Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutText Amendment TA-08-9, Event VenuesDeschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701 -1960 (541) 388 -6570 - Fax (541) 385 -3202 - www.deschutes.org AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board Business Meeting of May 4, 2009 Please see directions for completing this document on the next page. DATE: April 15, 2009 FROM: Paul Blikstad Department CDD Phone # 6554 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Board work session on text amendment: TA -08 -9, to add event venues as private parks in the Exclusive Farm Use zone. PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? This will be a work session only. A public hearing on the text amendment will be scheduled at a later date. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: TA -08 -9 is an applicant initiated text amendment to allow event venues as private parks in the EFU zone. This text amendment went before the Deschutes County Planning Commission on three hearing dates. The Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to the Board by vote on April 9, 2009. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: The Board will make a decision on TA -08 -9, which staff has no recommendation for. ATTENDANCE: Paul Blikstad, and Nick Lelack, Planning Director DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS: If any documents need distribution, Planning staff will completed that task. final PrI 179 -08=9 "Commercial Event" means an event which involves a transaction where an individual, sponsor or attendee purchases the right to hold an event. Events on Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) land shall be limited to: weddings /receptions, family and class reunions, company picnics, birthday and anniversary parties, barmitzvahs and batmitzvahs, and graduation parties. Events on EFU land shall not include overnight stays for quests, or any event that includes motorized vehicle sports or motorized racing events. "Event Venue" means private property made available to host commercial events on a regular (such as weekly or monthly) basis. "Activity Areas" means all areas and structures used on the site for an event venue operation, including parking areas, wedding or other event areas, portable restrooms, washing stations and storage areas needed for an event. The activity area shall not include the entrance driveway where it is not adiacent to parking areas. "Permanent structure" includes any conventional structure not otherwise classified as a temporary structure. "Temporary structure" includes tents, cabanas, pavilions, trailers, chemical toilet facilities, and other non - permanent structures customarily erected or sited for temporary use. Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones Section 18.16.031, Nonresidential Conditional Uses on Non -high Value Farmland Only The following uses may be allowed only on tracts in the Exclusive Farm Use Zones that constitute non high -value farmland subject to applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and DCC 18.16.040 and other applicable sections of DCC Title 18. E. Private Parks, playgrounds, hunting and fishing preserves and campgrounds. For the purpose of DCC 18.16.031(E), the definition of private parks includes event venues. Events approved under this Section shall not be subiect to any outdoor mass gathering requirements. A. Conditional uses permitted by DCC 18.16.030(F) through (BB), and the applicable uses under DCC 18.16.031, may be established subject to applicable provisions in DCC 18.124 and 18.128 and upon a finding by the Planning Director or Hearings Body that the proposed use: 1. Will not force a significant change in accepted farm and forest practices as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(c) on adjacent lands devoted to farm or forest uses; and 2. Will not significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use. M. A private park to be used as an event venue shall meet the following criteria: 1. The event venue shall not displace any farming activity already existing on the property 2. Located on property with: A minimum property size of 10 acres. A minimum setback from the activity area from neighboring dwelling units of 300 feet. Or. A minimum setback from the closest property line to the activity areas of the event venue on the subject property of: 100 feet. 3. Property must contain an owner occupied single - family dwelling, and be operated by the owners of the property, exclusive of catering or other contracted services; 4. Except for a single- family dwelling on the subject property (existing or future dwelling), only those non -farm structures existing on the date of the adoption of the event venue provision, shall be used for the event venue operation. Temporary structures such as tents, cabanas, pavilions or other collapsible shelters may be allowed. 5. The number of events shall be limited to one (1) event per week. 6. Sound amplification for events shall be only be allowed indoors for properties with a minimum lot size of 10 acres, and shall be allowed outdoors for properties with a minimum lot size of 20 acres. 