Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-04-20 Work Session Minutes Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2011 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack, Paul Blikstad, Community Development; Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin; and thirteen other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 2:00 p.m. 1. NeighborImpact Presentation and Discussion of Cooperative Efforts with Deschutes County. Present were Sharon Miller, executive director of NeighborImpact, who wanted to share information on the services the organization offers; Betty Schuler, who focuses on early childcare and education, including HeadStart; and Janet Merrell, the emergency services director who deals with food banks, housing stabilization and energy assistance. Also present was Chris Quaha, who coordinates volunteer efforts, media outreach and communications; and Laura Fritz, housing director, who handles the weatherization and rehabilitation loan programs and education, and administers the mortgage payment assistance program for the State. She said that 378 loans are preliminarily approved, with 45 now being finalized. Ms. Miller referred to the “Report to the Community” document. She said the goal is to help people be successful in their lives, not just with the tangible things like food and housing, but also with stabilizing home life, finding work and other issues. It is more than just coming up with numbers for families receiving food, children in HeadStart and so on. When the group started in the mid-1980, the economy was very bad and there were a lot of challenges for the community. Since then the organization has grown tremendously but is still dealing with community problems. Some needs are the same while some are different. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, April 20, 2011 Page 1 of 10 Pages Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, April 20, 2011 Page 2 of 10 Pages Commissioner Unger asked how the County can help with this work. Ms. Miller said that the County has assisted with in-kind programs. The group cannot do its work in isolation but has to rely on key partnerships. It could be four or five years before the economy has recovered and the need will be great during that time. Commissioner Unger said that he and Commissioner DeBone attended a meeting about surface mining issues and problems with the federal government regarding how to get funding. He asked how to ensure that what is needed is heard and valued. Chris Quaha said that they like to keep stories of real people out there to put a face to services they provide. Ms. Merrell is working with COVO (Central Oregon Veterans Outreach) to find housing for veterans. Ms. Schuler added that they need a 25% match for many programs, along with direct assistance. Ms. Miller said that the goals are the same but each group has specific issues they want to target. It would help to identify the critical issues that need support. They try to work with groups in the valley, including Oregon Cares, as there is strength in numbers. The key issues are hunger, housing, jobs, children’s issues and health care. 2. Discussion of Event Venues on EFU Land. Nick Lelack said he is seeking input on what to include for text amendment for this issue. He needs to bring before the Board a formal notice to proceed with a public process. It will likely be mid-June or later. The main message is whether this is a direction to take and that the Board is not predetermining anything at this point. There is a lot of interest in this topic. Commissioner DeBone asked for a brief overview. Mr. Lelack replied that this was originally proposed for MUA-10 zone, and it was not approved primarily because so many parcels that might be eligible are smaller than ten acres. There are too many non-conforming parcels with many people living in the areas, and a potential for a lot of conflict. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, April 20, 2011 Page 3 of 10 Pages The applicant for that proposal had generated complaints requiring code enforcement action in an EFU zone. The property owners, Country Gatherings Associates, proposed EFU be allowed to have event venues. There were four hearings within six months in 2009. The Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to the Board, but their vote was mostly split. A public hearing was scheduled before the Board but the applicants withdrew their applications before then. It has been on the work plan since then. Fifteen months ago a summary was provided to the Board regarding what other counties have done to address this issue. At the time, it was thought that there would be a proposal for a big soccer field in the north part of Juniper Ridge, but it was not pursued. This application might have helped with the definition and the process. There were also hopes last year that the AOC farmland task force would address this issue, but there is now legislation being considered. The connection is thought to be only for a resource or agricultural use of the property. Deschutes County may not have an agricultural use relevant for a given property. Mr. Lelack then referred to the matrix of proposed uses within key categories (a copy is attached for reference). Discussion then took place about this information. Commissioner Unger pointed out that they are always challenged by State law issues. Mr. Lelack stated that counties have done these things differently but at this point, there have been no legal challenges. Whatever Deschutes County does could end up being a test case. Chair Baney asked what happens if the County adopts an Ordinance and the property owner proceeds, if there is an appeal. Ms. Craghead replied that when an Ordinance is adopted, it is effective. The owner proceeds at his/her own risk since if the Ordinance is overturned, they could be shut down. Chair Baney asked about high value forestland where setbacks are necessary, and the location of dwellings is key. Commissioner Unger said the Planning Commission talked about acreage more than setbacks, and how to buffer activities from the neighbors. Every location is different regardless of the zoning. Most have similar neighbors around them and this can be an issue, and impacts on infrastructure and the neighbors need to be considered. He is leaning more towards letting people apply this in a way that addresses potential impacts. They can figure this out and work through it with the neighbors. This leaves an opportunity for events to be considered. