Loading...
2001-383-Minutes for Meeting April 11,2001 Recorded 4/18/2001VOL: CJ2001 PAGE: 383 RECORDED DOCUMENT STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF DES CHUTE S *02001-383 * Vol -Page Printed: 04/27/2001 14:22:31 DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE (This certificate constitutes a part of the original instrument in accordance with ORS 205.180(2). Removal of this certificate may invalidate this certificate and affect the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence in any legal proceeding.) I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received and duly recorded in Deschutes County records: DATE AND TIME: DOCUMENT TYPE: Apr. 18, 2001; 4:45 p.m. Regular Meeting (CJ) NUMBER OF PAGES: 21 MARY SUE PENHOLLOW DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK KFYR ANG :D A 200) MM,`; CL zu C00 Ty, ❑"�. A 4, � Board of Commissioners 1130 N.W. Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 • Fax (541) 388-4752 www.deschutes.org Tom De Wolf Dennis R. Luke MINUTES OF MEETING Mike Daly DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2001 Chair Tom De Wolf opened the meeting at 10: 00 a. m. Present were Commissioners Tom De Wolf, Dennis Luke and Mike Daly. Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Mark Amberg and Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Damian Syrnyk, Kevin Harrison and Chris Schmoyer, Community Development. Also attending were Tom Blust, Road Department; Jenny Scanlon, Commissioners' Office; Media Representatives Barney Lerten of bendnet. com, Anne Aurand of the Bulletin Newspaper, and Jason Carr of Z-21 TV,- and V;and approximately twenty citizens. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. Tia Lewis, Attorney representing Barclay Meadows and Sisters School District, explained there was a small error on the legal description of the Ordinances previously adopted by Deschutes County regarding the Barclay Meadows commercial development in Sisters. Laurie Craghead indicated she would have the new Ordinances reviewed by the end of this morning's meeting. 2. Before the Board was the Reading of a Proclamation, Designating April 22 through April 28 to be Deschutes County Crime Victims' Rights Week. Commissioner DeWolf read the Proclamation to the audience. LUKE: I move approval of signature of this Proclamation. DALY: Second. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 1 of 17 Pages Wednesday, April 11, 2001 Quality Services Performed with Pride VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 3. Before the Board was a Decision on Appeals of the Hearings Officer's Denial of Applications from Tumalo Irrigation District and Cellular One for a Conditional Use Permit to Establish a Wireless Telecommunications Facility on Laidlaw Butte. Damian Syrnyk indicated this issue was discussed at last Wednesday's Board meeting, but only two Commissioners were present at that time. The Board had indicated it would make its oral decision this morning when all three Commissioners would be present. Commissioner DeWolf said that George Read had pointed out that in Deschutes County Code under Condition 18.128.020(i), the County is allowed to specify requirements for screening or other methods to protect adjacent or nearby properties, and can specify standards for installation and maintenance. Commissioner DeWolf stated the one thing he had assumed was that the County could not require any sort of camouflaging or stealth technology that's been talked about. He said that according to Mr. Read, this portion of the ordinance would, in fact, allow the County to require camouflaging if the County so chooses. That's the only thing that has come to light since last Wednesday's meeting. Commissioner DeWolf then stated that he stands by what he previously stated he would like to see happen. Commissioner Luke stated that he also read that ordinance, and to him it is a little unclear. He said he wouldn't mind doing the stealth technology if the County required that. He said he would be interested in having the County being a partner in that process financially and use it as a test area to see how it would work, and not hold up approval of the placement of the tower. He would like to see if this type of stealth technology would work here. He also said that, truly, Community Development has not spent enough time on it and the Board does not have the information on it. If the Board went that way, he said he feels the County should be a partner in the funding of the stealth portion - not the pole, just the stealth. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 2 of 17 Pages Wednesday, April 11, 2001 Commissioner DeWolf asked legal counsel if the County could require this and still be a partner in it. Laurie Craghead stated that she hasn't come across this before, so she would need to see how it could be structured. She said that she doesn't know what might prevent it, but she still need to investigate the budgeting and how it should be handled. It could set precedence; and the County would have to determine where it should draw the line when it comes to other applications of this type. Commissioner Luke stated that they wouldn't help anyone else. He further said that the only thing Commissioner DeWolf and he disagree on is the stealth technology issue. He said one of the things they could do is approve the project within the parameters of everything agreed to, and as a separate agreement offer to use this as a test site for that type of technology. Commissioner DeWolf explained that he is intrigued by this as, on the one hand, the County doesn't have a specific ordinance relating to stealth technology, and it is obviously something that the County is