Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-01-12 - Planning Commission MinutesCommunity Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Solis Division P.O. Box 6005 117NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388.6575 FAX (541)385-1.764 http://www.co.de5chutes.or.uslcdd/ MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701 JANUARY 12, 2012 — 5:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Merle Irvine. Members present were Vice Chair Chris Brown, Ed Criss, Todd Turner, Richard Klyce, Bill Rainey and James Powell. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner; Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner; Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner; Laurie Craghead, Assistant Legal Counsel; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. Minutes of October 13 and October 27, 2011 were approved. Elections: Commissioner Powell moved that the current Chair and Vice Chair be re -appointed through the end of 2012. Seconded by Commissioner Turner. Chair Irvine said that he would be leaving at the end of his current term. Commissioner Rainey asked if Chair Irvine would be available and willing to serve until the end of 2012. Motion passed. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. III. PUBLIC HEARING: TA -11-6, Churches in the Sunriver Business Park — Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner. Cynthia summarized the application. Commissioner Rainey asked about the cost of a traffic analysis recommended by staff. Commissioner Rainey also asked how many people a 5,000 -square -foot church would hold and how many people would be driving in. Cynthia said this would also include restrooms, offices, etc. and the applicant would be better able to answer. Nick said the listed use in the traffic manual has 45.5 day trips average, and it could be significantly more or less. Commissioner Rainey and Cynthia discussed post offices being permitted outright in the area, and Commissioner Rainey thought that a post office could generate a lot more traffic. Nick said that many other permitted uses in the zone generate more, but some also generate less. Quality Services Performed with Pride Commissioner Turner asked about peak traffic times for the church. Peter said that the memo in the packet summarized the uses — the trip generation is probably mid-range. The hangup is language in the TPR which says that you have to analyze performance in affected intersections — the operation of the intersection in addition to traffic count. Chair Irvine asked about the cost, and Peter said it was a fairly basic analysis. A traffic consultant could estimate cost. It would be a fairly simple study but an additional financial burden on the consultant. Chair Irvine asked whether a study is required if the use is permitted outright. Peter said if more than 50 weekday trips were generated on an outright use, a traffic study would still be required. Commissioner Powell asked if these are leaseholders renting space in the business park. Cynthia said that is her understanding. Nick clarified that this use would apply to all properties in the zone, and this applicant is a leaseholder. Commissioner Powell asked if the existence of the business park with an established lease base has any bearing on this, or does just the fact that this is a land use application trigger the TSP. Peter said that if a study was done when the Sunriver Business Park was established, it would be dated; and in this case a new use is being added (proposed) to the zone. The other aspect is that this is a text amendment and would therefore apply to other businesses as well. Commissioner Powell asked if the entire business park would have to readjust its plan and Peter said no. If someone came in who wanted a 10,000 square foot church, they would still need a traffic analysis. Commissioner Powell asked if the leaseholder had to provide any evidence of adequate parking. Cynthia said if this use was permitted in the zone, they would have to go through site plan review. We are looking at zone -specific information at this point. We would review parking at the time that any business started up. Commissioner Powell spoke about the noise ordinance specifically as it related to this use. Cynthia said those impacts are addressed during site plan review. Commissioner Powell thought this was something that could be used by the applicant against other established businesses in the park — this zone is already set up to handle ambient noise. Cynthia said the applicant had not waived anything at this time. Commissioner Criss and Peter discussed the figures from the ITE manual. If someone wanted to open a new business now, where an existing space has become vacant, if it generates more than 50 trips a traffic analysis would be required. Commissioner Criss asked about the report from Sage Engineering and whether the numbers were from the Business Park — Peter said no, they were taken from the ITE manual. Commissioner Criss asked if there were other businesses changing in the area which did not trigger traffic studies. Peter said the only reason this is requiring a traffic analysis is that it is not an allowed business, as of now. Public Comments: Doug White spoke on behalf of the applicant. This is a text amendment to include churches in buildings