7. Traffic management plans shall be submitted with the application. Traffic control shall comply with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices standards if required. 8. Sight distance and driveway widths shall be adequate for the proposed use based on the amount of traffic produced for any particular event, and the necessary emergency vehicle access. Driveways extending from paved roads shall have a paved apron, requiring review and approval by the County Road Department. Driveways shall be all - weather surfaces that prevent dust, and may include paving, gravel, cinders, or bark/wood chips. 9. Hours of operation for the event venue sites shall be within the hours of 8 :00 a.m. to 10 :00 p.m. Any takedown activities shall occur between the hours of 8 :00 a.m. and 12 :00 p.m (noon). 10. Equipment, furniture, goods and other materials used for events shall be stored indoors on non -event days. The use shall not produce an outward appearance nor manifest any characteristics of a business or operation of a retail or wholesale nature, except for those characteristics normally associated with or allowed for the EFU zone. Set -up and take -down activities for the event can occur one day prior to one day after an event. 11. Event venue activity areas, including any associated structures, shall be sited and designed to effectively screen neighboring uses, primarily dwellings, from noise, glare, odor, traffic and other adverse impacts. The Planning Director or Hearings Body may require landscaping, berminq, or other noise or sight obscuring mechanism to ensure effective screening. 12. Prior to commencement of the use, a property owner shall sign and record the farm and forest easement required under DCC 18.16.020(J)(6). 13. Prior to commencement of the use, a property owner /event operator shall sign and record in the County Clerk's Office a Conditions of Approval Agreement, prepared by the County. Section 18.116.030 of Title 18 should be amended to include the following: Use Requirements Event Venue 1 parking space per 2.5 attendees (use maximum possible attendance, plus 1 space per employee) La Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Divisioh Environmental Health Division I. CALL TO ORDER 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701 -1925 (541)388 -6575 FAX (541)385 -1764 http : / /www.co.deschutes.or.us /cdd/ MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701 APRIL 9, 2009 - 5:30 P.M. Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Keith Cyrus. Members present were Vice Chair Todd Turner, Brenda Pace, Susan Quatre, Merle Irvine, Chris Brown and Richard Klyce. Staff present were Tom Anderson, CDD Director; Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner; Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner; Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner; Terri Payne, Senior Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. March 12, and March 26, 2009 minutes were approved. Commissioner Quatre indicated that the retreat minutes from March 6 are only a summary and do not contain details as to specific comments. Commissioner Irvine's concern about how work sessions are conducted (without input from the applicants), was also discussed. Nick Lelack said that more detailed minutes could be provided. 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS None. III. DELIBERATION: TA -08 -9, Text Amendment to the Deschutes County Code to Allow `Wedding Event Venue' as a Conditional Use in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zones, Under the Private Park Provision in Both State Law and County Code - Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner. Chair Cyrus recused himself due to conflict of interest. Vice Chair Turner chaired this portion of the meeting. Motion: Commissioner Irvine moved to close the written testimony. Seconded by Commissioner Quatre. Motion approved. Commissioner Pace commented on an email received from Kelly Brown regarding weddings /events in Jefferson and Crook Counties. She had contacted both counties and Quality Services Performed with Pride was informed that they do not allow these events, and that if such events are being conducted they would be code violations. Nick Lelack summarized the next steps in this process, including work sessions, public hearings, deliberation /review and continuing to a public hearing with the Board of County Commissioners. He also reviewed the final text amendment. language and the suggested criteria for a Conditional Use Permit to host events. Vice Chair Turner requested input from the other Commissioners regarding how to deliberate this proposal, whether event venues should be allowed as private parks. The text amendment could be considered and voted on as a whole, or it could reviewed item by item and positions taken on each. He suggested a straw vote to get an idea as to how the others wanted to proceed. Commissioner Brown said he had mixed feelings about a straw vote but was thinking of making a recommendation to the Board that this move