Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-05-08 - 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 MAY 8, 2014 — 5:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Christen'Brown. Members present were Vice Chair Hugh Palcic, Ed Criss and Steve Swisher. Absent: James Powell, Matt Lisignoli and Todd Turner. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Laurie Craghead, Assistant Legal Counsel; Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner; Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. III. DELIBERATIONS: TA -13-4 -> A text amendment to Deschutes County Code Title 19, Chapter 19.20, Suburban LowDensity 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 discussed the matrix sent to the Commissioners and summarized the proposal to date. Laurie mentioned a comment in one letter regarding whether COID could pipe without land use regulations being considered. She did not find anything mentioning regulation of piping through land use regulations. She looked at special districts' principal acts regarding irrigation districts and how they were regulated. None of them said specifically that land use regulations are involved, but there are situations such as road districts getting permits, etc., so she sees nothing that says we cannot regulate districts. She believes the recent Curl LUBA decision has no relevance to this proposal. The whole purpose of this text amendment is to make it so that it does not matter if piping is part of a hydro facility — it would be allowed as an outright purpose. We are being asked to nullify, in effect, the LUBA decision to say that piping is an outright use. The reason LUBA came to their decision, also, was that COID did not address any of the assignments of error, so they accepted the Curls' arguments. This proposal also will not prevent COID from maintaining the canal, so there is no inverse condemnation. Chair Brown asked if Laurie was aware of anything pending in state or federal court that might override this proposal, and Laurie said no. Paul said he had looked at the Bend Area General Plan and felt it was pretty silent on the issue of canal piping. Chair Brown felt there were different interpretations of the Plan from both sides. The letter we received from the City did not say much, either, so it is problematic to use the Plan as a guide. Chair Brown asked the Commissioners if they felt that they had received and reviewed enough information to make a decision. All said yes. Vice Chair Palcic agreed that you could take any document and argue any side of it, either way, pros and cons. When you look at the magnitude of the proposal, it speaks to consideration of the overall Plan, too. Commissioner Swisher did not feel that the Plan was necessarily helpful, either, and there is a bigger question of water use in the region and conservation in the canal. He is trying to look at the bigger picture, not just the narrow question. Commissioner Criss said he did not find information in the Plan that was much help. He appreciates that the open space would be controlled by the landowners and not the District. Conservation of water is a critical issue, and canal leakage is responsible for much of the recharging. COID has not shown much appreciation for that aspect, which is part of the bigger picture. The question.is whether this is allowable in the zone, but there are bigger issues, too. We need to look at'hydro power, for example — a hydro plant should not be in the SR 2.5 zone, and though this proposal does not include a hydro plant there, it does include increased flow for the plant. Another important component is that these canals in farm areas do not seem to have large impacts when piped, but when residential properties are involved, values are affected.' Vice Chair Palcic felt that the question was not whether this area will be piped — it can still go through with conditional use. We are looking at outright permitted use — whether to change the language of the Code from a conditional use to a permitted use. Chair Brown said he is a huge advocate, of generating power at very little cost, and that needs to be addressed. The question here is like being poked in the eye — he understands the applicant wanting to put a power generator as close to the start of the canal as possible for more power; but that piece of the canal was originally on public lands, and if you had sat down with the owners and asked them about piping it in 2014 after homes were built near it, they would have laughed. It would seem impractical and an unreasonable option. The characteristics have now changed, the efficiency has changed. Here we do not put concrete in a ditch as they do in California, but we pipe to increase head pressure. Also, there is some question about whether all of that water goes back to the river once piped. It is our job to protect the public access to the process and that is the most important part of this. Chair Brown said he had researched what had occurred prior to this proposal. The Bureau of Reclamation has a process for making decisions which requires public input. He found that that process had not been observed, and there is no solid foundation under this proposal. The public has come to us and asked to be part of the process when the original decisions are made. The Bureau of Reclamation did not issue a notice or talk to the public. He does not feel it is appropriate to sit in judgment, whether the process was conscious or 2 unconscious. He asked Laurie if this was a valid concern. Laurie said that unless it applies to one of the Bend Area General Plan policies, it is not relevant. Motion: Vice Chair Palcic motioned to deny the proposed application, based upon the applicant's inability to demonstrate consistency with the Bend Area General Plan: community goals, natural features, open spaces, urban trail policies and