not to exceed 5,000 square feet. They concur with staff except for the applicability of the TPR. There is no dispute about the trips this use would generate. They feel the County could find that this proposal complies with the TPR without requiring a traffic study. This use will not cause a greater impact on the area than a regular workday scenario. He submitted letters from Liz Fancher and Bruce White. Doug mentioned LUBA cases in relation to the TPR and felt this almost represents a downzoning in terms of traffic use. This use would better protect the facility, and we don't need a traffic study on all occasions to be in compliance with the TPR. LUBA directs the County to use a reasonable, worst-case scenario, and in this case that would mean less 2 traffic. The staff report itself supports this. There would be a cost involved with doing a study of the intersection — it would be at least $1,000 more to do it. The applicant does have a lease with the Park and is working on 2300 square feet eventually, including a coffee house ministry. Staff is elevating form over substance here and creating needless expense. There is no significant effect on the transportation system. Doug worked with the County to allow mini -storage units in the zone years ago. Also, there will be deliberations later this evening on event venues, which involve much more traffic, and no mention has been made of needed traffic studies. Vice Chair Brown asked about the heavy use of this facility, how many parishioners would be expected in a 2300 square foot facility, and also about the noise levels. Brian Maxwell said that it is two-thirds a coffee house ministry, currently at about 50 people. When they are too large for this facility, they plan to move to the elementary school and meet there, where it is zoned for churches. They are not there when anyone else is, so noise really is not an issue. Vice Chair Brown clarified that it is the opposite that may be the problem — if neighbors are noisy. Brian said this would not be a problem. Commissioner Criss asked about parishioners coming in by foot or bicycle. Brian said there is probably more car traffic in the winter. They hope to attract cyclists and pedestrians when the weather is warmer. Commissioner Powell asked if they had looked at the six other zones in the area where churches are already permitted. Brian said this space is desirable because it is an existing coffee house, and they can also use the adjacent space for drug and alcohol recovery meetings. Commissioner Powell asked if they could use the space but not label it as a church — there are a lot of nonprofits doing this type of work. Brian said they wanted to be proactive and make sure they are honest about what they are. It could be called "faith -based outreach" or something similar. Doug said there also really isn't availability in other areas for this type of use. The need is in the southern part of the County. Commissioner Turner and Doug discussed the County waiving the $5,000 fee which was done at the time of application. Nick reminded the Commissioners that staff has recommended approval contingent on the traffic study. Motion: Chair Rainey moved to approve TA -11-6 and to close the public hearing. There was no second. Commissioner Turner asked if the motion included the traffic study requirement. It did not, so he seconded the motion. Commissioner Powell requested a division of the motion. Motion passed. Commissioner Powell made a point of order that the amendment as proposed includes the traffic study. The hearing and amendment as presented by staff included the traffic study. We need to clarify what was just voted on. Commissioner Rainey said they approved a different alternative than staff had proposed. Vice Chair Brown said that in the old days, if someone wanted to build a church on industrial land, farmland, etc., he was led to believe churches were allowed to do that outright. Nick said that jurisdictions are legally allowed to regulate religious institutions, and they have to be treated just like any other land user. IV. WORK SESSION: PA-11-51TA-11-4, Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update — Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner. 3 Peter summarized the major issues we have heard about so far. The public hearing has been continued to January 26. We have heard from some property owners who think there should be an action plan specific to Deschutes Junction, which staff feels should be added to our work plan by the Board rather than done during the TSP. Commissioner Turner asked if it could be added to the list in the TSP. Peter said that typically in a TSP there are projects you are going to construct where land use is involved, not demonstrated traffic issues. Peter summarized correspondence we have received regarding the bridge over the bike -ped trail. Staff could support the need for the bridge as we need non -motorized access to the trails from a recreational perspective. The OAR does not allow this, so we cannot put it on the map, but we can add language supporting it. Commissioner Powell said the City was very careful to exclude itself from regulations involving the river. The City should do it in its own space rather than asking to be exempted from the regulations everyone else needs to follow outside the City