forward. Perhaps an item -by -item discussion would not be necessary - just a few revisions may be suggested. Commissioner Pace liked Vice Chair Turner's idea about a straw vote regarding private parks. She felt it would be better to go ahead and vote on the amendment as it is presented, since it has been reviewed so many times already, and she did not want to "micro manage." Commissioner Klyce wanted to go through the entire text amendment and discuss it. Commissioner Irvine agreed and said he could support some things in the document as it stands but not all of them; he did not want to combine 'everything into one vote. Commissioner Quatre thought that the ball is now in the Commissioners' court and it should be voted up or down as a whole, not reviewed piece by piece. This is the final submittal and nothing will be changed, no matter what any one of the Commissioners says. Vice Chair Turner observed that opinions are split right down the middle. Commissioner Pace asked if a straw poll could be taken (on the straw poll, issue of private parks). Vice Chair Turner asked all those who thought these events were appropriate as private parks to say "yes." Everyone indicated agreement except Vice Chair Turner and Commissioner Quatre. Vice Chair Turner suggested going through the proposal item by item, and this was agreed. On page 3, under "Chapter 18.16 Definitions," Commissioner Brown was concerned about the word "property," which was not clearly defined, and he wanted to know CDD's position. Paul Blikstad said that after 23 years in planning he had never seen a need for a definition. There is a tax map number associated with an application, assessor's records, site plan, etc., and there is no doubt as to what the property is. However, this could come up in the future for some other unknown reason. Paul read a possible definition submitted by County Counsel Laurie Craghead. Parcel sizes and definitions were discussed. Commissioner Brown felt that if the applicant was required to live in his /her own residence on the property, better care of the property would be taken. He mentioned examples of agricultural- related ownership of properties and wanted to clarify whether ownership of contiguous properties would be considered. 2 Commissioner Klyce agreed with the first paragraph of Laurie Craghead's definitions: "For purposes of this section, 'property' means the lawfully created lot, parcel or tract on which the event will be sited and any contiguous lots, parcels or tracts under the same ownership or owned by family members or related business." Paul Blikstad read the definition contained in Title 18 of the County Code. Vice Chair Turner asked whether ownership by a trust would show up on the Assessor's records, and it was determined that it would. Motion: Commissioner Brown motioned to accept the first (of three listed) definition of "property" as presented by Laurie Craghead, i.e., ending with the words "related business." Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. All voted in favor except Commissioner Pace. Continuing the discussion about the final, revised TA -08 -9: Vice Chair Turner asked about the definition of a "commercial event," on page 3, and did not like the term "gain entry to an event," which could include selling tickets. Motion: Commissioner Brown moved to strike the words, "commercial event." Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. Motion approved. Commissioner Quatre wanted to include the term "bat mitzvah" as well as "bar mitzvah," and wanted to clarify the terms in connection with motorized vehicles or related events. There could be as many as 2,000 RV's parked. Commissioner Brown suggested voting on these issues separately. Motion: Commissioner Quatre motioned to change the wording "bar mitzvahs" to "religious and non - religious observances." Discussion: Commissioner Irvine mentioned bhagwan ceremonies, and Vice Chair Turner said that other events could also take place. Commissioner Quatre said that this is very complex — civil unions could also be included. Motion was not seconded. Commissioner Quatre then asked about the motorized /racing events and the possible parking problem. Vice Chair Turner said he thought of the Jeld -Wen parking permitting and wondered why it was different from RV event organizers needing to obtain the same type of permission. Commissioner Brown thought that the language as submitted said that these events were not allowed. Commissioner Quatre was concerned about RV parking but allowed that there is no overnight parking in the suggested language. Commissioner Irvine said that he read the language as indicating that these are the only activities that could occur. Commissioner Quatre felt that the term "may include" was innocuous. Nick Lelack added that parking so many RV's would require a mass gathering permit. Commissioner Pace thought that the problem would be less risky if this was required. Motion: Commissioner Quatre motioned to change the language in Definition 18.16 (third line down) to say "shall be limited to..." instead of "may include...." Seconded by Commissioner Pace. All voted in favor except Vice Chair Turner. Vice Chair Turner asked about the second page, criteria for event venues, and indicated they should not displace any farming activities. 