Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-01-27 - Planning Commission MinutesCommunity Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701 JANUARY 27, 2011 — 5:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Merle Irvine. Members present were: Vice Chair Chris Brown, Ed Criss, James Powell, Bill Rainey, Todd Turner, and Richard Klyce. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. Minutes of October 28, 2010 were approved. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. III. PUBLIC HEARING: Ordinance 2011-001, Destination Resort Map Amendments - Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner. Peter and Vice Chair Brown discussed the case files that Peter had brought with him. Peter gave a PowerPoint summarizing the proposal to date. The public hearing was continued until this date to allow staff to process the "opt in" provisions, or grandfather clauses. We received 908 requests to retain resort map designations. Ed Criss and Peter discussed eligibility and timelines. Commissioner Powell asked about expansion of destination resorts. Peter gave examples of several phases of Eagle Crest. They have to have a minimum of 160 acres, meet the development code, and are treated as an autonomous unit. You don't need an exception to Goal 11 — if we use Eagle Crest as an example, when they expanded from Phase I to Phase 11, they could tie into the public facilities from the first phase for the second one, but everything else is considered independent from the adjoining first phase. Chair Irvine wanted to clarify that if an existing resort wanted to expand onto 100 acres, then this would not be possible? Peter said it would not be possible unless the property was 160 acres. Quality Services Performed with Pride Public Testimony: Tia Lewis spoke on behalf of Delashmutt. They would like the 40 -acre parcel left on the map and forwarded to the Board. They are not applying for a resort at this time, so the 160 -acre minimum for development is irrelevant. They have met the 160 -acre minimum application requirement. Commissioner Powell asked about the area surrounding the parcel, and Tia said the applicant has a lease on some of the property which owned by the DSL and owns the rest. Commissioner Rainey and Tia discussed sections of the Code and requirements for application. Commissioner Powell requested clarification as to who the applicant was — was it the DSL or Thornburgh? Tia said Agnes Delashmutt is the applicant and the DSL is the owner (and signed the application). Delashmutt is a partner in Thornburgh and currently leases the 40 acres under consideration. Commissioner Criss asked if Thornburgh intended to put houses on this property or use it for an open space requirement, and Tia said she did not have that information. Commissioner Powell and Peter discussed services and criteria for resorts. Peter said that if one wanted to add land to the map, a minimum of 160 contiguous acres is needed. This was done to match State law for resort zones. No one anticipated the circumstance that Tia is describing. Right no we have no criteria to allow a property that is under 160 acres that is adjoining mapped property to be added to a resort map. Tia and staff disagree on interpretation. Peter felt that someone in this situation needed to file a plan amendment application to recommend additional criterion for this circumstance, which would be decided by the Board. Commissioner Powell asked if the only way a map or an existing resort could expand is if it includes 160 contiguous acres? Peter said, for example, if a mapped footprint is 1,000 acres, the master plan was for 950 acres of that area, and the market changes and they want the other 50 acres, they would have to go through a public process to amend a master plan. Commissioner Powell was looking at how a resort could add additional, contiguous land that has become available — what if it is not mapped, etc? Nick said also there is no magic limit for expansion — it is whether it is on the map. Commissioner Rainey said that after reading Tia's letter and the various responses, he feels that the Planning Staff's interpretation is correct. There should be a mechanism for dealing with the 40 acres without a plan amendment, but unfortunately there is not. Vice Chair Brown said that he felt we "missed one." He would like to hear about changing the language. What does it take to have 160 acre -plus parcels or less than 160 that are adjoining? Should each piece be looked at as needing to be 160 acres? Nick said that the County can amend its mapping criteria, its procedures and its siting Code. However, amending the map can only occur once every 30 months; unless we restart the mapping process, we have to deal with and interpret the criteria in place today. Tia added that she felt Vice Chair Brown was saying that the intent behind the language was to allow properties such as these to get mapped. This is a property adjacent to existing resort land. Thornburgh's approval could go away, they could start over, apply and include these 40 acres. The Commissioners should decide what the intent is. Staff, legal counsel, etc., can give you their interpretation, but the Commissioners decide what it means. Peter said that no one brought this issue up during the public hearing process. The Commissioners can make an interpretation that staff does not support, but the testimony in the record does not bear this out. Commissioner Klyce asked about a definition for the word "contiguous," and Peter read from the definitions in Title 18, Commissioner Turner asked about the interpretation of contiguous land that meets at a single point. Peter said this question was raised in November, and he and Nick discussed it with Kevin Harrison. His interpretation was that as long as the land touches in a common point, it can be considered contiguous. Commissioner Rainey said he did a lot of research on this back in November, and he concluded that those three parcels touching at a point were contiguous. Also, he feels we have to deal with the language before us — we cannot make a decision that conflicts with the language to support what we think might have been an intent. He is a little bothered about this particular 40 -acre parcel — what about an 80 -acre parcel? There could be many other sizes that come up. Commissioner Turner said that in this case, the parcels are also not under the same ownership. Peter said that the criterion covers multiple ownerships. Chair