limits. Commissioner Powell felt that if there is a need, it should be in the City's and not the County's system. Commissioner Klyce and Vice Chair Brown agreed. Peter said he had checked with Legal Counsel on County liability when County bikeways are designated on non -County -maintained roads. Legal Counsel said it would be addressed with policy language stating that for non -County -maintained roads, the County does not bear responsibility and cyclists use them at their own risk. Commissioner Klyce asked what liability accrues to an owner if the County designates a bikeway on private property? Peter said the County does not designate bikeways on private property, only on public roads. Commissioner Turner said he had heard at the meeting in Sisters that they wanted updated maps. Commissioner Rainey said they want more than that — the Bicycle Alliance would support designated routes on the TSP. Peter added that we should also update our bike maps within two years after the TSP adoption so everything is in sync. Peter spoke about the testimony received December 15 from residents in Tumalo and whether Tumalo could be designated a special transportation area with lower speeds like downtown Sisters. Peter checked the ODOT requirements for special transportation areas and it would be problematic for a number of reasons. Commissioner Criss asked Peter if the posted speed is 40 mph and whether it could be slowed down. Peter said probably not because in a downtown you can legislatively set the speed limit; in an area like this you have to do a speed zone study, measuring with a speed gun. Originally this was a 55 mph section. It is probably unlikely that it will be posted lower than 40. It could even be raised after a study. Commissioner Rainey asked about the grade -separated interchange and median — would those changes be made at the same time? Peter said probably yes. The median would not be added without the crossing. Commissioner Rainey asked if we have an estimated time frame. Peter said it has been changed from high priority to medium (6-10 years). With the shortage of funds for the Road Department it would probably be longer. Commissioner Turner asked if the raised median was similar to the crosswalks on the south portion of the Parkway where there aren't traffic lights. Peter said there would be a raised median where the pedestrian only has to look one way to get to the middle. Commissioner Turner felt that these do not work. Peter said ODOT has looked at putting an undercrossing at 5th. Commissioner Klyce and Peter discussed traffic flow through Terrebonne, which has been slowed without raised medians. Peter said Terrebonne has a much more urban feel than Tumalo, which has no sidewalks, and you don't go right into the built environment like Terrebonne. Commissioner Klyce said that ODOT created that feeling when they built the road through Terrebonne — could the same set of solutions be 4 tried in Tumalo? Can you go ahead and put in sidewalks, for example? Peter said there really isn't anywhere in Tumalo to connect the sidewalks as in Terrebonne — the commercial use isn't there. We could put policy language in the TSP to support adding more pedestrian amenities, though. Commissioner Klyce felt that the testimony we heard from residents of Tumalo supported this. Peter spoke about ODOT's wish to develop an illustrative list — those projects for which there probably won't be money although they are desired. The Planning Commission may want to consider what we do with these in the TSP, which is a 20-year planning document. Should they stay on the map even though they will likely not be funded? For example, Redmond is working on a proposal to extend 19th Street to Quarry which could be on our list with an asterisk and left on the map, rather than pulling it off as illustrative which creates more problems. Should we leave projects from the illustrative list on the map or pull them off? Commissioner Powell asked if there was any practical way with some of these projects where they could be left on the TSP with the idea that there will be an exchange of views by the public and the State? Some of the processes are pretty far removed from citizens being able to access them and get their voices heard. How can we get the message across and get ODOT to be receptive? Are we forced to pull projects to keep them from happening? Peter said that ODOT sends out notices to property owners and publishes notices in the paper, although in a rural setting it is more quirky. Some projects also can't be tweaked as much as the public would like. Chair Irvine and Peter discussed whether the TSP goes to ODOT for their approval after the Board's, and Peter said it is not required. They could take us to LUBA if they disagree with something. Commissioner Criss asked about Wickiup Junction — Phase I and II both say "grade separations." Peter said Phase II was more of a full-blown interchange where Phase I was just to get up over the road. Phase II involves an $80 million project, and the goal is only to get Highway 97 up and over the railroad tracks. Vice Chair Brown asked about Cook/OB Riley and whether monies have been identified as available. Peter said no. Commissioner Klyce asked about the interchange south of Vandevert Road. Peter confirmed there is a 20-year plan to get rid of at-grade crossings. Peter spoke about the Sisters passing lanes. He went to a seminar this week on road design and for single-vehicle fatalities, trees are 20% of the cause of fatalities. This was related to the "cathedral view" in Sisters. Peter said there would be three options on the 26th — the oral or written record could be opened and deliberations could take place at a future meeting, or deliberations could take place at the same meeting on the 26th. Peter would recommend closing the record on the 26th and beginning deliberations. 