Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-06-26 - Planning Commission MinutesTE 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MINUTES - JOINT MEETING BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701 JUNE 26, 2014 — 5:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Christen Brown. Members present were Vice Chair Hugh Palcic, Steve Swisher, James Powell, Todd Turner and Matt Lisignoli. Absent: Ed Criss. Board members present were Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Tony DeBone. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Matt Martin, Associate Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. II. AGRICULTURAL LANDS DISCUSSION Matt introduced the public outreach plan with a PowerPoint and discussed meetings and results. Nick spoke about options and alternatives for moving forward. Commissioner Unger asked how the definition of "non -resource lands" came about. Nick said that there is no real definition of what they are in Oregon. We currently have exception lands and resource/farm and forest lands. Some lands may not qualify as agricultural lands and those would be non -resource lands — they have never been developed, never been irrigated or farmed, and they're surrounded by developed areas and some rural residential. Commissioner Unger mentioned the Big Look bill and felt that it was watered-down at the legislative level. It would cost a lot of money to make the few changes that got through. Nick said that he still thinks it would be worth pursuing but we need State support. DLCD staff were prepared to move forward with the County but another pilot project came up, which depleted their resources. We proposed to look at four or five partially platted subdivisions in EFU, which would have to go through conditional use permit processes to build homes — if the designation was changed, they would only need building permits. The County has revisited agricultural land designations over the years since 1980; and parcels were reduced during the farm study; there was also Measure 49. We could look at this in pieces which would be worthwhile. Commissioner Unger and Nick discussed the current State process for looking at regional laws, which could be a model for us. Commissioner Unger said he remembered hearing from one individual who wanted to host kids from the city. They would come in to experience farming and pay room and board, but it was complicated to consider the idea. Matt said there are State statutes we'd have to look at, and one possible way forward might be a guest ranch. Once you go into a temporary lodging opportunity, it moves from a working farm to more of a recreational experience. Commissioner Unger felt we should look at ways to make it easier to farm in the County and make a living, so that people don't get pushed off their farmland. Nick said we need to work with DLCD and other partners toward a successful agricultural economy here. Commissioner Swisher asked about permitted uses for distilleries — we have them for wineries. Matt said the ability to process/distill crops is included in the allowed uses. Nick mentioned a distillery that had been approved in conjunction with farm use as a conditional use permit. Commissioner Powell felt he did not know the weight of this report — what is the sense of the weight of responses? Matt said the predominant perspective was to retain the existing program. There are some flaws, but it is working. We had around 300 or so citizens who participated, which of course is only a small part of the County population. Even people who can't farm still like the habitat and open space. It is difficult to make farming on a large scale economically viable in the County. Nick said the biggest turnouts for these meetings were in Sisters and Terrebonne, where we also heard the most sentiment for retaining the current program. Commissioner Powell asked for further information about the demographics of the responders. Matt said the six meetings were in various regions of the County and with the exception of La Pine, attendance matched the geographic regions. In Terrebonne, Brothers and Alfalfa, it was clear that attendees were from those regions and represented those populations. La Pine was a lightly attended meeting (five people). Nick said the vast majority were rural with a few participants from the cities. Commissioner Turner and Matt discussed advantages and disadvantages of the current system, which limits commercial activities. Chair Brown asked Matt about non -resource plans — if a landowner decides on that course of action, what is the fee? Nick said it is $15,000 plus a $3,00045,000 hearings officer deposit. Chair Brown asked if a group of 10-100 landowners could apply together. Nick said it may become legislative if it involves multiple properties. Chair Brown asked about the interchangeable uses of "ag," "land" and "farm." He wanted to make sure we are sensitive to the uses and aware that they are not interchangeable. For example, saying "farm land use is marginal without irrigation," may not be accurate. Chair Brown asked how many counties have gotten exceptions to the "go below" for land for agriculture — Nick said very few. A farm study is such a significant expense that many counties can't afford it, or they don't have the population to support it. Chair Brown asked about what is clearly allowed when we talk about processing