Irvine asked if DSL is still interested in the Thornburgh site. Peter said that the DSL signed the application and is represented. They own all 400 acres. Mr. Delashmutt, with DSL's consent, is bringing forward 400 acres for consideration. Peter said that we feel that Thornburgh is irrelevant. There is no criteria that allows land under 160 acres to be brought in just because it is adjoining a resort that has been approved by the County. Tia said that the ownership group of Thornburgh is a large group, of which Delashmutt is a party. DSL is not. Commissioner Powell asked Tia about the DSL land, and she said it is currently under lease by Thornburgh. Tia said that some of these issues were addressed when the 160 -acre criterion was established. What was not anticipated was orphaned pieces of property that may not have the map overlay. There was a lot of testimony about having the ability to put properties together. She agrees with the idea that an approved resort being next to this property is irrelevant — what is relevant is that DSL property surrounds it. This criteria is a County, not State, criteria. This piece of property is adjacent to destination resort approved property. The County can choose to interpret the mapping criteria any way it sees fit. Motion: Commissioner Rainey moved to close oral and written testimony. Seconded by Commissioner Turner. Motion passed. Motion: Commissioner Rainey moved that we recommend the removal of 91,701 acres that were disqualified as a result of new eligibility criteria. Seconded by Commissioner Criss. Motion passed. Motion: Commissioner Turner motioned to maintain 17,560 acres carried over from the existing resort map that continue to meet the eligibility criteria. Seconded by Commissioner Criss. Motion passed. Motion: Commissioner Rainey motioned to maintain 3,187 acres carried over from the existing resort map based on 908 grandfather requests. Seconded by Commissioner Criss. Motion passed. Motion: Commissioner Rainey motioned to add the Pine Forest Development site (617 acres) to the map. Seconded by Commissioner Criss. Motion passed. Motion: Commissioner Criss motioned to add the Belveron Partners and Vandevert Road sites to the map (278 acres). Seconded by Commissioner Turner. Motion passed. Motion: Commissioner Rainey motioned to add the 360 acres of DSL land (contiguous, as stated in the staff report), seconded by Vice Chair Brown. Discussion: Commissioner Powell asked if the Commissioners wanted to consider the additional 40 acres, which would not be eligible if they were considered alone. Vice Chair Brown felt that it would be part of the 360 if that is approved. Commissioner Turner felt that we could accept 360 acres of the 400 -acre application. Commissioner Rainey felt that they could not interpret the intent, only the existing language. Motion passed. Motion: Vice Chair Brown motioned to indicate to the Board that the 40 acres defined as Tax Lot 15-12-0000-05101 were never anticipated and that this be thoughtfully considered. Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. Discussion: Commissioner Rainey said the Commissioners need to amend the criteria to cover this and other potentially similar situations. Vice Chair Brown felt that we were trying to make sure we had the proper level of respect for what was already established in the County. He and Commissioner Rainey agreed that this needs to be addressed. Vice Chair Brown said that we do know the intent — if he had known then, he would have crafted some language to address it. The Commissioners need to tell the Board that they would have addressed this type of situation if they had known about it. Commissioner Turner said there were many discussions about allowing joint owners to come together to get to 160 acres. He does not necessarily have an issue with these 40 acres, but he has an issue with creating something that will not help someone who comes in with 50 acres, for example. Vice Chair Brown felt this would cover only this particular issue. It is too bad we were not aware of this situation. Chair Irvine said he also supported having the 40 acres in there, but the concern is Thornburgh which is in litigation and may or may not become a reality. Commissioner Powell felt that a good job was done with the criteria. What we are looking at with smaller parcels may be the expansion of an existing resort, and it may be a totally separate issue. How do we streamline this process? Vice Chair Brown said he thought we should indicate to the Board that we did not know about this but feel they should address it. Commissioner Powell asked if we do it here, what about other places? Chair Irvine spoke about whether or not Thornburgh becomes a reality. Commissioner Turner felt that there could be some simple language referring to land that is already part of a master plan — Peter indicated that this was not the case. You cannot include land that is not mapped as eligible for a resort when you master plan a development. This would be a supplemental motion to the Board to figure out how to reconcile this circumstance in the future as part of the upcoming public hearings. Vice Chair Brown said that Thornburgh brought forth 400 acres to be added which were not included before. Peter and Commissioner Turner discussed the Thornburgh master plan. Commissioner Criss said the language is clear. The present situation came up after we already had the discussions. He has a problem with the 40 acres because he does not feel they meet criteria. Peter requested clarity as to whether this Commission thinks this specific 40 -acre area is eligible. Vice Chair Brown and Peter discussed whether to give the Board a recommendation as to whether the 40 acres are eligible or ineligible, which Vice Chair Brown felt we did not need to do. Commissioner Turner said he was separating everything out, and this could be any piece of acreage less than 160 acres. He feels that is the role of this Commission at this time. Commissioner Rainey asked Commissioner Turner if he was indicating that he was not comfortable with the motion because it was focusing on one particular piece of property. Commissioner Turner said yes. Commissioner Powell said it also does not answer the question that Ms. Lewis has made an argument for — whether the entire application has to be contiguous, or only 160 acres? We are setting a precedent that we may not want to set. Commissioner Klyce said we are being asked to address this specific property