5 V. DELIBERATION: TA -11-3, Commercial Event Venues as Private Parks in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone — Nick Lelack, Planning Director. Nick discussed the types of events allowed under S13960. He asked the DLCD and Oregon Farm Bureau if weddings were contemplated, as well as other agencies. They responded as to what types of uses were intended — first of which was a farm use on the property; the uses need to be supportive and related to agriculture. Weddings were contemplated during the legislative process, as long as they are tied to agritourism or an "other commercial event." Commissioner Powell and Nick discussed classification of "other events" and whether any association with farm activities could be cut, whether wedding activities had to use any projects grown on the farm; and Vice Chair Brown mentioned a hearings officer's decision a number of years ago tying the activities to the amount of land and not the dollar income — subordinate meant "ground use" and not "dollars." Vice Chair Brown said that in some of the correspondence/opinions it was stated that the farm revenue just needs to be larger than the wedding event revenue. Nick repeated that Sheriff Blanton had said during past meetings that it is almost impossible to hold an event that does not violate the County's noise ordinance. Decibel limits are inaccurate and unenforceable. Nick discussed setbacks, hours of operation, whether to allow amplified sound at all, whether it should be outside or only inside, minimum lot sizes, etc. Commissioner Turner suggested just not allowing sound amplification at events. Commissioner Criss pointed out that the statement about inaccurate sound measurements is not correct, and limits can be enforced. He has personal experience with this in California courts and as a musician. We could be affecting many paying jobs for musicians if we do not allow amplified music. If we use the numbers related to the mass gathering permit, these are enforced so what is the difference? This is done everywhere, especially in urban areas. Nick said that after talking with state agencies and others, he had proposed the definition of agritousim to be "incidential and supportive to" farm use. "Commercial event" and "commercial activity" could have more broad definitions to include any meeting, celebratory gathering, etc. Commissioner Powell said he did not include the expansion of the word "purpose" and wondered what was being envisioned. Nick and Commissioner Powell discussed the definitions of "commercial event" or "commercial activity," which Nick said could be moved to another section and be a broader definition. Chair Irvine asked if we had searched to see if the definition is in any other section of County Code. Commissioner Turner thought that the definition of "agritourism," could include "incidental and revenue -subordinate to existing farm use." The determination of "revenue -subordinate" is called out in HB3280. Commissioner Criss wondered about an event being revenue -subordinate to 40 acres of hay — this is probably not possible. There are so many marginal farms here that do not have enough growing ability for substantial income. If we make this subordinate to farm income, the farms that cannot produce enough to live on would not be able to hold weddings. Commissioner Turner felt that the reality in this County is that we do not have an agricultural base and most farms do not produce a livable income. He believes commercial activities should happen in commercially -zoned areas. Nick said a couple of other definitions were proposed. DLCD said that if we move forward with allowing commercial events in private parks, we need to define what "private parks" [.1 are and indicate we are specifically allowing events there. DLCD also wanted to make sure we limit the combining of events. Commissioner Powell said there were four different approaches in 960 and wondered if there was applicability to these other ideas. Nick said that SB960 does not require us to adopt anything. Our County ordinance already allows single events every 90 days. The key was not to allow someone with a winery to also apply under 960 or any other combination. Nick related that the DLCD, Sheriff Blanton and 1000 Friends all recommended we control the size of events. The County, however, cannot enter the property to determine the number of attendees, and people may come and go during the event. Commissioner Powell said that there is a section in the mass gathering ordinance indicating no event permit shall be granted unless the organizer allows law enforcement on the property. He wondered if we could add that provision. Laurie Craghead said we could add that language and also include it on the application. When you take out a building permit, you are consenting