facilities — for example, for vineyards the grapes can be brought in from somewhere else. Matt said that if someone was growing grains, it would be cleaning and packaging them after harvesting — very directly linked to the agriculture operation. The processing of a distillery goes beyond that and is more of a commercial opportunity — the product grown on the 2 property is being altered (processing berries into jams also fits this category). Nick said that one of the challenges is that we don't have a current planner here this evening; they work with these issues every day. Chair Brown asked how many of the discussions involved mini destination resorts. Matt said that the idea of mini destination resorts was not mentioned during the community meetings. "Destination resort" was mentioned quite frequently and may have included that concept. Chair Brown asked how much discussion there was about not wanting to subdivide the land but adding additional uses such as worker housing in Brothers — we've heard from that part of the County that they don't want land broken up, but they do want to add worker housing. Matt said he did have a specific conversation with a property owner who wanted to provide residential units for farm help on his properties and cannot because of current Code limitations. Chair Brown asked about a way to resolve this issue, and Nick said it is in a future work plan to evaluate the Horse Ridge subzone. Chair Brown and Nick discussed mapping of soils — currently property owners hire their own analysts, and the studies also have to be submitted to DLCD for approval. If a property owner wants to change a designation, it is up to that owner to have the soils analyzed. Public Testimony Gary Bishop, who lives on EFU-irrigated land, participated in one of the community meetings as well as calling others about them. He feels that the Big Look bill glazes over the EFU problem and pushes it aside. It needs to be more specific to the counties' needs. The Tri -County area in particular has farming that is very unique to the rest of the State. It is very difficult for him to see the State as having relevant input when we are being compared to the Willamette Valley. He also feels that the costs for commercial startups have deterred people. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of grain are needed to make a product — the small amount that might be grown on 100 acres, for example, is nowhere near enough for production, whether it's a winery, distillery, etc. The amount of material needed far exceeds the ability to grow it onsite. Gary also discussed economies of scale, commercial activities and processing. Jill Hausner testified that she lives on EFU land in Tumalo and leases EFU property in Terrebonne. She feels it is bizarre that people need to have their own soil studies done. We have not had soil studies done here for 30 years. She feels that most of Deschutes County isn't farming ground, except perhaps for Brothers. If you have to pay more than $600 an acre for your ranch and lands, you can't make money. Most of us around here are on rural ground and not agricultural ground. We need five- and ten -acre parcels for people who want to keep horses, have 4-H activities, etc. She bought 35 acres here in 1978 and cannot subdivide it, cannot work that land herself or pay someone to do it. Tygh Redfield said he has EFU land in the Cloverland subzone and has farmed there for over 40 years. He is concerned that because we are below the State standard, any non - resource rezoning would dilute that further. Is EFU the only place where non -resource lands can come from? If we start breaking up parcels out of previously zoned EFU lands they will be further diluted. We have not really heard what a "non -resource" parcel would look like. Would it be 10-20 acres? What would be a minimum lot size? If parameters are set up for soil classification and irrigation, the problem of people selling off irrigation rights will have to be considered. Right now people are approaching him to lease land, and EFU needs to be protected. Charles Boyd said that agriculture has benefited his family for a long time. His grandfather came here in 1904 and purchased 600 acres from the Deschutes back to Boyd Acres Road. He had been involved with cattle ranching in Montana and continued that here with a slaughterhouse and retail store. They supported a family of seven and employed others to help. The land was broken up among the family members when he died, and some worked at Shevlin Hixon and then came home and worked to irrigate their lands. The Swalley Canal provided a lot of fish and there were deer in the area. The zoning on the property changed to commercial in the 1970s and taxes increased. The property was sold and paved over. Trees are continuing to die to this day because no provision was made to water them. Charles purchased 12 acres in Tumalo with the hope of buying 20 next door, but that land was eventually sold and divided into lots. He bought another 20 -acre parcel, farmed that and raised cattle with his sons. There is a lot more involved in agriculture than just the farming aspect — there are real challenges such as global warming which may dry up this area. There is also population growth which will put pressure on development and subdividing land. He did not attend the community meetings but filled out a survey online. Bill