Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-03-13 - 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 MARCH 13, 2014 — 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 Hugh Palcic, jaMe-S POWell and Ed Criss Absent Matt , Todd Turner Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner; Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. Minutes for February 13 and February 27, 2014 were approved. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS (items not on agenda) Note: Change in agenda order, and Item IV has been moved up. III. REAL ESTATE FORECAST PRESENTATION: Nick Lelack, Planning Director Nick outlined changes in the County including current and future developments and population forecasts. IV. PUBLIC HEARING (continued): TA -13-4 - A text amendment to Deschutes County Code Title 19, Chapter 19.20, Suburban Low Density Residential Zone (SR -2.5) to allow the operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems as an outright use in the zone — Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner. Paul summarized the application and presented a new map. Public Testimony: Jeff Perreault, who previously worked with the USGS as a hydrogeologist, gave a PowerPoint presentation (see meeting documents) Pat Kliewer spoke about designations of historical properties. She is a consultant for several neighbors relating to this proposal. She looked at the possibility of historic designation for the canal and found that the State has concluded that this was eligible for listing on the national register and Goal 5. A property on the national register or in the local plan has the same protection. She and her clients would like to see designation for at least one stretch of the canal — it's the most interesting section with changes in width and depth, and it really tells a story. Tom Hignell testified against the project (see written testimony and photos). Gerald Aylor spoke about the issues with piping the canal and the effects on wildlife, groundwater and the environment. He requests that the applicant's proposal be denied. Del Swan spoke against the project (see written testimony). Aleta Warren testified against the project (see written testimony). Mike Knoell felt that COID is singularly unqualified to control this use. He was bullied by COID as the developer of the Canal View subdivision. Their infrastructure was put in, and when they got signatures on the final plat, he went to Redmond to get COID's signature. The Director would not sign the plat unless a fence was put along the easement line, to separate the main amenity ef the subdivision. Mike felt they eeuld not legally ask hum to fence himself off from his own property. They eventually came up with an agreement where Mike agreed to have a notice on the title of each lot along the canal, letting people know that the canal is a hazard and letting the property owners know they could not sue COID. There were not supposed to be any structures in the canal easement including gates or fencing, except along the outermost boundaries (if property owners wanted them). COID now says that doesn't apply. They were legally obligated to sign the map with no restrictions — they only have to make sure the water rights are taken care of when the land is subdivided. People shouldn't have to go to court, as he is now doing, and spend money defending their own properties. As a developer, Mike tried to work within the rules — now we have this body that has been a source of frustration that may be offered carte blanche to do what they want, and this is very unsatisfactory. Robert Rector requested that the text of DCC. 19.20.020 and 19.20.030 remain as is (see written testimony). Thomas Casey (see written testimony only — no oral). Maralyn Thoma thanked the previous presenters and said this would affect hundreds of people. COID bullied her when she called to ask about what they were going to do. They said they'd pipe wherever they wanted to. Bud Munson said he had never seen one notification about this project. COID claims to be providing water as cheaply and effectively as possible, but why is it necessary to spend millions for Phases I, II and III? They are not a non-profit and are doing this project to generate revenue for their entity. They are spending as much as $35 million of taxpayers' money to put in this piping. There will be a dramatic reduction in property values and in the appearance to the community. Bud has also had experience with COID saying they can do whatever they want in the canal. They are doing all of this with taxpayer dollars for the clear purpose of their own profit. They believe they have the right to do this without 2 eminent domain and without notice to property owners. Have they provided any data to the Board? They need to prove to us that this is the best area out of 450 miles to do this project. Commissioner Powell said that COID did provide a table of measured losses. Marc Johnson said that he concurs with a lot of the previous testimony. His best friend is his real estate agent and when he purchased property along the canal there was no mention of piping from his agent or the listing agent, either. They both suggested Marc oppose the change. Marc paid for the water in his back yard, for serenity, and there has not been a great communication process from COID when two prominent realtors did not know about this on Scottsdale Drive. Gary Jones spoke in opposition to the proposal (see written testimony). Justin Moravetz said he has not been in Bend very long and purchased his house along the canal a little over a year ago, and it wasn't visible when he looked at the house online. The previous homeowner was worried about what Justin would do with a family of ducks that lives on an island in the canal. He lives on a side canal that is separate from