for the inspector to come onto the property. Nick said that regarding lot size, 15 acres was proposed as a minimum for non-agritourism. events, but that number and suggested setbacks of 100 feet were only starting points. Vice Chair Criss wanted to clarify that we can only make 960 more restrictive, not less. Nick confirmed that there is no setback in it. For private parks and home occupations, there is significant public support for adopting SB960 and HB3280. There has been concern about traffic and parking issues. Commissioner Turner and Nick discussed six events a year with a 72 -hour duration of each event. Commissioner Klyce asked if Nick or Paul could speak to the Pumpkin Patch and how many days of the year they operate, how many people, etc. Nick said that we understand that their primary operation is 30 days in October and some Christmas tree sales in December, maybe 45-50 days total. They may choose to fall under SB960 if they want to have events that exceed the farm stand requirements (25% of sales). Paul Blikstad said we do not have information on that. Commissioner Turner asked if the pumpkins there are grown on the property or trucked in. He understands that it is not entirely agritourism related. Paul said he has driven by the property on a number of occasions and pumpkins are grown there. Nick said we do not have an application yet. Right now it would fall under the farm stand standards of the Code. Commissioner Klyce said he understood they operate 7 days a week. There is a petition in support of his activities which has 4-5,000 signatures, and there are thousands of people who visit the Pumpkin Patch. Commissioner Powell said that 3280 contains a provision that local governments may issue permits for wineries for which admission is charged, providing that such activity was happening before a date certain. Are we in trouble with having that done before a date certain - is this obviated by the language covering "celebratory events"? Nick said he thought that was getting at the number of wineries in the Willamette Valley that were operating before this law, so they would be allowed to continue; but new proposals under 3280 would not include the same types of concerts and other events. The State law has a sunset provision. Paul discussed the winery in the County which is getting its wine from California at the moment, and there is only one winery operating in the County. Commissioner Turner asked about the distillery that is operating. Paul said it was approved by the hearings officer. Chair Irvine and Vice Chair Brown discussed defining revenue. Commissioner Rainey felt that leaving it undefined would give a potential applicant more latitude. Vice Chair Brown said he was fine with leaving it "subordinate." Commissioner Powell said he had interpreted 7 this process as having the primary function of supporting agriculture. When we took this on, it was his impression that it was to help struggling farmers. Vice Chair Brown thought that perhaps the key word was "support" instead of "subordinate." In S13960, the use has to be "incidental and subordinate." We are talking about adding more arrows to the quiver. Commissioner Turner said his concern was potential unintended consequences. What if someone has had an auction for farm equipment on his property every weekend and uses the money to grow 10 acres of organic vegetables? Is this subordinate to agriculture and is there anything wrong with it? Commissioner Klyce said that we could revisit this if there are abuses. Average farm income in the County is less than $10,000, so making revenue subordinate to income would hurt farmers. Commissioner Criss felt that the intent of the law was to allow some commercial activity in support of farming, but not to take it over. He does not want to see event centers spring up in EFU lands. Commissioner Turner said he read the criteria as requiring all events having to be in compliance. Chair Irvine confirmed that the consensus was not to define "incidental and subordinate." Motion: Commissioner Turner motioned to not include home occupations and private parks at this time. Seconded by Commissioner Rainey. Discussion: Commissioner Turner felt there was a lot of controversy about private parks and whether they had to be related to recreational use. Commissioner Rainey said there were strong feelings, and he felt better about doing things incrementally, seeing how they work out, what problems come up, if a large number of issues are involved, etc. We can expand or change things in the future and it is better to start gradually. Commissioner Criss wondered if events under home occupations had to be held indoors and Nick said yes. Laurie mentioned a case regarding structures which were "substantially within a dwelling or approved accessory structures," but this did not include gazebos and pole barns without sides. Also, Laurie encouraged us to come up with a definition for private parks, especially if we want more restrictions. Vice Chair Brown said Dave Hunnicutt had interpreted that home office and private parks would be alternatives for people who owned land that was not in EFU use. If we are here to support farming, using the agritourism and commercial events makes sense. Private parks and home occupations could be taken on separately as non-farm uses. Commissioner