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, April 20, 2011 Page 4 of 10 Pages Mr. Kanner stated that this impacts staff, who need measurable standards. He asked how you could let a neighbor make this decision or have veto power. Ms. Craghead said that there needs to be set standards and objectives. Also, neighbors change and the use of the surrounding land can change over time. And this would not allow for people to be treated the same. Chair Baney stated that they need to hone in on specifics. She does not think this is going to happen on the ground to get where they need to be. Mr. Kanner said that there could be a standard regarding notice to the neighbors, but not with veto power. Tom Anderson said there is more t it than just the initial approval. Having objective criteria is a start, but there could be Code issues. They have to make a determination if the standards continue to be followed. And there could be additional uses that did not go through the initial approval process. Ms. Craghead stated that this is where the Board was headed previously. She recalled that the Board was going for a forty-acre minimum parcel size, with a 1,000-foot setback and no amplified outside sound, and temporary buildings. Chair Baney noted that the Planning Commission recommended ten acres with a 300-foot setback, but there was no consensus regarding separation. One thought is that 1,000 feet setback should be a minimum, with sound amplification indoors only. Only existing buildings would be allowed for this purpose, and just one event per week. There would be no limit as to locations within an area. It would be based on distance rather than acreage size. Commissioner Unger said that as population gets more dense, there are more conflicts. It could be in just EFU and Forest lands and not RR-10 or MUA-10. You could have a small lot but the neighbor could have a big lot. He supports a 100-foot setback. Ms. Craghead stated that this not much distance; it’s about the depth of a residential city lot. Commissioner Unger said that this could be mitigated if the neighbor is supportive. There is no setback or zoning determined at this time. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, April 20, 2011 Page 5 of 10 Pages Mr. Lelack noted that MUA and RR-10 lots are often four acres or less, which is too small. Paul Blikstad said that people are pretty adamant that this not occur in a wildlife zone. Commissioner Unger asked about ESEE issues and private parks, which have a separate set of standards. Ms. Craghead stated that there might be building code issues depending on the building. Agricultural buildings might be officially only for some uses unless built for other standards. Chair Baney asked about using tents. Ms. Craghead replied that she would have to research whether a tent would be normally permitted in certain zones. Mr. Lelack said there might be opportunities for this to occur indoors under a home occupation permit. But it is complaint driven. Commissioner Unger asked if the outdoor mass gathering has different rules. Ms. Craghead replied that an outdoor mass gathering would be just that, outdoors, and would not apply if indoors. Building structures for this would not apply. And mass gatherings can be only once every three months, per State law. Chair Baney noted that she feels an owner-occupied home on the property is okay, as the premise is to offset costs with income. She can see agri-tourism happening, which would be more than just weddings. The other Commissions agreed. Ms. Craghead asked about it being contiguous property. Chair Baney said it has to be more than just bare land or a barn, as she would not want to see it rented just for that purpose. It needs to be the same ownership or users. Discussion occurred regarding the timing of events. It was agreed that there should be no noise between 10 PM and 7 AM, including set up and take down. Discussion took place regarding temporary structures. Mr. Blikstad said that they are allowed 30 days within a 60-day period. For instance, people can use a temporary structure while they are building a home. Mr. Lelack said they could put up the temporary structure a day ahead of time and take it down the day after an event. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, April 20, 2011 Page 6 of 10 Pages Chair Baney asked about food service issues. Mr. Anderson said this has to do with public health, and the key factor is whether it is prepared on site or elsewhere. They would have to have a commercial kitchen. Events often use a caterer. If they want to build a commercial kitchen, they would have to be licenses and use licensed food handlers. This is a State requirement. The consensus was that State laws be followed regarding food handling. Chair Baney asked about allowing permanent structures not related to farm use. It is meant to offset what is already there. She feels there should be no added permanent structures, but they could upgrade what’s there to commercial standards. They have to use temporary facilities unless an existing building will work. Ms. Craghead noted that bringing accessory buildings up to commercial standards was not considered previously. She is concerned about conversions and an existing building maybe no longer being allowed within the zone. Commissioner Unger said that farming is the main purpose, and this would be incidental to augment income as a farmer. Mr. Anderson said that whether it is an agricultural building or accessory structure, it has to be upgraded for the use, such as fire code and so on. It could be a costly process. Chair Baney asked if someone does bring a structure up to commercial code, can they put in another building to cover farm activity. Ms. Craghead said that they can put in any number of agricultural buildings per State law. There needs to be objective criteria so it won’t depend on who owns it in the future. Perhaps they could use an existing building but don’t add any new ones for this purpose. Regarding time limits, Commissioner Unger noted that this needs to be for at least two years. Some events have to be schedule a long time in advance. The consensus was that the time period would call for a four-year renewal. All agreed that portable toilets are appropriate. Chair Baney said that perhaps they could get site plan approval for the first event, at which time issues regarding parking, setbacks, etc. could be addressed. A conditional use could come later. Ms. Craghead noted that it would have to be a private park for a conditional use on EFU land. Mr. Lelack said that the task force thought it should be evaluated on an annual basis. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, April 20, 2011 Page 7 of 10 Pages Chair Baney asked about notifying law enforcement. It was thought that the process should include them and the dates of the activity. Mr. Lelack asked about the number of events per year. The Planning Commission suggested twenty, to cover the weeks between spring and fall; and one per week. Ms. Craghead said each event could cover more than one day. It is too hard to regulate who attends each day. Mr. Anderson said the days could be specified and they have to work around the use. The only way to hold them to the plan is to specify the days ahead of time. This gives more opportunity for an annual review as well. Mr. Lelack added that they might leave the structures up and have the public there just on weekends. The group then discussed access issues. Mr. Blikstad asked if they would have to front a public road or if an easement is okay. A winery wants to use an easement. Commissioner Unger said it is not fair to force these onto land where there is just public road frontage. The setting might be much better off an easement. Ms. Craghead said that the County cannot determine the extent of use of an easement. This is between the property owners. Commissioners Unger and DeBone said they don’t want the County to get into regulating this. In regard to lot sizes and setbacks, Chair Baney feels 100 feet is too close. Commissioner Unger said they should look at the impact, not the setback. The buildings might already be there, and the neighbor could be far away. Ms. Craghead stated that even if it is farmland, testimony has been given that it can affect livestock. Mr. Lelack added that EFU requires no significant change in farming use. Mr. Kanner said that there is a variance process in Code, and they can challenge the standard. Ms. Craghead explained that this has to be something not of your own making. It has to do with the shape or topography of the land and not being able to do something for that reason. It would require a separate variance process. Mr. Blikstad added that it cannot be because of a self-created difficulty. When someone buys a property, they know about this. Commissioner Unger would like to put the burden on the applicant. Sound travels, so further than 100 feet might make no difference. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, April 20, 2011 Page 8 of 10 Pages Mr. Lelack asked about compatibility with other properties. Ms. Craghead noted that this is too hard to define. Mr. Lelack recommended at least 100 feet from the property line. There are other issues such as dust. The consensus was at least 100 feet from the property line. The issue of noise impacts was discussed. Ms. Blikstad said this is the toughest issue. Ms. Craghead stated that when someone cannot have a peaceful cup of coffee on the deck, it’s a big issue. The problem is how to regulate it. Chair Baney said that if it is a wedding or retirement party, people want to hear the nuptials or speaker. Mr. Lelack noted that the Planning Commission said this should happen not before 8 AM or after 8 PM. The hours could be limited. Chair Baney asked about distance. Should it be 1,000 feet away for amplified sound? Can a tent hold the noise in? Should there be a time restriction for amplified sound with the remainder being indoor amplification? Commissioner DeBone noted that directionality could be an issue. Mr. Anderson said there is an existing noise ordinance, and the Sheriff’s Office has to respond to complaints. Enforcement is too difficult if it is too complicated. The criteria needs to be simple, indoors or not, or a clear distance should be required. The consensus was it could be 8 AM to 8 PM outside, and inside otherwise. Mr. Anderson said that traffic implications is based on a site plan. They should not have to gravel property in order to park there. Chair Baney asked if the land used for parking should be taken out of farm use. Ms. Craghead said they might use the property to store hay or equipment in the winter. It does not have to be used for farm use every day, and it could be a small amount of land. Mr. Blikstad said there needs to be some kind of traffic plan. They don’t have to hire an engineer, but access and peak hours needs to be detailed. This depends on the location and how much general traffic is already in the area. The suggested traffic flow could be reviewed by the Road Department and the Sheriff. Mr. Lelack suggested no on-street parking. Rough calculations are one on-site space for three guests. Mr. Anderson said that ADA compliance is not required, as this is usually tied to a building. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, April 20, 2011 Page 9 of 10 Pages Discussion occurred about the use of a conditional use permit for a private park, and whether the same standards would apply as a home occupation. Mr. Blikstad said that generally the activities do not take place in the residence. Most dwellings are not big enough for that kind of use. In regard to the number of guests, Mr. Lelack said that regulating this might be impossible. AOC tried to come up with numbers. One event might have a maximum of 500 guests with 250 vehicles. Another scenario is 100 guests with 50 vehicles. Mr. Kanner asked if this could be tied to the size of the acreage. Mr. Anderson said that it would be impossible to hold people to that. There is no way to count them all. Mr. Blikstad added that the terrain of the property and access are other factors. No specifics on the numbers were reached. A citizen spoke up that the Board needs to see all sides before the train starts rolling. Chair Baney said that there has been a lot of opposition, but they will have hearings to get the collective voice. They have to start somewhere and they can’t get there in a work session. It is hard to throw something out there knowing it will change, and it is awkward to start. Commissioner DeBone said that citizens can speak to the Commissioners individually. 3. Update of Commissioners’ Meetings and Schedules. None were discussed. 4. Other Items. Dave Kanner said that Black Butte Ranch County Service District’s board asked about adding the service district to the Deschutes County health plan. He recommends this be considered. ____________________________ Mr. Kanner indicated that in regard to traffic issues in La Pine, the Board should wait for the Kittleston report to be done, and then present it jointly at a La Pine meeting. Commissioner Unger asked what the County would be doing with the County building there since the City offices are moving elsewhere. The emergency management and joint response team might need some space.