the main one. His neighbor's house has a deck over part of this water, and other neighbors have amenities that would be affected if the canal is piped. He had no idea this was going on until he received a notice from neighbors on his door. Bend has beautiful wildlife and he loves it here. He would like to be able to come back more prepared to testify since he has only recently learned about the prepesal. Jerusha White thanked whoever the neighbor was who put flyers about this proposal on the doors. She bought a home on the canal two years ago. They have 60 ducks in the back yard, deer and two waterfalls. She preferred getting a house on the canal to one in Northwest Crossings. There is so much history with the canal — over 100 years. If money is available to go ahead and pipe this canal, she would like to propose it be spent another way — fill the potholes in the roads. Greg Vernon testified against the proposal (see written testimony). Bob Borlen said he wants to protect irrigated agriculture in Central Oregon. He is a Board member of COID but is speaking as an individual. We have heard the arguments about water leaking from the canals, and over 100 cfs now stays in the Deschutes that didn't stay there earlier. There is no break-even until Phase II is put in, so this piping is needed. Farmers have water rights granted during the same year the canal was put in. A farmer told him the other day that if other canals had been left alone, we wouldn't need the Endangered Species Act. Talk to the farmers in Klamath County where they've shut the canals off. The canals along the "5" in California are going dry. We are all in this together, and the actions of today are the actions of 100 years from now. We are all trying to keep our benefits. As a member of the COID Board, he hears the opposite feedback about how they are restoring the river and making things better. We are a people in conflict with ourselves. If he were in the shoes of the people in the audience, he would feel the same way, but we need to work together to resolve the water problems. Mike Smith said his property will look like a prison if this proposal goes through. This project clearly violates County Code. Property values for his home will go down at least $150,000. The first photo (see submittals) shows the existing forebay and how it will look in the future. The applicant has said piping will increase safety, but why do they need fencing, barbed wire, etc., to keep it safe? If you look at the photos, you will see that this does not provide "an aesthetically pleasing environment" as stated in County Code. The Code also states that if COID can pipe in another area where it is already permitted, they need to do that. They are trying to get around the criteria already in place and would be violating existing County Codes. Piping projects such as this have no places in neighborhoods such as his. Bruce White testified that he finds it curious that the applicant is not here, and there is no one here to present their submittal. They were asked at the last hearing to come back with data and we have no idea what that is. A public records request was filed last week and they said the information would be provided at this meeting; but they are not here so we would request that the record be left open for at least two weeks to a month. We do not know what is in the pile of paper or how long it will take us to adequately respond. He called Paul Blikstad this morning and asked if anything was submitted and was told no, so evidently this material was submitted by the applicant right before the meeting. The attorney evidently had a conflict, but the District Manger or someone else from the attorney's office could have shown up. The SR 2.5 owners will suffer significant reductions in the property values, and piping can be done in the rural areas where it is already allowed as an outright use. Allowing for piping as an outright use in the SR 2.5 zone is not equitable. We are talking about basic fairness to property owners. A decision on any legislative proposal to allow for piping in areas covered by the Bend Area General Plan should be made as part of a comprehensive review of similar decisions in all areas * neluding Bend. Thus is a complex issue which needs a comprehe -i and not just about a small section of the canal. This should be done in cooperation with the City and not just to address something the District needs for a particular project. The District has already tried to bootstrap what the County did in 2001, and the next thing will be that they go to the City and say the County allowed it in the SR 2.5 zone, so it should be allowed in the City. If the District does not want to allow for a comprehensive review, this proposal should be denied. Bruce said that regarding conditional use versus allowed use — this proposal does nothing for the District. If it is an allowed use, it does not address the hydroelectric facility which is a conditional use. The District is not going to get what it needs. The District has admitted that this is Phase II — but they never said at the last hearing that this was anything other than a piping project. It wasn't until one of the Commissioners asked them the question that they admitted it. Yet their own website describes it. The District quotes the Swalley case and it is not applicable — it clearly states that if you do something in your easement that reflects new technology, you cannot increase the burdens to the property owner. The 9th Circuit Court recognizes a burden as a loss in property value which would certainly happen here. Do the land owners want to foot the bill for a very expensive lawsuit to fight for what their easement rights are? The District has said the neighbors are being obstructionists, but they are just looking out for their property