and could indicate that to the Board. Vice Chair Brown and Commissioner Rainey discussed the language of the motion. Commissioner Turner asked Vice Chair Brown if he would consider making the motion specific to the Delashmutt application. He said yes. Vice Chair Brown amended his motion to include the Delashmutt tax lot. Vote: Motion passed. Motion: Commissioner Rainey moved to recommend to the Board that staff and the Board work together to propose criteria and language to deal with circumstances similar to this 40 acre parcel, and smaller and larger parcels, that do not meet the 160 acre criteria. There was no second to the motion. Discussion: Commissioner Turner felt that we had already gone through those discussions. The Commissioners discussed whether to support smaller -sized parcels being added to existing resorts. Vice Chair Brown felt there is an obligation to have more public input. Commissioner Powell spoke about the current lack of a way for existing resorts to add property unless it is 160 acres, and perhaps this should be indicated to the Board. Perhaps we could say that we support the language as the County has interpreted it, and we recognize that this 40 acres is a good example of the lack of an existing way to include them in a mapped parcel. Peter wanted to confirm with the Commissioners that the motion was intentionally left vague, and he could frame this issue to the Board — the Planning Commissioners wanted to bring this to their attention and it will come before the Board. Motion: Commissioner Powell motioned to communicate to the Board that the Commissioners did not feel this particular 40 -acre parcel met the criteria for the existing mapping ordinance, but they recognize that it represents a problem that exists for all parcels, either as destination resorts or potential destination resorts, for adding additional areas that may be within or contiguous with a boundary, and a solution should be sought. Seconded by Vice Chair Brown. Commissioner Turner wondered if there were opposing thoughts. Commissioner Klyce felt that the discussion might need to be handled in the courts as to whether an application met the criteria. Motion did not pass. IV. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS Nick mentioned that the State destination resort work group has really struggled with the destination resort criteria. The County could make something more restrictive, but whole two-step process being considered is quite an issue at the State level. Regarding work plan priorities, we will be discussing them with the Board on February 2. We will also be discussing the Comprehensive Plan process with the Board. The DSL staff has asked that we continue to participate in the Bend UGB process, so we need to consider that. Bend's long-range planners are anticipated to be working on this for the next two years. The cities of Bend, Redmond and La Pine all want to be separate historic districts and this affects our resources. There will be minor revisions to the Code as to how many members would be on the Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commission, frequency of meetings and similar considerations. Nick and the Commissioners discussed commercial events and a proposal from Oregonians in Action. Vice Chair Brown said that the Planning Commissioners had already done a lot of work on this, and the record should be given to the Board so that they can review it. Nick and Commissioner Turner discussed whether the Planning Commission would conduct public hearings on a text amendment. Vice Chair Brown felt that we have already gone through this twice, and he expressed this concern to Commissioner DeBone today. The majority of the public wanting to participate in this discussion has already done so. Staff should come forward with something for the Board to consider. Nick said we need to develop the text amendment without staff appearing to be biased in any way. Staff needs to know what proposal to put forward, and needs direction either from the Board or from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Turner mentioned the Comprehensive Plan and felt the Planning Commissioners had been used to do some planning work while they aren't planners — they are the citizens who try to give oversight. Nick said he had heard that the Planning Commissioners do not want to be the drafters of a proposed text amendment for commercial events, but they probably should close the door on it. Commissioner Turner indicated that perhaps we should have the public hearings — we have new Commissioners and there may be new approaches. Nick said he would pass this on to the Board. Vice Chair Brown spoke about the LUBA appeal hearing he and Commissioner Klyce attended. Laurie Craghead represented the County, and Paul Dewey was the petitioner. Vice Chair Brown was disturbed by the fact that Mr. Dewey said that someone could not have more than 50 acres of prime farmland but that 40 -acre pieces could come together and make a parcel. Each acre could be prime farmland and the 160 -acre piece could be prime farmland. Vice Chair Brown was concerned that the entire piece has to have less than 50 acres of prime farmland, and this interpretation is not correct. He is vey concerned that this argument was made in front of LUBA. Mr. Dewey also said we had a problem using consistent descriptions for words like "tract," "parcel," and "lot," and Vice Chair Brown agreed with this. Nick said that LUBA will issue a decision on February 14. Commissioner Turner asked Nick about the County being involved with the Bend UGB again. Will we be looking at the UAR as well? Nick said we have not heard the City say it will be looking at the LIAR until the UGB is completed. Commissioner Turner asked what the County's role could be. Peter said that he had raised this with City staff and there will be a coordination meeting next week. The County would like to attend the monthly meetings with the DLCD and to understand expectations of County staff. He thinks the City wants the County to do its own Comprehensive Planning piece — get the TSP in alignment, coordinate maps, but leave the findings/documentation with the City and DLCD. Commissioner Klyce and Peter discussed whether the City supported the Bend 2030 Plan. V. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. 4Respe tfully sub Witte Sher Buckner Administrative Secretary NEXT MEETING — February 10, 2011, at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97701