UMATILLA COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

Meeting of Thursday, November 12, 2009

6:30 p.m., Umatilla County Justice Center, Media Room

Pendleton, Oregon

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

COMMISSIONERS

PRESENT: Rick Colgan, Frank Kaminski (Vice-Chair), David Lynde, Clinton Reeder, John Standley, Don Wysocki, David Lee.

ABSENT: Gary Rhinhart, Tammie Williams.

STAFF: Heather Haueter, Richard Jennings, Tamra Mabbott, Gina Miller, Oliver Pahl.

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE MEETING. HOWEVER, A RECORDING OF THE MEETING IS AVAILABLE AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OFFICE.

CALL TO ORDER:

Commissioner Kaminski called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m.

Commissioner Kaminski explained that he was sitting in as Chairman for Gary Rhinhart, who was absent.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Commissioner Reeder moved approval of the minutes of September 24, 2009 as submitted. Commissioner Wysocki seconded. Motion carried by consensus.

OTHER BUSINESS:

• Report by Bruce Sorte – “Umatilla County Adaptive Farms: An Economic Analysis”

Planning Director, Tamra Mabbott introduced Bruce Sorte, agriculture economist with Oregon State University (OSU) Extension, and explained that the county had received a grant that allowed us to hire Mr. Sorte to take a look at what is a viable farm unit in our county. This could potentially provide a technical basis for moving forward with a go-below application for the EFU-10, 20, and 40 zones.

Mr. Sorte displayed a PowerPoint presentation, and explained his report, which consisted of:

• Profiling the county regionally for ag production.
• Describing likely adaptive farming practices.
• Estimating the financial feasibility or viability, and economic effects of each type of adaptive farm.
• Discussion with the public, county, and scientists.

Mr. Sorte talked about enterprise budgets and how they are not necessarily accurate for small, adaptive farms because they are based on figures taken from larger, established farms.

His interest in small farms is because agriculture/natural resources are the only advantage rural communities have, but his concern is that the market for value added goods is unknown. He talked about blueberries as an example. He noted that his report did not include organic products.

Mr. Sorte explained that there are a number of metrics to determine; what is a farm, when you should or shouldn’t get to have one, etc. His feeling is that agendas are driving the definition of a farm and aren’t necessarily looking at just the viability of the farm.

Wheat is the core product for Umatilla County and Mr. Sorte stressed that you shouldn’t mess around with a much smaller “niche” marketed product that you don’t have a good feel for. He also noted that, across rural Oregon there are compatibility issues, particularly in the Gorge, where there are many wheat farmers planting small acreages of alternate crops within their wheat farms. They want answers, but it is very difficult at this time because we don’t have answers for things like spray and growing schedules, and emergence rates.

Mr. Sorte provided a list of net returns per acre on several crops, stressing the importance of value adding, direct marketing, self distribution and marketing, etc. There is a huge excess demand right now for organics. Diversity is important as well.

Mr. Sorte felt that the county should have responsibility for dwellings associated with small, adaptive farms, rather than the state, so they can verify sufficient water, and better monitor business plans, market development and alternative plans, etc.

Strengthening the adaptive farming portion of agriculture along with local foods initiatives could draw visitors and residents. He noted the development of Walla Walla as an example, but there is no spillover into Umatilla County as there is in other communities. Unfortunately, no one has had the “courage” to take the issue up with the state.

Ms. Mabbott asked if Mr. Sorte would encourage the county to move forward on the go-below issue with the state. Mr. Sorte replied that there are certainly better metrics for making decisions on land use related to farming than what we’re currently using. The current metrics maximize the size of farms, but minimize the changes that take place. He would like to see agriculture boost their contribution to the community, and this is one way to do it.

Senior Planner, Richard Jennings wondered why parcels in the EFU-10, 20, and 40 areas around the county that are already broken out aren’t being utilized for these types of adaptive farms. Mr. Sorte replied that it is a narrow group who will develop adaptive farms, and they typically have a specific intent. Opportunity cost is too high to leave their current job for farming, so people enter it cautiously. A go-below for the EFU-10, 20 and 40 zones won’t create a landslide of people starting adaptive farms, but it would provide opportunities.