community appearance policies. Chair Brown felt it is inappropriate to add these reasons to the motion. He would also like to see the questions documented by Commissioner Powell be added to the record forwarded to the Board. Vice Chair Palcic amended his motion to: Deny the proposed application, based upon the applicant's inability to demonstrate consistency with the Bend Area General Plan. Seconded by Commissioner Criss. Discussion: Commissioner Swisher felt that the uses of water and energy are critical issues in the nation. We could save water by piping the entire state, and it is a renewable resource. At some time this issue may need to be addressed. The question today is whether the application has met the conditions, and the answer is no. There is also an economic impact. Chair Brown felt the applicant had neglected to give us the full story — the manager did not speak about other possibilities for power generation when he spoke to us, and they could not have picked a worse location for the piping in this proposal. It may be very difficult to get a conditional use permit, so this may not be COID's "out." He is not willing to look at this as an "either, or." There are other areas that would not be such battlegrounds. Commissioner Criss spoke about public testimony regarding animal life "moving or dying," and he does not feel any district, has the right to make that call. Any other improvement must take into effect an anirrmal migration route or calving area, and there are animals living along the canal. Motion passed. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Planning Division FY 2014-2015 Work Plan — Nick Lelack, Community Development Director. Nick presented a Power Point on the Work Plan process. Commissioner Criss asked if there was any way to address soil classifications which may be incorrect regarding EFU lands. Nick said that one thing we are hearing at the open houses regarding agricultural lands is that we need to take another look at the soils in the County, and additional studies are a possibility. There are also a number of people who have asked to be removed from the destination resort map. We could re -open that process. Applications to be added to the map include a fee; removals of properties do not. Only property owner signature and a request are required for removal. There could be opposition but at this point we do not know. Peter Gutowsky said it is an option for the County to allow a process for map amendments every 30 months, and it has been 30 months since the last time. If the Board wants us to do this, we could issue a press release indicating that people have 30 days to request to add/remove lands, and we process those requests according to local and state legislative and map amendments. Nick said that this may or may not require a significant allocation of resources. Public Testimony: Merry Ann Moore testified and asked for prioritization of two items. First would be the text amendment relating to code enforcement for property owners being protected when a neighbor may want to do something new with his/her land, to make sure that prior agreements and conditions of approval are met before new permits are issued. This is a commonsense measure that could head off a lot of conflicts and keep people from having to hire lawyers. The second priority would be the unmapping of properties such as hers from the destination resorts. She owns her land (two acres) and does not want to be in the map. If this was made a priority (unmapping), what would be the next step at the Board? Will there be another public hearing, can they strip out line items, etc? Nick said the Board will hold a public hearing on the work plan, and they can remove or add any projects. Merry Ann said that when the 900 owners were mapped, they only had to fill out a piece of paper to stay there. Why does there have to be an entire public hearing process for her two -acre parcel? Chair Brown said that the 900 referred to were already zoned; they were not applying to change. Nick said that any time the map is amended there has to be a public hearing, whether it is one property or multiple properties. Frank Baldwin agreed with Merry Ann — they want out of the map, and he has written to the Board about this. Kevin Blair testified that he would like his property removed from the destination resort map. Motion: Commissioner Criss.motioned to close the oral and written testimony. Seconded by Commissioner Swisher. Motion passed. Discussion: Chair Brown said he would like to add removal of properties from the destination resort map to the Work Plan; Commissioner Swisher agreed. Motion: Commissioner Criss motioned that they move forward with a recommendation to the Board, subject to reordering the items on the Work Plan. Seconded by Vice Chair Palcic. Motion passed Chair Brown suggested the Commissioners come up with their priorities for the work plan items, to be forwarded to the Board. Chair Brown and Commissioner Swisher discussed a process for listing the items in priority order. Nick clarified the difference between the citizen requested table and the report listing projects we are already undertaking. Chair Brown agreed that the items they are looking at on the citizen requested table would be those they would like to see added to the Work Plan and that they need to prioritize their top five choices. 4 V. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS Peter Gutowsky described the process to date for the public meetings on agricultural lands. Commissioner Swisher thanked Nick for the information and training provided to him as a new Commissioner. VI. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respec T c�_fc- Sher Buckner Administrative Secretary The video record of this meeting can be located at: http://deschutes.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view—id=5 5