3 Page 4, Section 2.a. Commissioner Pace felt that a 10 -acre minimum is not large enough. She feels it should be 30 acres; Commissioner Quatre indicated it should be 40 acres. Paul Blikstad said that the references to "parcel or lot," have specific meanings and potentially limiting factors. "Property" would be a better option. Motion: Commissioner Brown motioned to change the word "lot" to "property" in Section 2.a. Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. Motion approved. Motion: Commissioner Pace motioned to change the minimum property size in Section 2.a. to 30 acres. She said there were far fewer public complaints received in connection with larger properties and more received regarding smaller properties. Seconded by Commissioner Quatre. Discussion: Commissioner Quatre thought that people did not buy property in EFU land to hold weddings but for farming activities, or just for peace and quiet. She felt that even 40 acres would be better but would go along with the 30. Noise from farming is expected; noise lasting until 10 p.m. from parties is not. Commissioner Irvine did not agree on a size limit and felt that potential conflicts had more to do with noise and the event location in proximity to neighbors. He thought that the focus should be on noise monitoring. Commissioner Pace discussed the fact the current sheriff has said he would not enforce noise or decibel limits, which means the neighbors are forced to listen. She agreed with Commissioner Quatre that people did not buy land in the EFU zone to listen to events which would occur on a regular basis. Vice Chair Turner spoke about the fact that this use • is supposed to be secondary to farm use, and with smaller parcels it becomes the primary use. Commissioner Irvine suggested that future sheriffs might also feel differently. Commissioners Brown, Irvine and Klyce were opposed to the minimum property size. Vice Chair Turner and Commissioners Quatre and Pace voted in favor. Page 4, Section 2.b. (minimum setbacks from neighboring dwellings). Noise issues were discussed as well as amplified versus non - amplified sound. Commissioner Quatre felt that 1,000 feet was a good setback; Commissioner Brown felt that noise levels should be monitored instead. Commissioner Pace asked how decibel monitors would be used. Commissioner Pace suggested skipping to Section 2.f., and Vice Chair Turner suggested looking at 100 feet from the dwelling versus 100 feet from the property line. Commissioner Pace again suggested going to Section 2.f. regarding sound amplification and said she preferred no amplification at all, no matter the property size. There may be a 1,000 acre property where it would not be a problem, but that has not been presented to us. Non - amplified drum sounds still carry. She would prefer that no amplification be allowed on any property of any size. Commissioner Brown thought that there are many types of music, and he did not want to eliminate a minister being able to wear a microphone. Commissioner Quatre said she has been to weddings with non - amplified music in L.A. County, and the minister and wedding couple had microphones, but the reception music was not amplified. Commissioner Pace said she has never been to a wedding where the bride and groom wore microphones and had never seen a preacher who could not make himself heard. She has been to auctions 4 that could be heard three miles away, with only the auctioneer wearing a microphone. She prefers no amplification at all. Commissioner Quatre mentioned a wedding she had attended during a high wind, and no one could hear anything. Commissioner Irvine felt that the ceremony itself would be of limited duration, and the amplification should be allowed at that time. Commissioner Quatre thought that the current requirement of people signing code enforcement complaints is a problem, and they should be submitted anonymously. Commissioner Irvine felt that microphones should be allowed during the ceremony. Motion: Commissioner Pace motioned that sound amplification for events should not be allowed. Seconded by Commissioner Quatre. Commissioners Quatre, Pace and Vice Chair Turner voted in favor. Commissioners Brown, Irvine and Klyce were opposed. Motion: In Section 2.b., Commissioner Quatre wanted a minimum 1,000 foot setback from an activity area to any neighboring dwelling. Seconded by Commissioner Pace. Commissioners Pace, Quatre and Vice Chair Turner voted in favor. Commissioners Irvine, Brown and Klyce were opposed. Commissioner Klyce mentioned he did not want to go to outdoor mass gathering standards. Motion: Commissioner Pace motioned to vote on whether Section 2.b. is satisfactory to the Commissioners as proposed with a 300 foot separation between the activity area and neighboring dwellings or 100 feet between the activity area and property line. Seconded by Commissioner Brown. Commissioners Brown, Irvine and Klyce voted in favor. Vice