had noticed, early on in the Comp Plan process and while attending meetings in South County, that a lot of people said they wanted protection for their property rights. When we started working on the Comp Plan, there were 21 references to property rights. There were another eight or so references to preserving economic value of property. He remembered many times when we struck a phrase which protected property rights from the goals and policies, with the intention that we would later cover it in a preamble. So the phrases mentioning property rights dropped to just one. During the last four weeks of testimony from the public, about 24 out of 60 indicated they wanted language in the Plan protecting property rights. Commissioner Powell said that his submittal was an attempt to reflect what was happening — there certainly is an interest in protecting property rights, but there is also an interest in balanced protection of resources and rights. He did not want to see language in a Quality Services Performed with Pride preamble that would predetermine an outcome. He felt that Commissioner Klyce's suggested preamble might predetermine biased decisions based on property rights. Commissioner Rainey said that he thought that Commissioner Powell's submittal represented a fair and balanced approach, and he had just revised the language a bit. He supports a balanced approach. Commissioner Irvine felt it was important to bring out property rights, and they should not take a back seat to anything else. He felt that Commissioner Powell's and Commissioner Rainey's versions might be a little long, and perhaps only the second paragraph of one or the other should be included. Chair Brown said he supported Commissioner Irvine's comments about the length of the preamble. He has shortened both versions and removed the historical information, which left a fairly short document in both cases. We are dealing with a large document in the Comp Plan, and someone opening it up needs a clear picture of what is going on, right at the beginning. He felt that the preamble should explain the purpose and intent of the document. He has looked at other various Comp Plans from around the state and drafted another version for our document. Chair Brown asked Commissioner Powell for his opinion of the first sentence in Commissioner Klyce's proposed preamble, and Commissioner Powell said he did not have a problem with it. Commissioner Klyce wanted to draw attention to the first sentence of the second to the last paragraph under his Preamble #2, which said that this Commission recognizes the fundamental right of government to regulate land use. He felt there is no question as to the right and duty of government to regulate land use. Commissioner Turner said he came to this meeting questioning the need for a preamble at all. There is a statement about community vision that might be taken for a preamble, but he would like to recognize the work on the proposed submittals. He agrees that the first paragraph of Commissioner Powell's submittal may not be necessary. He feels that Chair Brown's preamble sounds more like a disclaimer. Chair Brown said he wanted to be sure there is general agreement. Vice Chair Criss thought that this was a very tough issue. There are many issues in South County involving land rights. He feels that the preamble should describe the basics of the document, and we need to have balance. He agreed with Commissioner Klyce's point about how many times property rights were mentioned in the original document, and perhaps the best place to mention property rights is in the preamble. He has also explained to people in South County that the goals and policies in the document are not ordinances or set in stone. We need to try to put something in this preamble that lets people know this is a living document. Chair Brown and Nick discussed the weight of this section of the document compared to goals and policies. Nick said that the preamble would be used to guide decisions. People will refer back to the vision and to see whether an ordinance is consistent with the preamble and the goals. The preamble is the underlying vision of the document. Terri said that our value statement had gone out to the public a number of times, and we received input that they wanted a balanced approach. Peter said that he looks toward the future, when we start addressing challenging work programs, and land use planning is going to require collaboration and strategic partnerships. He is concerned that if the preamble is inconsistent with the goals and policies, this may provide opportunities in future work plans for those who don't want to collaborate to go back to the preamble and use it to undermine an approach. It could be relating to wildlife habitat, commercial events on EFU or many other issues, but he doesn't want to see the preamble undermine VA partnerships and mutually beneficial solutions. Land use in the future will be a challenge, requiring extraordinary collaborations. Commissioner Powell asked about the definition of property rights. Chair Brown mentioned an individual's right to quiet enjoyment of his/her land and to use it for things that are not in contravention of the law. Commissioner Turner wondered if the Comp Plan is the place to have a property rights battlefield. When we talk about adding statements regarding protection of property rights, does that mean they are more important than environmental issues, for example? Most of our discussions and the public input have centered around balance. We all have differing opinions, and this Comp Plan belongs to the entire County. He questions how