very interested in seeing move forward quickly. This could be the opportunity to do a test case on the ground that could examine the possibilities. He said he is not opposed to this and that he feels that it is legally reasonable to partner with Tumalo Irrigation on this, as it could be a good way to show everyone's good faith on this issue. It would allow Community Development to actually obtain evidence within the County to know whether this type of technology will work. Laurie Craghead explained that it appears this would be a pilot project; however, she needs to look into how it should be structured. Commissioner Luke said that he wished to make two motions; one, the pole would be lowered to 35 feet, with the total antenna of approximately 50 feet, adding a whip antenna to 56 feet (according to Exhibit D of Cellular One's previous presentation). Also, they would be required to paint the whole pole to an approved color to blend in with the natural surroundings as much as possible; then, upon notification of project completion that the interested parties be notified and have an opportunity to comment on whether they have done a good job or not on the painting and have abided by the rules. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 3 of 17 Pages Wednesday, April 11, 2001 Commissioner DeWolf stated that regarding Exhibit D, Tumalo Irrigation District and Cellular One are to submit a detailed design of the pole for public comment and review by the neighbors. This would be done with a clear understanding that it doesn't reopen the public hearing, and the County Commission has final approval of that design. Commissioner DeWolf further stated that there are two pieces of camouflaging. One is that the painting is to blend in, with the color scheme to be approved by Community Development. The other is that the County require the applicant to submit photos that the finished product is what they said it would be, according to the photos furnished by Cellular One indicating what they assured everyone it will look like. Commissioner Daly said that he thinks they are getting into two different things in this decision - talking about the pole, and adding stealth technology. He stated that Community Development and the Commissioners don't even know if that's possible. Stealth technology is manufactured and brought to site, and would require a different pole. Commissioner DeWolf replied that it doesn't need to be a different pole. It would be on the pole in question. Commissioner Luke said he suggests two motions. The second motion would be regarding a partnership to try to put stealth technology in place. Commissioner DeWolf asked how you do two motions on one approval. Laurie Craghead stated that Commissioner Luke is saying that the Board not require stealth technology with its decision; but, through a second motion, approve a pilot project, hoping that the applicants will agree to cooperate. Commissioner DeWolf said that if they make it part of a decision, the applicants will have to agree or appeal the decision. Commissioner Luke stated that if you put the stealth technology in, the County would be left open to an appeal. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 4 of 17 Pages Wednesday, April 11, 2001 Commissioner DeWolf explained that it sounds to him like the County can specify requirements for screening or other methods to protect adjacent or nearby property, and specify standards for installation and maintenance. Commissioner Luke said that those requirements are not now in the cellular tower ordinance. Laurie Craghead further explained that is a conditional use; and this issue is a conditional use. The County could have a good argument, but it could be appealed. Commissioner DeWolf then said that anything the County does could be appealed, and that a week ago this was unknown. He said that he feels personally if the County doesn't require something like this, it is his opinion that the applicants haven't used the surrounding vegetation and topography to the greatest extent practicable in order to protect the views from either the highway or from nearby residents. Commissioner DeWolf said the reason the pole is where it is, is because that's where the thirty-foot pole was before. He said when he visited the area with Damian Syrnyk, he felt that other locations on the butte might have provided better coverage. By leaving the pole in its current location and using camouflaging, that's one way to handle it; another way would be to move the pole. Commissioner Luke said that one of the parts of your motion could be to move the pole to a different location if they don't utilize camouflaging. Commissioner DeWolf stated that it would be much harder to move the pole and the fencing; it would be a big hassle. This is a way to accomplish keeping the pole and at the same time would allow everyone to compromise and to be good neighbors, and also would allow Community Development to learn more about this process. Commissioner Daly explained that he thinks the other Commissioners are imposing too many criteria and conditions that are subjective. He said he likes the idea of using this as a test case, but feels there shouldn't be so many conditions put on this decision. He said he does not want to be the person to say that they will do something, "or else". Minutes of Board Meeting Page 5 of 17 Pages Wednesday, April 11, 2001 Commissioner DeWolf replied that this is what Commissioner Daly got elected to do. He further said that if the, County doesn't make this a condition, it would mean that the County would have to get permission to use the pole as a test case for stealth technology. Kevin Harrison said there are a couple of options that