Chair Turner and Commissioners Pace and Quatre were opposed. Commissioner Pace asked if there was a middle ground, since 300 feet and 1,000 feet were not agreed on. Vice Chair Turner thought that it would not be possible. Commissioner Brown said the Board should see that the Commissioners are split. No discussion regarding Section 2.c. Regarding Section 2.d., Commissioner Pace said she disliked the way this section was written; she said the proposed text favors existing operators over new operators. This section puts new operators at a disadvantage. She would prefer it to indicate, if approved by the County, that permanent structures or no permanent structures should be available to everyone. Commissioner Brown thought that if events were allowed through conditional use permits on EFU land, this may be as close as we can get without changing things down the road. Vice Chair Turner mentioned non -farm structures that burn down — the way this is written, they cannot rebuild. Section 2.e. Commissioner Klyce wanted to limit the number of events to 20 per year which would make events less attractive as commercial operations. Commissioner Pace said what if an owner had property surrounded by three event locations — there would be more and more wedding event areas as this becomes a money making opportunity. The events could be finished at an earlier date once the limit of 20 was reached, if they were all done early in the season. Another thought was that one venue has an indoor structure, so events could take place before /after summer months. 5 Commissioner Pace thought that most events would be held over the four warmer months. July could be very busy, in just that one month. Commissioner Pace suggested one event per week with a maximum of 20 per year. Commissioner Brown did not want to change what the applicant has asked for — one per week. Some events could be held into September. He can see either one per week or 20 per year. Commissioner Quatre felt that indoor events would not impact neighbors and could be held in January without bothering anyone. She feels that both one per week and 20 per year are fair. Vice Chair Turner felt that one per week could be 50 events per year and could not support it. In the original matrix, there were events listed by parcel size, etc., and this discussion seems headed .away from that. Motion: Commissioner Klyce motioned to change Section 2.e. to limit to 20 events per year. Seconded by Commissioner Brown. Discussion: Commissioner Irvine said that there is still the possibility of seven events being held back to back. He would vote against 20 because they could be bunched up. Commissioner Quatre agreed. Commissioners Klyce and Brown voted in favor. Commissioners Irvine, Pace, Quatre and Vice Chair Turner were opposed. Commissioner Quatre said she would be in favor of limiting the number of events to a total number. Commissioner Pace was in favor of 20. Motion: Commissioner Quatre motioned to limit the number of events to one per week and no more than 20 per year. Seconded by Commissioner Pace. Commissioners Quatre and Pace voted in favor. Vice Chair Turner and Commissioners Klyce, Irvine and Brown were opposed. Regarding Section 2.g. Paul Blikstad said that the wording should indicate "Manual of Uniform Traffic Devices." No discussion on Section 2.h. Regarding Section 2.j., Commissioner Klyce was concerned about operators having to take chairs indoors. Commissioner Pace felt it was easier to use the home occupation standards and to have it clarified. No discussion regarding Sections 2.k. and 2.1. No discussion regarding Section 18.116.030 of Title 18 (page 5). Vice Chair Turner suggested the proposal be forwarded to the Board with either "approved with revisions," or not, add the definition of "property," changes the uses to include "may include," change "parcel or lots," and others where there has not been a consensus. Motion: Commissioner Brown motioned to forward TA -08 -9 as amended, with majority votes and recognizing splits on some issues. Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. 6 Discussion: Commissioner Quatre was concerned about the "bar mitzvah," language and whether something is being excluded for the general population. Commissioner Brown restated that the proposal could be forwarded with comments. Commissioner Quatre did not want to exclude other religious and non - religious communities. Commissioner Pace thought that "coming of age," might also be a good term. Commissioner Irvine agreed that it would be fair to include both genders. Vice Chair Turner thought that using "rite of passage" was too general. Commissioners Brown, Irvine Klyce and Quatre voted in favor of the motion; Commissioner Pace and Vice Chair Turner were opposed. After a break, Vice Chair Turner suggested changing the wording to "such as," rather than only specific uses. Commissioner Brown felt that things could be missed if a specific list was created. Using the language "such as," would clarify what is appropriate for a hearings officer. Commissioner Pace felt it was more relevant to code enforcement proceedings, and