seven people can write this and come up with a definition of real property. He would like to get public input about the preamble if we revise it. Commissioner Klyce spoke about the public being able to comment during the Board hearings. He also was referring to "real property" as compared to personal property. Terri said the question of private property rights is the heart of what we are talking about. Most people want to do what they want with their own property but restrict their neighbor's activities if they interfere. We all agree that land use laws are important, and the question is where the line is located. We tried, in the community vision statement, to capture the public's sentiment (page 8). Vice Chair Criss felt it was important to have a mission statement or preamble at the beginning of the document. Commissioner Raney read a short preamble from Benton County that he felt summarized the intent of the document. Chair Brown suggested that he present his version of a preamble to the Board at a later date. He also recommended that the other Commissioners let Commissioners Powell and Klyce know what parts of their preambles meet with their approval and what points of view do not, and then we can discuss this again at the next meeting. Commissioner Powell did not agree — he said he had submitted concepts and was discussing language with Commissioner Klyce. He agreed that his first paragraph could be eliminated. Commissioner Irvine said he had re -read the second paragraphs of Commissioner Klyce's and Commissioner Powell's preambles. He agrees that we need a balanced process for different viewpoints. Commissioner Turner said he agreed with the second paragraph of Commissioner Powell's and Commissioner Rainey's preambles. Commissioners Klyce, Rainey and Turner discussed further language revisions. "The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan is a statement of issues, goals and policies meant to guide the future of land use in this County. The Comprehensive Plan is intended to promote a balanced, practical approach wherever possible, recognizing the expectations and rights of property owners and the community as a whole." Commissioner Turner and Terri discussed following this language with the community vision statement. The Commissioners will vote on whether to send the Plan forward to the Board at their next meeting. IV. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS The Commissioners, Peter and Nick discussed the grandfather clause and risks raised by Legal. Chair Brown discussed the "sunset" date of January 11. Peter said a LUBA decision is expected in March, and we will look at any necessary revisions at that time. The Board will likely not close any hearing until after a LUBA decision is issued. Peter summarized the issue for the new Commissioners — last summer the County adopted two ordinances - one for lands being added to the destination resort map, and a procedural ordinance to describe how an applicant can submit a request. There was a grandfather clause stating that the owners of lands becoming ineligible (due to the other ordinance) could submit a request to remain on the map. The question is whether the Comprehensive Plan needs to reflect that grandfather ordinance. Commissioner Rainey wondered if this would be a question for legal counsel. Peter said that Legal had made the decision that it was not a policy but rather a procedure. This Commission has the ability to recommend it as a procedure in the Comp Plan. Commissioners Turner and Rainey wondered why we are discussing this if it expires tomorrow. Peter said that LUBA will decide in March if it is a legitimate and acceptable practice before the Comp Plan is updated. The current Comprehensive Plan, in place today, and as amended this summer, does not have the grandfather clause. Commissioner Powell asked if this could be put into the text of this Plan and carry the same weight, if it is not a policy. Commissioner Klyce said he had been talking to Dave Hunnicut of Oregonians in Action about this issue. Dave feels that if we do not support the grandfather clause in the new Comprehensive Plan, it is entirely possible that the 700+ people who want to retain their mapping status can lose it on legal challenges in the future. Terri said we have amended one of the policies in the Plan and read that language to the Commissioners. Election of Chair and Vice Chair Commissioner Turner nominated Commissioner Powell to become Chair, and Commissioner Klyce nominated Commissioner Irvine. Commissioner Irvine was elected Chair. Commissioner Klyce nominated Chair Brown as Vice Chair. Chris Brown was elected Vice Chair. Nick spoke about the Board's business meetings being televised and upcoming changes to the meeting room setup. He also mentioned the recent decision issued on the pink building for Deschutes Junction. The Board will be calling this up and holding a public hearing. Also, Nick said that next Wednesday during the afternoon, there will be a work session with the Board on elements of our work plan for the remainder of the fiscal year. We will be awarded another $30,000 to keep the regional economic opportunity analysis project moving forward, if the Board authorizes it. Nick indicated that this is a three -county issue. Peter and the Commissioners discussed elements of the work plan. Nick also provided information on the laptop computers requested by the Commissioners. V. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Res ctfu"' submitt , er Buckn Administrative Secretary NEXT MEETING — January 13, 2011, at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97701