contain what he considers deferred decision. If the decision requires evidence to be presented at a later date, it is considered a deferred decision and constitutes a separate land use decision. He cautioned the Board that any conditions of approval need to be clear and objective, that it is a one-time deal. Commissioner Luke said that compliance comes from the Compliance Officer. Once the pole is put up and they say they are done, code enforcement would look at it. Kevin Harrison said that theoretically you would structure the conditions of approval, which need to be clear and objective, so that the applicant and staff know what to do to satisfy a condition; then the County can cite to that condition if it is not met. Laurie Craghead stated that in a sense the Board is writing a condition. A deferred condition would require a public hearing, as opposed to a clear decision now. The Board needs to specify colors and other terms. Commissioner DeWolf asked how you know what color palette to use. Laurie Craghead said that the decision has to be fairly specific. Damian Syrnyk said that the County has adopted a color chart as part of the original ordinance adopted in 1997 so that any applicants can select a proper color scheme. Commissioner Luke stated that they are better off with earthtone colors. Commissioner Daly said that the Hearings Officer's decision indicated the pole itself is natural wood, which blends in. Damian Syrnyk replied that the ordinance says to use a wood pole, or make sure it is colored appropriately per Ordinance 97-017. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 6 of 17 Pages Wednesday, April 11, 2001 Commissioner DeWolf emphasized that it is wood now but, in his opinion, it stands out like a sore thumb. Commissioner Daly stated that utilizing Exhibit D would change the looks of it. Commissioner DeWolf asked what happens from this vantage point. Somehow the Board needs to be clear, concise and fair, so that when it is completed it will look like they say it would, from the same vantage point. Kevin Harrison asked if the pole would no longer be visible over the treetops. He also asked if it would then meet the height requirements. Commissioner DeWolf replied that it would still be seen, but not as much. Damian Syrnyk said the pole itself would be lowered, and a metal pipe would be attached, with a whip antenna on top. Commissioner Daly said that this is the first he's heard of the Commission discussing stealth technology being a part of it. Commissioner DeWolf said that's not true; the Board talked about it a couple of days ago. Commissioner Daly said it's the first he's heard of partnering. He said he has written out a statement for the record and stands by it (two pages, attached as Exhibit A). LUKE: I move that the Board accept Exhibit D from the Cellular One presentation and in the record, and that the pole be painted an approved color from the color chart available from the Planning Department; and that when the pole is done, Code Enforcement is to inspect the pole to make sure it conforms to the code required by Deschutes County. Commissioner DeWolf asked if Commissioner Luke means that it will look the way they said it would look in their photo. Commissioner Luke said that the photos were altered mechanically. He explained that it needs to look like Exhibit D, and needs to be painted as closely as possible to blend into the existing surroundings, and that it doesn't exceed any of the heights listed in the exhibit. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 7 of 17 Pages Wednesday, April 11, 2001 DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes no. LUKE: I move that County Planning staff investigate the possibility of a partnership with Tumalo Irrigation District and Cellular One to see if stealth technology would work here, and report back to the Commissioners. This is not a condition of approval, but a separate motion. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was Consideration of Whether to Hear an Appeal of Hearings Officer's Decision to Deny Central Electric Cooperative's Application for a Conditional Use Permit to Establish a New Double - Circuit Electric Power Transmission Line (off Pleasant Ridge Road near Gift Road). Chris Schmoyer gave a brief overview of the application. He stated that the application was denied using site plan criteria addressing public safety; the Hearings Officer concluded that, based on evidence and testimony, it would be unsafe since it would include a crossing of this line over an existing transmission line. There is some question regarding the spacing between the lines. Commissioner Luke asked for a description of where they are located. Chris Schmoyer indicated the line extends from a small substation to the east, goes toward the northeast across the other line and the railroad tracks, and then across into BLM land where it will eventually connect with an existing Redmond -Bend line. He further said that at some future date both of the power lines will be updated, the height could change, and the voltage could be upgraded. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 8 of 17 Pages Wednesday, April 11, 2001 Commissioner Daly asked if this would be a de novo public hearing. Chris Schmoyer replied that would be a limited de novo public hearing. A letter of opposition was received from the other utility company, Pacific Power, after the record had been closed. Commissioner Luke said that serving power issues is worthy of a hearing. Commissioner DeWolf stated that even though their letter came in late, he assumes that at the time of the hearing Pacific Power can become a party to this issue. LUKE: I move that we hear this appeal on a limited de novo basis. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 5. Before the Board was a Presentation, Updating the Commissioners on Activities of Special Road District No. 1. Donna Smith and Jim McGrath of Special Road District No. 1 presented an oversized map of the road district to the Commissioners. Ms. Smith explained that a stretch of road on map is described as "very rough"; she indicated that it is no longer very rough, however, because the local Rural Fire Protection District requested that the County chip seal it for safety reasons. Tom Blust displayed an oversized map of the Special Road District and surrounding area. He indicated that the roads in question are not within the District, and are not maintained by the County, but are part of a public road right of way. The roads became impassable one winter, and the Board of Commissioners at that time asked that they be improved for emergency access purposes. Donna Smith explained that because of the improvements, increased traffic normally using the cindered roads now uses the improved road. She asked that the County provide some assistance in improving about one mile of the cinder road that is now more highly used because of the newly chip sealed road that ties into it. She said it wouldn't need to be improved to County standards nor taken over by the County, but should be improved enough to offset this extra use. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 9 of 17 Pages Wednesday, April 11, 2001 Tom Blust gave an overview of the various subdivisions in the area; both sides are concerned about cut -through traffic. He said they did traffic counts last year, which showed about 180 vehicles over a few days in August. He further stated that there didn't appear to be a huge amount of cut -through traffic; that this appeared to be traffic generated mostly by local residents. Other areas of road district have counts of about 3,000 per day. Commissioner Luke said that the County is looking at some subdivisions that have only one access. He asked if this works as a fire evacuation exit also. Tom Blust replied that is why the County was told to improve it. Commissioner DeWolf suggested that perhaps a gate could be put up to limit access. Donna Smith replied that there is a lot of building going on in the area, so much of the traffic is construction related. Another impact is the area at the south end of the district where a cluster lot development is proposed. This development may eventually become part of the road district, but she said she didn't know if the district or the County could force that issue since they weren't included at the time the road district was formed. However, the road district almost completely surrounds it now. Tom Blust said it would be hard to improve this area without also approving others areas and road districts. Commissioner DeWolf explained that if the County opens the door here, everyone else would expect the same treatment. Donna Smith said that they are requesting that they not be considered County roads; they want them to remain as district roads and the district will continue to maintain them. She also said that because they are cinder roads, they are a nightmare to maintain. She said they don't have many residents living on this portion of the road, but it takes 40% of the district's time and energy to properly maintain it. Commissioner DeWolf stated that for the County to maintain roads, the County would be opening up itself to doubling the number of roads already maintained. There will be more cut -through traffic and it will snowball. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 10 of 17 Pages Wednesday, April 11, 2001 Donna Smith said she sees this not as a problem but as a solution to the road district's problem. Mike Maier stated that other road districts might present this issue, too. The cost could be potentially ten or fifteen -fold with the other districts considered. Jim McGrath said that the district's road crews seem to think that contractors and residents generate the majority of traffic. He further said that the cinder roads were set up for the neighborhood, and a small volume of traffic. These roads now get so much traffic every day that it is a major effort to try to keep them up. Commissioner DeWolf said if you visit Deschutes River Woods and other special road districts, you would find the same problem. Growth is happening everywhere in the County. The cities face the same problem, but they have different maintenance issues. Commissioner Luke suggested that they form a local improvement district; then the County would pave and maintain the roads. Ms. Smith said that most of the lots are empty, and most of those owners would not be in favor. She said she would like to see the new development be a part of it. Tom Blust said he would work with legal counsel and let the Board know what the process would be to annex that area into the district so they can contribute to the costs. With ten homesites in that group, there are about six trips per homesite, bringing the count up by sixty vehicles per day. Mike Maier asked if annexation into a road district could be a condition of approval for the new development. Laurie Craghead said she would look into it. Commissioner Luke said that the development does have impact on the nearby roads. Tom Blust said that is true unless they are using only County -maintained roads. 6. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of a Notice of Intent to Award a Contract for Supplying and Hauling Crushed Rock and Pre - coated Rock for the County's Chip Seal Program. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 11 of 17 Pages Wednesday, April 11, 2001 LUKE: I move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. CONSENT AGENDA Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. LUKE: Move Approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items: 7. Signature of a Personal Services Contract between Deschutes County and Paul Evers Design to Facilitate the Implementation of a Communications Plan for the Community Youth Investment Program. 8. Acknowledgement of an Arnold Irrigation District Resolution Creating a Contract Review Board. 9. Signature of an Amendment to a Collective Bargaining Agreement between Deschutes County and AFSCME Local 3997, Adding Compensation for Employees with Bilingual and Sign Language Skills. 10. Signature of Order No. 2001-039, Transferring Cash among Various Funds as Budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Deschutes County Budget, and Directing Entries. 11. Signature of Resolution No. 2001-017, Authorizing the Borrowing of Funds by the Justice Court Fund from the Business Loan Fund. 12. Signature of Resolution No. 2001-026, Authorizing the Borrowing of Funds by the Fairgrounds and Expo Center Fund from the Business Loan Fund. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 12 of 17 Pages Wednesday, April 11, 2001 CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-H COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT. 13. Before the Board was Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District in the Amount of $452.31. LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: DALY: DEWOLF Aye. Aye. Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT. 14. Before the Board was Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $5,990.69. LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. 15. Before the Board was Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $649,501.55. LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 13 of 17 Pages Wednesday, April 11, 2001 16. Before the Board were Additions to the Agenda. A. Before the Board was the Continuation of a Discussion Regarding Ordinances Related to the Barclay Meadows Development. Laurie Craghead explained that both Ordinances require a First and Second Reading by title only, declaring an emergency, prior to adoption. LUKE: I move first reading of Ordinance No. 2001-021 by title only, declaring an emergency DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Commissioner DeWolf then did the First Reading of Ordinance No. 2001-021 by title only, declaring an emergency. LUKE: I move Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2001-021 by title only, declaring an emergency DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Commissioner DeWolf then did the Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2001- 021 by title only, declaring an emergency. LUKE: I move approval of Ordinance No. 2001-021. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. LUKE: I move First and Second Readings of Ordinance No. 2001-022, by title only, declaring an emergency. DALY: Second. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 14 of 17 Pages Wednesday, April 11, 2001 VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Commissioner DeWolf then conducted the First and Second Readings of Ordinance No. 2001-022 by title only, declaring an emergency. LUKE: I move approval of Ordinance No. 2001-022. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. B. Before the Board was a Discussion regarding the Issuance of Bonds - Resolution No. 2001-027. A brief discussion occurred regarding this Resolution, which relates to the Fairgrounds loan from the Oregon Department of Economic Development. Mike Maier indicated that this issue also includes having Susan Mayea act as grant coordinator. LUKE: Move approval of Resolution No. 2001-027. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DALY: Aye. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. C. Before the Board was a Report Given by George Read Regarding an Ordinance relating to Height Requirements. George Read said that last summer the Board directed Community Development staff to look at height issues. There are exceptions in the code for a whole laundry list of things, including tanks, church spires, fire towers, observation towers, transmission towers, smokestacks, and others, including agricultural buildings. This was taken to the Planning Commission, and 42,000 notices were sent out; at that point very few people - perhaps a dozen - participated in discussions at the Planning Commission level. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 15 of 17 Pages Wednesday, April 11, 2001 The Planning Commission found it relatively easy to deal with most things (he then showed a document - attached as Exhibit B - to the Board, detailing the Planning Commission's recommended changes. The highlighted portions are not yet contained within the Ordinance.) He said that most of these decisions were based on common sense - except when testimony was taken on agricultural buildings. He said there was some fairly graphic testimony given by neighbors who showed the Planning Commission documents relating to 50 -foot barns that clearly block the neighbors' views. Traditionally barns have been exempt, with no height limit; and there have been no problems brought up until recently. Mr. Read further explained that the issue is whether the County should regulate agricultural buildings. Commissioner Luke was at the final hearing and heard both Ev Turner and Frank Deggendorfer of the Planning Commission say they believe that traditional barns should not exceed 30 feet; larger barns would be more for riding stables and similar uses. They indicated they felt that putting a limit on the height of those structures would be a reasonable