Robie, who lives in the City of Bend, testified for the Central Oregon Association of Realtors that they would like to see the County take the lead on this program. Ron Davis felt that agriculture in the County is really made up of mini ranches and mini farms where people cannot make a living. It is difficult to get up early in the morning, irrigate, go to your job, come back and irrigate again, every day. He would like to see better support for these folks. Someone who lives on a 6,000 -square foot property can build an apartment above the garage and rent it out, but he can't do this on EFU. He would like to see accessory farm dwellings approved for farm parcels so he could hire a college student to help out and live there. His wife is going blind and needs help. They have a conditional overlay but it has to be a manufactured home which he cannot afford. Nunzie Gould asked how many of the Commissioners live on EFU — Matt Lisignoli was the only one. She lives on EFU and did participate in the community meetings, which is difficult during May for others who also live on EFU. She read some of the possible uses that are currently allowed. At a meeting in La Pine, she saw a transfer of wealth from those who bought land years ago and want to pass it along — they don't want to keep the land in their families. Once the land is carved up, it never gets back to the bigger tracts. What happens incrementally, through the UGB growth, is that larger parcels are being lost to density. When this began, she thought the question was whether or not to consider the process. She submitted information about the Mary Ann Walker Ranch in Tumalo, which is adjacent to BLM land that is significant for wildlife movement. People move here because they love seeing the wildlife — if they were really here for farming they would have analyzed what they can produce. Some do farm their lands as a commitment to EFU. Tony Aceti said he had to buy a house in town and could not build on the original land he purchased. He knows where are a lot of people who have unproductive farmland and have to have outside jobs. He did attend some of the meetings and heard about people who want to keep their 80 acres to split between their four kids. He is all for preserving productive farmlands, but how many people with these actually make a living on their property full time? In his case, his pond got moved when 97 was widened, and he would rather pay $1000 to Swalley not to irrigate rather than farm his 20 acres. We need to keep some flexibility and a one -size -fits -all will not work. He supports the process, and EFU as open space is not sanctioned unless it is public or government-owned land. 4 Pamela Burry testified that she lives in Sisters on small EFU and went to three of the community meetings. She spoke to two different farmers with large parcels who also participated. One has 320 acres off Fry Rear and another has a large hay farm. They were unable to attend this evening. They both felt that instead of breaking down large tracts, where there is no going back and which guts the Tom McCall vision, they are both taking a percentage to use as a viable farm — 12% in one case — and multi -cropping it with hogs and chickens and 42 different vegetables grown. They started with two acres and moved to 12%, i.e., they did not use the entire property initially but grew into the 12%. This is a different way to look at it. Liz Dickson, with the Hurley Re firm, was here representing COID. She attended the Alfalfa community meeting as well as other related meetings. COID is the largest irrigation district in the County — they serve 3500 families and the mean size of their delivery is 9 acres. The median size is 4.5 acres, so most of the irrigating in the County is not going on in accordance with lot -sized minimums; 87% of COID's deliveries go to parcels of 20 acres or less. Many of the acreages in the County are selling for premiums because there is a demand for people who want to live on a few acres but don't want to farm. Irrigation as a criteria is essential when looking at the system, as well as the distinction between "irrigable" and "irrigated" acres. Initially this area was all federal land, and the only way for settlers to have land deeded to them was to agree to irrigate it. But there are a number of acres in private holdings that are not irrigable. COID would like to see farming preserved where it is viable — if there are 40 acres that cannot be farmed, look at it as part of this campaign but preserve the activities around it. Farming takes priority. It is good to accurately classify lands and COID is not opposed to this. COID has looked at the alternatives and feels that if you decide to go with alternative (c), (d), or (e), it will be expensive and time consuming. So be prepared in advance to set aside funds and man hours to get this done. Chair Brown asked Liz about COID comments on page 28 and they discussed Bob Borland's irrigation methods using water from the brewery. Commissioner Powell asked Liz to comment on the impact of smaller parcels on irrigation districts in terms of cost, efficiency, etc. Liz said that the smallest deliveries tend to take the most time and attention, partly because there is less water to carry and manage, but also because small property owners tend to not know how to manage irrigation waterl. Education is part of the process. Jerry Norquist