that "such as" is a very open -ended term. Commissioner Quatre used an example of a large number of balloons being launched — what could a code enforcement official do in that case? Vice Chair Turner thought that this might not be as straightforward a discussion as he had thought, and perhaps they should continue and forward the proposal on to the Board. Commissioners agreed with Vice Chair Turner and took no further action on TA -08 -9. IV. WORK PLAN /ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Nick Lelack, Planning Director. Nick summarized the information provided to the Planning Commissioners. Commissioner Brown mentioned an email he received for two Code Amendment tasks - repairing zoning mistakes (page 20 of the Accomplishments) and the language changes /technical corrections. He thought that it might be appropriate to list these two issues ahead of other priorities. Nick clarified that this was actually part of the work plan section, to be discussed next. Commissioner Quatre asked why there were so many LUBA appeals. Terri Payne said that many are filed by people who are against some particular activity. Terri and Nick also agreed that we have a well- informed public. During the discussion about the work plan, Terri mentioned keeping a spreadsheet showing tasks to be accomplished such as corrections and other items. Sometimes corrections are grouped and processed all at once, as time permits. Commissioner Brown asked if he could submit some suggestions /revisions. Nick mentioned that the legislature is currently considering three proposals that will directly affect us: EFU, destination resorts and the Metolius Basin. There are many tasks to be accomplished, and priorities do need to be set. Commissioner Brown asked how much work the Commissioners generate when they make some requests. Nick said that at this point the requests would need to be identified in the work plan. There are three property owners who are currently upset with zoning, and their concerns could be added to the list, for example. Terri Payne added that until a 7 little while ago, one person on CDD staff handled only code amendments, and 4 -5 or maybe 8 a year could be completed. There is no dedicated staff person now. Commissioner Brown mentioned the public perspective and wanted to know about the "no brainers," and how long they take. Commissioner Pace said that a public hearing still has to be held. Commissioner Klyce mentioned a property owner in Terrebonne who had dealing with a commercial use, and Commissioner Pace said that the process still had to take place to find out if the public agrees - how do you determine what is easy and what is not? In the Terrebonne case, the information is not complete yet. Nick mentioned that rezoning takes a long time, including noticing, hearing, etc. Commissioner Klyce mentioned that this particular property in Terrebonne was originally commercially zoned, as he understood it. Tom Anderson said that the line in Terrebonne was originally an unbroken line; it was requested that the commercial use be allowed, but the "elbow" going out that includes this property was overlooked and no one showed up, either the seller or buyer, to request rezoning. When the Comp Plan and original zoning were established, the zones used were those in place were prior to the Oregon land use system. The process was part residential /part commercial and it was an educated guess as to where the line should be. Commissioner Brown asked if there was a way to reduce the time for something that needs "repairs," where there is agreement between everyone in a stakeholder- and decision - making capacity. Commissioner Quatre said she basically trusts what CDD is doing. Commissioner Brown clarified that he meant issues where someone "missed" something or we can "repair" something. Nick said that some of these types of issues can be brought before the Commissioners. Perhaps a work session could be scheduled early next year for a discussion. Vice Chair Turner indicated concern about the amount of staff time spent on text amendments. Commissioner Quatre suggested that the Commissioners not direct staff to work with applicants. Terri Payne said that the Board frequently directs staff to work with the applicants to try to arrive at a joint solution. Commissioner Brown mentioned some of the Commission members who have worked with staff as applicants, and he had gone through quite a few revisions for his farm stand. When the revisions were finished, however, the application was in a form that could be approved. He suggested having pre - application conferences - the more information, the better to move the process along. Nick mentioned the relevant discussion at the last CDD staff meeting. Commissioner Brown asked again about moving his two items to the top of the "to do" list. Commissioner Pace mentioned that this would result in other things being moved down. She has had something she wanted changed for five years. Commissioner Klyce mentioned that these things can become sore points, and if they are put at the top of the list, this would avoid