Commissioner Colgan commented that there is some effect from water. The flexibility of Oregon water rights and system makes it more difficult. Board Commissioner, Larry Givens noted the effect of microclimates across the county as well. There was discussion.

Commissioner Wysocki noted that we are trying to encourage adaptive farming from a planning perspective and wondered what the metric should be to encourage that. He also asked how we build into that metric the continuity to keep people in those enterprises. Mr. Sorte explained that he was trying to change the conversation back to net returns and what many use as a measure of means of support. He would expect that if the county approved a go-below the county would enter into conversations with the state about that metric. At that point the hard work begins to determine buffers, reasonable returns, etc.

Commissioner Standley asked Mr. Sorte what he thought would happen in communities around Umatilla County if our land use laws were not so restrictive. Mr. Sorte replied that, in a much slower manner, they would likely develop similarly to the way Walla Walla has.

Ms. Mabbott commented that the county has to consider whether or not to move forward, but the leap is not just creating the parcel and farming it, but the expectation that a house can be built on it, which is much more difficult to justify.

Commissioner Reeder added that the real issue for the county is the standard for dwellings. Right now, ours is not risking the sustainability of the agricultural enterprise, but supplementing an off farm job so that the family income is taken care of. The question is how do you keep that parcel in agricultural use after the kids go off to school and mom and dad can’t put in as much labor? It’s a planning and an economic issue, overlaid with the lifestyle of the ownership. There was discussion about the living unit and its impact on the economy.

Short recess.

NEW HEARING:

The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Umatilla County Board of County Commissioners. Applicable review criteria include UCDO 152.750-152.753.

• Update of Umatilla County Development Code, #T-09-035. A summary of the updates include the following:

1. Allow Accessory Farm Buildings and Met Towers in the EFU/GF Zone with a Zoning Permit

2. Limit Development Permits when a Solid Waste Violation exists

3. Add reference to FEMA Map Modification for Stanfield Area

4. Allow Land Application of Biosolids in EFU Zone

5. Modify Type IV Land Division Standards

6. Modify the Standards for a Non-Farm Dwelling

7. Clarify Land Use Decision listing for Churches in EFU/GF per ORS.

8. Update List of Uses Permitted with a Zoning Permit

9. Update List of Uses Permitted with a Conditional Use Permit

10. Update to the Signs Table

11. Update criteria in UCDC 152.684, Type II Land Divisions

12. Provide Reference for Land Division

13. Clarify requirement for Road Names

14. Change timeline for processing permits to be consistent with ORS

15. Add Definition of “Owner” for a Lot of Record Dwelling

16. Update References to OAR in the Wind Siting Standards

17. Provide permit process for higher animal density in Rural Residential and Future Urban zones

8:13:34 PM Staff Report: Senior Planner, Richard Jennings explained that the reason for the updates was to align local code with state statutes, and to adopt FEMA map revisions in the Stanfield area. He gave a PowerPoint presentation explaining the updates.

Part 1: Update uses within the EFU and GF zones

1. Accessory farm buildings and met towers – Add uses to zoning permit section. Also noted met towers are temporary features, only permitted for 2 years. That language would be added as well.
2. Land application of biosolids – Zoning Permit as allowed in ORS 215.247 - transported by vehicle, not piped.
3. Clarify land use decision listing for churches in EFU/GF – No change, just clarification
4. Modify the standards for a non-farm dwelling – Additional criteria out of Statute - If on an existing parcel the parcel must have been created prior to 1993.
5. Add definition of owner for lot of record dwelling not on high value farmland – Also out of Statute

Part 2: Update uses within other zones

1. Update uses permitted with a zoning permit
1. Remove items that are permitted outright as farm uses
2. Include adult foster care homes – out of Statute
3. Include home day care use – out of Statute

B. Update uses permitted with a conditional use permit - Remove personal use airports definition, horse facilities and day care provisions in the Conditional Use sections of the U-C, RR-2, RR-4, RR-10, MUF-10, FR, MR, and FU-10 Zones.