rights. Planning Commission Discussion: Commissioner Criss said he has heard that people have not received adequate notice on this process. He has seen that some people have not had time to weigh in, and there are many documents to review. We should at least keep the written record open. Chair Brown agreed that the written record should stay open, since the applicant is not here to answer questions. Vice Chair Palcic agreed that we need everyone in the same room. Commissioner Powell said he will be submitting documents into the record and has 4 been doing a lot of research. This will require the County, the City of Bend and the City of Redmond. He has not heard an acknowledgment that this resource has benefitted the residents. There was also a lot of work done by the Deschutes Water Alliance in the mid 2000s which talks about the devaluation of water rights and consequences of decisions to save water, including hydrology issues. There is another side that says the recharge is adequate without the canals. Irrigation districts back then had no choice but to use water — they could not put it back into the river. There is a win-win here - maybe not quite the way everyone envisions. He would like to keep the oral and written testimony open. The City of Bend does not feel it has a dog in this fight at the moment. The Deschutes River Conservancy views anything that conserves water as something of interest. There are consequences to the irrigation districts for these projects — if people begin to understand that it is not so black and white (what to do with open canals in residential areas and in the rest of the County), there is an opportunity for more discussion and perhaps a long-term solution can be found. The Commissioners discussed keeping the oral and written record open until the next meeting in two weeks. Motion: Commissioner Criss motioned to keep the oral and written open until March 27 and convene the meeting at 2:00 p.m. where the forebay is now, with the regular meeting to start at 5:30 p.m., at the regular location. Seconded by Vice Chair Palcic. Motion Commissioner Criss asked whether it opens the County and COID to a taking if we go ahead and allow piping of the canal. Nick said he will defer that question to County legal counsel. Nick also spoke about minimal testimony during the tour. V. DISCUSSION: Domestic livestock, and presentation of matrix of options — Matt Martin, Associate Planner (30 minutes). Matt described options he has found through his research. Peter said a work session has been scheduled with the Board for Monday. Vice Chair Palcic wanted to make sure we are coordinating with the listed organizations to get their permission to use them on our list. He also asked if we would want to consider approaching some of the youth livestock farming organizations as a good way to get more information into the pipeline. Matt said there is a huge network that would capture 4H and FFA, etc. Commissioner Criss recommended that we have copies of this material at the CDD South County office, as well as Crooked River Ranch, etc. Commissioner Powell and Matt discussed adding the County Health Department to the matrix. He also suggested asking for suggestions from 4H and other organizations on the list. Commissioner Powell asked what we could do about the problems in Crooked River Ranch, where there are two different county jurisdictions in the same residential area. Matt said there is an option to create a livestock district which has been explained to the ranch owners there; the County has responded (Sheriff and Code Enforcement) to complaints in the specific area and there are options available; and with the unique issues of CRR straddling two boundaries, there are other communications and options available for applying CCNRs evenly throughout the neighborhood which would not be within our jurisdiction. 5 The Commissioners and Matt discussed forwarding this to the Board. Motion: Chair Brown said they were in support of the options matrix along with changes and modifications, and motioned to have staff forward it to the Board. Seconded by Vice Chair Palcic. Motion passed. Nick mentioned that it would not be a taking to impose livestock ordinances. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF COMMENTS Chair Brown mentioned how well the testimony went this evening. On Monday, the Board will conduct a hearing on 14-3, and it appears the Board may adopt different language from that produced by the Association of Oregon Counties regarding medical marijuana dispensaries. The Newland decision (changing agricultural land to mixed-use agriculture) and the goal of getting into the Bend UGB will be deliberated and most likely decided on April 10. There will be an appeal no matter what the decision. We are expecting a decision on the Thornburgh appeal (remand) which is a "make or break" for Thornburgh — either they've done enough to be vested or not. Most likely the decision will be appealed to the Board and then to LUBA. We are also expecting a decision on site plan review for Bend's water treatment faci 1 ity/i m prove ments to the building and site proposed by Bend. There was opposition and this may also be appealed to the Board. Commissioner Criss asked about housekeeping items sent to the Board, and Matt said that will happen on April 2. Matt also said that regarding our agricultural lands outreach campaign, on May 6 we will be in Alfalfa; on May 8 we will be here; on May 13 we will be in Brothers; on the 15th in Sisters; on the 19th in Terrebonne and on the 21St at the La Pine Senior Center. VII. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, a -0 610�� Sher Buckner Administrative Secretary The video record of this meeting can be located at: http://deschutes.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view—id=5 C:9