thing to do; there was a lot of discussion regarding setbacks and actual farm uses. At that point, the members of the Planning Commission then basically threw up their hands and recommended that the Board act to restrict barns to up to 30 feet, just like all other structures; and allow exceptions of up to 36 feet. Commissioner Luke stated that he feels this height was arrived at arbitrarily; there is nothing in the record indicating that height is appropriate. In two sessions of the legislature, right to farm legislation was supported; he asked if the Board would be protecting views or protecting farming. He said that one of the things that has been addressed is changing when someone can get a pre- agricultural building; these aren't going up on the smaller pieces of land, just on larger parcels. He said if he is going to vote for a barn height restriction, he needs to know there is a reason for that specific height. Mr. Read said that the Planning Commission picked the County's traditional number; it is what the County uses for other things. He said he feels the County made a mistake on the 42,000 notices, as the notice did not specifically include barns. This is not adequate Measure 56 notice per law regarding barns; and because of this mistake they can't move barns forward in the code without re - noticing. He said the notification pool is a lot smaller if the County uses its policy on what constitutes an agricultural building. This would require noticing owners of land 10 acres or larger. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 16 of 17 Pages Wednesday, April 11, 2001 Commissioner Luke said he has no problem with considering it, but needs to know if that height would work for farmers. He asked if the Farm Bureau had been requested to comment. Mr. Read said that even though it may have been considered adequate legal notice, if the County is going to regulate barns, another notice should be sent out and there should be public discussion on this specific issue. He recommended that the Board go forward on this; or, the Board can refer it back to the Planning Commission and do a re -notice. Commissioner DeWolf stated that the Planning Commission should work with farm people to get more input. He suggested that if the Planning Commission wants a public hearing to be held, it should re -notice and hear this specific item again. He said that it's a bigger issue affecting more than just the few people who previously testified; and that there are many others who could be directly impacted by any decisions on this topic. Commissioner Luke said that the Farm Bureau and others should at least have an opportunity to comment. Being no further items to address, Chair Tom DeWolf adjourned the meeting at 11:25 a.m. DATED this 11th Day of April 2001 Commissioners. ATTEST: t Recording Secretary Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, April 11, 2001 for the Deschutes County Board of Tom DeWolf, D nis R. Luke, Commissioner I Jv, 1.4r MI'c"rael . D y, Co issioner Page 17 of 17 Pages 7 TUMALO IRRIGATION DISTRICT CELLULAR ONE APPEAL OF HEARINGS OFFICERS DENIAL TO ESTABLISH A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY ON LAIDLAW BUTTE DECISION COMMISSIONER MIKE DALY I have spent a great deal of time reading the different submittals by both sides of this issue. I have driven out to the site and made every effort to view the subject pole from every angle. Some of my observations are as follows. 1. Driving west on Hwy 20 from Tumalo, the pole is not visible at all without looking back over your shoulder and knowing where to look at the right time. 2. Driving east on Hwy 20, the pole is visible but does not block any views other than the sky. 3. Driving all around the butte and looking at the pole from every conceivable angle, I was not able to place the pole between me and any Mountain View. 4. When I compare this site with other cell sites in central Oregon I find this site has one of the least visual impacts in the whole area. The applicants have offered to reduce the height of the pole to 50' and have shown photographic evidence of the proposed new visual impact. The applicants have produced additional evidence that multiple poles below the top of the butte with their equipment sheds and connections to power will probably end up being more visually offensive and produce less cell phone signal than one pole on top of the hill. Additionally, Tumalo Irrigation District's radio license would not permit this type of facility for them. The applicants have shown through other evidence that the Tumalo area has areas where coverage is inadequate. This site in the SM zone is the best site to provide the coverage necessary. The applicants have shown that they considered alternative sites with the respect to the visual impacts of the proposed facility. Alternative sites will not provide the coverage they need . With the reduction in height to 50 feet, the visual impact is reduced considerably. In making my decision, I have to weigh the needs of the 115000 residents of Deschutes County and the 600 members of the Tumalo Irrigation District, against the objections of some of the local residents. There has not been a large public outcry about this facility. I have received very few letters and e-mails opposing this facility and about the same number supporting it. Public safety is one of my main concerns. Over the years Cellular Phones have added a great deal of assistance to local law enforcement. At the scenes of bad accidents, emergency services are routinely dispatched within seconds of a bad accident instead of hours as in the past. Drunk drivers are reported as soon as they are spotted by other motorists who have cell phones. Lost hikers