said he does not currently live on EFU and has participated in a number of the meetings. He feels the meetings were a little bit rushed and the timing was not good for the ag community because they were working. Three hundred responses is not a good survey sample and we need to slow down. If you go to the farmer's markets there are a lot of young people producing a lot of food on small pieces of land. Donna Lipscomb said she lives on EFU land outside Sisters and her husband attended some of the community meetings. The majority seems to be in favor of retaining the current process. Standards and preservation of farmlands/open space were also important, according to the results of the meetings presented here. She feels it is important to recognize the process and listen to the people. Merry Ann Moore said she does not live on EFU. Right now we have a process in place where people can come in, a hearings officer deliberates and the matter is decided. There have been three or four of these applications in the past few years to build subdivisions on 5 EFU. The fees do not seem to be reason enough to change the system in place and are a cost of doing business. This process will take a lot of resources. She likes option (a) which seems to offer enough. She would encourage considering climate change and water supply issues; and there is a federal program to allow people to devote 25% of EFU land to be conserved in conservation easements which would keep the land as open space. Nick said that applications can still be submitted whether we go forward or not. There is a minimum lot size of 10 acres, so we cannot go smaller. There is also a policy in the Comprehensive Plan to advocate for accessory dwelling units with the state legislature. The timing of the process was worked out with the Deschutes County Farm Bureau with the understanding that it is also difficult for farmers to participate in the winter, and they are harvesting in the fall. There was no time that would meet everyone's demands during the public meeting process. We wanted to get a snapshot of public perception as to where we are. Also, "non -resource" means the land is not farm and not forest. Any non -resource designation still has to comply with State law, and impacts on surrounding farms must be considered. Commissioner Baney said that when we went through the wedding process on MUA-10, she remembered the average lot size was smaller than 10 acres, which may or may not be relevant. Commissioner Unger felt the direction is how to help people but not divide properties. Commissioner DeBone felt we need to support the 10-15-20 acre rural lifestyle hobby ranch. There are some EFU designations that may have been catch-alls in the past but not now. Farming can be many things. He would support accessory dwellings where appropriate. He does not feel we should cut up 80 acres of farmland, but we need to look at opportunities. Commissioner Palcic said he was at the Brothers meeting and remembers a farmer stepping forward to talk about adding help to his property. He does a round trip of 120 miles a day to take his kids to school due to the lack of one in Brothers. The issues link together — a school, a need on the farm to grow the business. Commissioner Lisignoli and Nick discussed challenging standards in the Code to get approval for an additional house. Commissioner Baney felt we need to help people stay on their lands and look at State versus local options. Chair Brown asked for a list of possible solutions to the ancillary housing problem. Commissioner Lisignoli felt there is a separate issue of housing versus non -resource lands and we need to define non -resource lands. Commissioner Palcic mentioned modifying the land to qualify or not qualify for a certain status — would you do away with "irrigable" land? Commissioner Turner thought we may be going in circles — we started off talking about a non-resource/limited lands project. Are we trying to come up with solution to a problem, or is there a problem driving us to the solution? Limited resource land is different, and we are going off on tangents about housing. Is this limited resource land issue what we are trying to wrap our heads around? Commissioner Powell said that when Senate Bill 100 was being considered, the hills were understood to be non-farmable and slated to be subdivisions. We started this to find out if the non -resource lands issue was a burning one for people on those properties. He is not hearing that from the preliminary data, but the auxiliary housing issue has been in the County for 30 years. M The Commissioners discussed having staff provide more information and meeting again jointly in the future. Chair Brown asked Laurie Craghead about multiple people applying on a single application. She said they could, but there would be questions if there is leapfrogging (the properties are not adjacent). The Board would have to decide whether to waive fees. Commissioner Unger requested that Nick discuss airbnbs in the information for the Board. III. BOCC PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF COMMENTS Commissioner DeBone thanked the Planning Commission for their work. IV. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Sher Buckner Administrative Secretary The video record of this meeting can be located at: http://deschutes.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view—id-=5- 7