Part 3: Update Criteria for land divisions

1. Update criteria in 152.684 - Clean up provisions of a Type II Land Division. – remove (B), (D) and (K).
2. Modify type IV land division standards - Each Review section of the Type IV Land Division section must be corrected to reflect current standards for surveying requirements. Refine the Type IV, Review IIII for non-farm dwellings and Review IV for non farm uses to require Access Permits, DEQ Site Emulations on parcels 4 acres or less and signed agreements such as an Irrevocable Consent Agreements (ICA).
3. Provide land division reference in UCDC 152.059 (K) (VII) to convert a farm dwelling to a non-farm
4. Require a road name for 60 foot easements during a type II land division.

Part 4: Update other code sections

1. Solid Waste: Limit development permits when a solid waste violation exists on the property. There was discussion. Gina Miller, Code Enforcement Aide explained the violation process.
2. FEMA: Stanfield area FEMA map modification - Stanfield has been working with FEMA on a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) and a final determination was made by FEMA to remove certain areas of land out of the flood hazard area in the City of Stanfield and an area outside of the city limits of Stanfield. In order to adopt the modified maps, the county will add the updated map number and date for those maps within the county’s jurisdiction to the Flood Hazard Overlay Zone text. Ms. Mabbott noted that all affected property owners outside the city limits received a Ballot Measure 56 notice from the county regarding this matter.
3. Signs: Update to the Signs Table for the UC zone
4. Administrative Regulations: State Statutes require that land use permit are to be processed within certain time frames depending upon where the parcel is located. If a parcel is located within the UGB of a City then the time frame is 120 days. Thus, a land use permit must have a decision and have all local appeals exhausted within 120 days from the time the application is deemed complete. If the subject property for a land use application is not within an urban growth boundary then the time frame is 150 days. Updates will reflect the standards found in ORS 215.427.
5. Wind: Update reference to OAR 660-033-0130 (37) in the wind siting standards
6. Animal Density in Rural Residential Zones: Provide a variance to the animal density in the rural residential zones to allow greater density during certain times of the year for parcels greater than 10 acres – Planning Director, Tamra Mabbott explained the current standard of 2 animals per acre, and noted the high volume of odor and other complaints even at that standard. Randy Mills with Extension Service only knows of two places where intense pasturage rotation has occurred on a commercial scale, and it is very difficult to manage even for a full time commercial operation. Discussion brought up strong concerns about wells, noise, management and enforcement, etc. Ms. Mabbott stated that staff opinion was that what we have works and could actually stand to be more restrictive.

Ms. Mabbott noted that, in an effort to determine how much area this new standard might apply to, Mr. Jennings put together a table of the number of properties in the residential zones that are greater than 10 acres. There is actually quite a bit, particularly in the FU-10 zone, which is only located in the Hermiston area. On a side note, Ms. Mabbott pointed out how much underdeveloped rural residential property the county has.

After discussion about management, enforcement and other potential issues it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to leave the animal density standard as it currently is.

Proponent Testimony: None

Opponent Testimony: None

Agency Testimony: None

Commissioner Colgan moved to recommend adoption of Development Code Text Amendment #T-09-035, agenda items 1-16 as written and striking 17 (Part 4 (F)). Commissioner Lynde seconded. Question called. Motion carried unanimously.

MISCELLANEOUS:

Secretary, Heather Haueter noted the expiration of Commissioner Standley’s and Commissioner Lynde’s terms on December 31, 2009 and that election of officers would need to occur at the December meeting.

Mr. Jennings talked about House Bill 3099, which involves updates to the EFU zone. Only a few of the changes will affect Umatilla County:

• Public and private schools will go from a permitted use to a conditional use.
• Solid waste disposal sites will be removed.
• Greyhound breeding and training facilities will be removed.

Because of the state legislative process, these changes do not have to go through a public hearing. The Board of Commissioners will simply sign an ordinance. Mr. Jennings could provide a copy to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Jennings also noted that the Comprehensive Plan has been reformatted and is available on the website. It was reformatted to incorporate new language that has been adopted over the years. It is also set up with maps and is editable. It can be downloaded from the website for the most up to date copy, or a copy can be put on CD for the Planning Commission.

ADJOURNMENT:

Commissioner Reeder moved to adjourn. Commissioner Colgan seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Heather Haueter

Secretary