and mountain climbers are found every day because they had a cell phone. Peoples lives have been saved because of Cellular Technology. This alone is enough for me to be supportive of these applications. I am a supporter of stealth and camouflage technology for future sites that need to be screened but I do not believe that type of technology is needed at this location. To make this pole look like a large pine tree at this location would look more out of place than the pole itself. Further, this technology is so new that I would need to have the manufactures of this technology attend a public meeting for questions and answers before I would want to require an applicant to use it. Therefore, I will support applicant's application for a joint use pole 50 feet in height as listed in Exhibit "D" in Cellular One's Exhibit Presentation. As far as the whip antenna extending above this height, I have no objection to going to 60 feet as the whip antenna being 2 inches or less in diameter would probably not be visible on the top of the pole anyway unless you were standing right next to the pole. Michael M. Daly Deschutes County Commissioner 2, 6 �- Z_ Ordinance 2000-0 282001-004 EXHIBIT `B" 4/12/01 18.128.015. General standards governing conditional uses. Except for those conditional uses permitting individual single-family dwellings, conditional uses shall comply with the following standards in addition to the standards of the zone in which the conditional use is located and any other applicable standards of the chapter: A. The site under consideration shall be determined to be suitable for the proposed use based on the following factors: 1. Site, design and operating characteristics of the use; 2. Adequacy of transportation access to the site; and 3. The natural and physical features of the site, including, but not limited to, general topography, natural hazards and natural resource values. 4. The proposed structure and/or development shall relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existingdevelopment, minimizingvisual impacts and preserving natural features including views and topographical features. 5. The landscape and existingtopography opog_raphy shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible, consideringdevelopment constraints and suitability of the landscape and topography. Preserved trees and shrubs shall be protected. 6. Placement of the building/structure on the site shall be designed to provide a safe environment, while offering_ appropriate opportunities for privacy and transition from public to private spaces. 7. Accessibility to building and structures as Defined in the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). (Ord. 2001-004 § 2, 2001, Ord. 92-047 § 1, 1992; Ord. 91-038 § 3, 1991) Page 1 of 1 -EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2001-004 Ordinance 2000-0292001-004 EXHIBIT "A" 4-2/2-212/01 18.120.040. Building height exceptions. A. The following structures or structural parts are not subject to the building height limitations of this title -section: publie sehee s, chimneys not more than three feet six inches (3'6") above the highest point of the roof,*��'*"^' hese —tewers, ebse..vatien +,., er-, tFansmission tower -s- vertical support structures for telephone and power transmission lines in utility easements or public ri is -of -way, cmc; and flagpoles not exceeding forty (40) feet.; radio and etheF similar r eetiens affd sti*uetuivs as defined in this e-�-Jinfflie,e net ever- fi3 ft,: (40feet 1 t.This exception does not apply to an Airport Development Zone, Airport Safety Combining Zone or Landscape Management Combining Zone. B. The following structures or structural parts may receive exceptions to the building height limitations of this section if approved as part of a Conditional Use Permit, as defined in the DCC 18.128.040 and/or through a Site Plan Review, as defined in the DCC 18,124.060 and subject to the criteria contained therein, public schools, vertical support structures for telephone and power transmission lines, structures that are necessary for public safety, and flagpoles. This exception does not supercede the more restrictive requirements that are found in the Airport Safety Combining Zone or Landscape Management Combining Zone. B -.C. An exception (up to 36 feet) to the building height limitations for structures not otherwise exempted by 18.120.040(A) may be approved upon findings that: 1. The structure is not located in a Landscape Management Zone, Pau i of IIAIIIBI'l "A" P-)ORDI\ANCT --N'0. a -000-0-a&2001-004 except when the structure is a single- family dwelling with an attached hangar located in an unincorporated community and the structure has a maximum height of 35 feet including chimneys, antennas, flagpoles or other projections from the roof of the structure; 2. The structure is not located within 100 feet of any rimrock, as defined in DCC 18.04.030; 3. After consultation with the applicable fire department, the proposed height does not exceed the height limitation of the department's fire fighting equipment, considering the evacuation of the building's occupants and the fire fighting requirements of the department; and 4. The proposed additional height will not adversely impact scenic views from existing nearby residences. 5. Fer- eh a d.d:tie .,1 feet that -a movesed stfuetcife of tfueE g� feet ., additional sett,aek shall ee d 36 6. The proposed structure shall relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development, minimizing visual impacts and preservingnatural features including views and topographical features. (Ord 2040 25-2001-004 & 3, 2001, Ord. 96- 035 § 1, 1996; 93-043 § 20C, 1993; Ord. 92- 055 § 10, 1992; Ord. 92-036 1, 1992)