Powell said he had a problem with home occupations and private parks. Personally, he would close the door on private parks right now and say they are not to be used for commercial events. He does not feel comfortable supporting home occupations for this, either. If we are going to try and work out solutions so neighbors can remain on good terms, we can do it in steps and explore home occupations and private parks in another way at another time if we find it necessary. He heard there were some concerns and discussions with Dave Hunnicutt, who felt that there weren't enough parcels in the County to qualify under either 960 or 3280 to be included, and therefore we needed the private parks and home occupations. Commissioner Klyce said he did not recall Dave saying that. Vice Chair Brown asked how many parcels are under farm deferral. Commissioner Klyce said one big advantage to home occupations is the ability to contain the activity within the structure. Nick said that he has had numerous conversations with Dave, who is concerned that under 960 it will be tough for many properties in the County to qualify and take advantage of it. Private parks and home occupations would be the avenue for those M who cannot meet the standards of farm use. Commissioner Criss asked if we can define structures. Nick said yes. Commissioner Klyce asked if the paintball park is a private park and Nick said yes. Commissioner Klyce asked if they charge an entry fee for a tournament if it is an event. Paul said they could charge and it was a land use decision by a hearings officer. It is also a recreational use. Commissioner Turner clarified his motion as removing those two paths from what we forward to the Board. Vote: Motion passed. Motion: Commissioner Klyce motioned to adopt the provisions of sound control that are currently in the Code mass gatherings requirements for use in TA -11-3. Nick read from 8.16.290(c) which included sound limits of 70 dB. Seconded by Vice Chair Brown. Discussion: Commissioner Criss suggested considering distance as well. He asked Laurie if the assumption was for concert control and Laurie said it was brought over from a previous Code provision. Commissioner Criss said he had not experienced concert level sound at weddings. Chair Irvine asked Laurie about the mass gathering requirement of written consent being obtained from all affected persons and asked how to define that. Laurie said it was not defined and we have not used it. Commissioner Rainey said he was not in favor of this and it was not restrictive enough. Commissioner Turner said he did not support this. He felt there should not be any sound amplification allowed. An affected person can be 100 feet away or 1000 feet away. We need to be consistent with the hours first. Commissioner Powell said he felt the motion was too open ended. He would be more comfortable if we dealt with the access for enforcement, and if there was some stipulation that there had to be certain measures at the source of the sound. Rock concerts are estimated at 120 dB on one chart and 110 on another. If we are going to add noise stipulations in terms of measurements, we need to have access to measure levels and to ask that the noise be held down if necessary. There has to be someone accountable at the event. Maybe there should be some constraints in how the sound system is set up. He has problems with setbacks because we may need to look at differences in lot size, whether amplification is used and other variables. Commissioner Klyce said that currently the police can go onto properties to enforce noise ordinances. Fundamental accountability means that if an operator like Lavender Pond is unwilling to modify behavior, it loses the right to host events. We need objective standards. Requirement of noise abatement measures may not be needed on large lots. We need an approach that addresses impacts rather than trying to anticipate too much. Vice Chair Brown thought that we needed a point to start from and the motion was appropriate for that. This is already in County Code in other places, and mass gatherings requirements are a great place to start for consistency on noise. Laurie suggested that the motion adopt the concept in Section (c). Commissioner Turner clarified that the Commissioners are being asked to vote on a motion subject to amendments that they don't know yet. Laurie said that a consensus could be reached asking staff to come back in the future with language to approve. Commissioner Powell felt that the mass gathering language could be used as a starting point. 