resentment. Commissioner Pace felt that this would affect other pending changes and cause resulting resentment for those parties. Nick mentioned that code amendments could be made priorities. Commissioner Brown thought that technical corrections could also be moved up. Commissioner Pace thought that people would disagree as to what is important. The ham radio proposal which took a year was also discussed — it seemed simple at first but ended up much more complicated. Commissioner Quatre spoke about code enforcement and whether names of the persons - making the complaints are required on the forms. Tom Anderson said that there is a code enforcement work plan with the same prioritizing and staffing issues as the planning work plan. Revision of the entire code enforcement manual is a pending task. The Board 8 decided in 1995 or 1996 that complaints had to have names, but this could be revised. It is not a planning document but a manual for code enforcement, and he would be willing to bring that before the Board. Chair Cyrus felt that part of the reason signatures were required on complaints was to reduce frivolous complaints. Tom said that there was also an intent for neighbors to try and work things out. Commissioner Quatre said that with child /animal abuse complaints there is no signature requirement. It reduces stress. Commissioner Pace asked if GIS was on the list, which Tom said was another division. Commissioner Pace also asked about Page 17 and long -term conditions of approval such as leaving trees in place. How are these monitored? Tom spoke about how this deviates from the usual complaint- driven activity; ag barns are one example - people say they are going to abandon them and do not. This falls under the proactive code enforcement area — following up on conditions of approval in land use decisions. They must be handled systematically. Commissioner Klyce also asked about the issue with ag barns. There is a permit where the applicant states what ag use they will conduct in a structure; in exchange, they do not have to get building permits. Over the years we have received many complaints about non ag -uses in these cases, and the Board has agreed that we should, for the most part, follow up on these systematically. The ag provision is not in place for people to bypass the building permit process. Commissioner Pace said she would like to see a member of County staff at the Weed Board meetings. V. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT REPORT 2008: — Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner. Terri summarized the Community Involvement Report and its history. It will be forwarded to the State. VI. OTHER ITEMS OF CONCERN Commissioner Brown asked about the issue of reviewing applications to the Planning Commission. If a particular issue is highly- sensitive and affects the public, he would like to see the current bar changed on whether the Commissioners can discuss findings and decisions, etc., sent to them for their information. The recent application for shotgun activity in the Bend /Redmond areas should be looked at in terms of Tong -range goals for the County. Nick said he had talked to Kevin Harrison, who said that Title 22 requires all quasi-judicial decisions go to hearings officers unless they all have a conflict and cannot hear something. This is also included in Title 2 of the Code. Commissioner Quatre said that Catherine Morrow had told her, when she first started on the Commission, that they should be read by the Planning Commissioners. Nick indicated that issues from the staff report or hearings officers' decisions can be discussed, but this will not change the results. Commissioner Irvine said that when he first became a Commissioner, he was surprised the Commissioners are not more involved. Commissioner Pace spoke about the difference between the focus of hearings officers versus a Planning Commission, law versus Code. 9 Nick mentioned the next two meetings with the communities in La Pine and Sunriver regarding development in high groundwater areas. He also said that the County is creating a "rural living handbook," as some other counties have already produced. Nick said that staff met with ODOT and DLCD regarding Deschutes Junction and Terrebonne; the issues are very complicated. The Transportation Planning Rule concerns up zoning of property from residential to commercial, which makes things more difficult. Commissioner Quatre asked if Nick would explain the various stages of work sessions, hearings, etc., at the beginning of each meeting. She also wondered about a liaison to the Board and whether a report to the Commissioners should be in writing. She also spoke about negative and positive comments from staff (discussed at the March 6 retreat) and asked if staff should not be allowed to disagree. Commissioner Brown felt that alternatives need to be suggested rather than just shooting something down. VII. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary NEXT MEETING — May 14, 2009, at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes ..Services .Center, 1.3.00 NW.WaJI.Street, Bend, OR 97701 10