9 Vote: Motion failed. Commissioner Turner again stated that he did not want to allow sound amplification in the EFU zone. Commissioner Rainey asked if we could list the four or five things to address with respect to noise. Chair Irvine said this included decibels, setbacks, where the dB reading is taken, hours, structures, access, sound setup and direction. Commissioner Powell also wanted to ban fireworks. Commissioner Klyce proposed a limit of 70 dB. Noise limits were discussed as well as considering sound levels at the property line where the event is being held. Commissioner Rainey said he could not vote on some limit unless he knew what it sounded like. He moved here from the city to be near peace and quiet. Commissioner Powell remembered that one of the things people consistently wanted was amplification for a speaker. What about cutting off levels of sound at certain times? Commissioner Rainey felt that 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. was more acceptable than allowing noise until 10 p.m. Vice Chair Brown said that the limit in hours bothers him because they are arbitrary. Maybe it should be a certain level until sunset and another level after sunset. Chair Irvine suggested that staff come back with some ideas for staggered hours. Commissioners Criss and Irvine wanted to see noise ordinances from other cities. Commissioner Turner felt that noise in an ambient setting is totally different than in a rural setting. He wondered about whether the noise needed to be inside or whether setting limits was enough. Commissioner Rainey spoke about having a provision for getting permission from the neighbors. Referring to "affected parties" is problematic. Definitions of agritourism and commercial events were discussed. Vice Chair Brown wondered if they are already included. Nick said they probably are and it was decided to keep them as they are. Laurie spoke about the sizes of mass gatherings. Outdoor mass gathering permits kick in at 500 people for more than four hours. Sometimes permits have been required for events of 200-300 people because those events would affect the public right-of-way. Commissioner Powell wanted the sizes of events tied to health and safety provisions and lot size. On a huge parcel, 499 is not a problem. On 12 acres it would be different. Commissioner Klyce asked how many cars could be parked on an acre and Vice Chair Brown thought around 100. Commissioner Turner said if he had a 40 -acre parcel he could invite 499 people and not affect neighbors, but a neighbor with 20 acres would have more of an effect. Commissioner Klyce said there are already provisions about adequate onsite parking. He would like to cut it off at 499 and add a provision that there has to be adequate onsite parking. Commissioner Powell felt there is much more of a traffic issue on smaller parcels. Nick said also that SB960 requires the permit to be renewed every two years. Also, if we add adequate parking as a requirement, this would be part of a site plan review and could be appealed by opponents. Commissioner Turner asked if the suggested 100 -foot setback was measured from where the event was taking place, and this was confirmed. Nick said we had gotten a letter from the Wine Board about language being too restrictive with regard to traffic studies. Commissioner Powell asked if a winery, under HB3280, can have events forever as long as they are related to the winery. Nick checked the text and events are limited to 25 a year. 10 Commissioner Turner mentioned the winery events being allowed 25 days a year. We could go fewer if we feel that number is not appropriate. Vice Chair Brown felt that if they are selling their own products it is all right. Commissioner Turner said this could include a wedding every weekend all summer. Also, on page 7, (iv) it mentions the public consent in writing to use of the road for�events at the time of application. What if the privilege is abused and neighbors are not okay after the first couple of events? There needs to be language covering what happens in a conflict. Commissioner Powell suggested creating an advisory committee composed of two vendors and two neighbors to look at issues like this, complaints, etc., and if CDD wants it, to provide advice on solutions. Nick said this was related to the Grossman issue. Staff all agreed that there needed to be clarity. Tom and Nick had talked about that and right now, Code Enforcement staff tries to work on voluntary compliance. We are not sure how a process with an advisory committee would play out when enforcing the Code. Commissioner Turner felt that that the time allowed for "agritourism" - six agritourism or commercial events which may not individually exceed 72 hours - may be too long. He is not comfortable with this. Chair Irvine mentioned cutting sound down and allowing the event to last 72 hours. Vice Chair Brown said that weddings do not take 72 hours and mostly we are talking about weddings. Other events would be something else related to agritourism, but he does not know the extent of unintended consequences. A wedding could take a day to set up, then a day for the event and another day to tear down, which would be 72 hours. Nick mentioned limiting a commercial event to 12 hours. Commissioner Turner said he had no problem with farming or ranch -type events lasting three days; there should be a separate timeline for commercial events with different limits. Nick and Commissioner Powell discussed site impacts and mitigation impacts. Paul also mentioned that we probably will not see any more applications for wineries. The investment is so huge and soils aren't good here. Nick said he would have the revisions ready for the packets next week. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS Nick related that last week the Board adopted language defining "major" and "minor" fees for administrative determinations. The County has hired a new Road Department Directory, Chris Doty from Redmond. VII. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Resp ct�ctfully submitted, er Buckn r Administrative Secretary 11