Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-07-14 - Planning Commission MinutesCommunity Development Department { Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 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 COMMISSION DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701 JULY 14, 2011 — 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 and James Powell. Absent: Bill Rainey. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. Minutes of February 10 and February 24, 2011 were approved. IL PUBLIC COMMENTS James Gindelsburger testified about event venues and Senate Bill 960. Evidently Deschutes County thinks it needs its own set of rules. The legislature has taken the time to come up with rules that the State should abide by, and we really do not need to take on a text amendment. Public parks have also been defined as a place of recreational activity for public use. The State does not have a definition but uses the dictionary. Nothing could define a wedding as public recreation. A lot of the County's money will be used for this text amendment, it will be appealed to LUBA, and he believes LUBA will not consider weddings to be recreational events. A lot of the citizens are very angry because we've been going though this for three years and nothing has been achieved. III. WORK SESSION: PA -11-3, Regional Economic Opportunity Analysis (REOA) — Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner. Peter presented a PowerPoint on the REOA. Commissioner Powell thought it appeared in the findings that a lot of language had been taken directly from the report itself and was not always credited that way. Is the body a product of Johnson Reid? Are these de novo findings within the confines of this analysis? Nick said the findings are those of Johnson Reid but they worked closely with EDCO and a number of other sources and communities. It all technically falls under their name, but the materials were provided by a number of entities. They are the experts in this field, and their name should be on the final document. Peter said the County feels it has a report that it can justify to the Planning Quality Services Performed with Pride Commission which contains responses to questions from the community. The legal test sides with local government — 1000 Friends and others submitted their concerns, and the experts responded. We talked about this at the last regional Economic Advisory Committee meeting. There was a spirit of collaboration, and we tried to make this report as well documented as possible. Commissioner Powell mentioned that EDCO is a non-profit and that Business Oregon has a different certification process because they are not a non-profit. There is a choice made in this document to defer to one over the other. There is also a tremendous emphasis on establishing and maintaining an inventory. There is no delineation of responsibility, however. Is this part of a regional authority? Suppose the County does not put land into the pot? Will another County do more and pick up the slack? Resources may be saturated. Peter said the short-term need is for six sites, and then if this is successful we need to maintain this role. EDCO has members of every jurisdiction on the Board. They know what makes us competitive and the challenges and opportunities we face. If we adopt this into our Comprehensive Plan, Jefferson and Crook Counties will probably follow suit. It is up to individual cities — it is not a mandate. Significant resources will be required to make it a reality. It will be up to each city to sign a memorandum of understanding if it wants to participate and create a regional authority. Bend is consumed by its urban growth boundary (UGB) amendment. Redmond, Madras, and/or Prineville could all decide to participate. As long as the six sites are not all in one jurisdiction, we would satisfy the requirements. Probably only one or two jurisdictions will even consider this. It will be expensive and will take a unique partnership to make it happen. Commissioner Powell asked how to limit this to just cities — what role would the County have? Certainly some of the County land will be eligible. What is the timeframe? He does not find anything in the existing policies that addresses the concerns about the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) and its impacts in terms of costs and feasibility. Is the County looking at ways to help a property owner who is willing to put land into a reserve for industrial use for the region? Peter said these are all good questions and this is uncharted territory. Each jurisdiction will have to figure out incentives for property owners and a reasonable timeframe for applying an industrial overlay zone. Nick said that Division 9 of the Oregon Administrative Rules strongly encourages multijurisdictional planning for economic development. Division 9 implements Goal 9 of the Statewide Planning Program. It does not waive any Goal 14 requirements. It does not change EFU laws or any rural designations (or add ways to bypass them). There may be various levels of participation — the City of Bend may not openly declare it will implement this but may have some sites in the region where property owners would pursue implementation. No TPR bills were passed in this legislative session. Commissioner Criss asked if there is any federal involvement. Nick said Senator Merkley's staff member has been kept in the loop. Lee Smith (La Pine Industrial Group) is also involved. Commissioner Criss said he found that education is somewhat lacking for some of these industrial types of jobs — is there an approach for providing educational opportunities? Nick said Redmond and Bend are trying to recruit for higher education in this area. Peter added that the consultants feel the same way — a challenge right now is that we do not have a university presence. The City of Bend with Juniper Ridge hopes to eventually attract a university. No lands have been identified yet — there was a "windshield survey" of potential sites, most of which are in public ownership. But no one looked at availability, infrastructure, etc. There was only a listing of potential sites. In the report itself there are no specific sites listed. This process would provide the documentation for cities to be able to streamline UGB amendments, and because this is a specific need, language in Oregon land use law gives cities the ability to amend their UGBs. This land need will not be met with an existing UGB — it would be adjoining land. The types of facilities needed for this are located in cities, not counties. Nick said the only area that might be eligible in the County would be out near the airport. There is a lot of interest in this statewide. IV. WORK SESSION: Event Venue Text Amendment— Nick Lelack, Planning Director. Nick said that SB960 and HB3280 have both been signed into law. Yesterday the Board provided direction to staff to initiate three separate text amendments to address commercial event issues. One would be to permit commercial events as private parks in the EFU zone; a second would be to adopt SB960 into the EFU zone; and the third would be to codify HB3280. HB3280 is a sub (1) use, a permitted, outright use and state law. It allows local governments to address health and safety and caps a certain number of events per year. SB960 is a sub (2) use — similar to a conditional use (runs with the land). SB960 would be a limited use process (tied to the property owner rather than the land). In both cases it is discretionary — counties can adopt sub (2) uses and choose to make them more or less restrictive. The private parks issue is the most unknown. Anyone can apply today for this. That is what happened in Benton County and the County approved it, with no appeal. In 1990 Ed Fitch issued a denial here in Deschutes County on a similar application. It was not appealed, however, so those avenues are still open for property owners to apply if they wish. The Board would like to see if we could try a holistic approach — to tie all three together as allowed by law — and they also opted for the Planning Commission to develop standards and look at them in September. The Planning Commission could direct staff to come back with draft standards; there could be a subcommittee to develop standards to bring back to the full Planning Commission; or we could just go back to talking about the matrix and see if we can develop common standards. Chair Irvine asked if the outcome could be specific language for the text amendment, and Nick said yes. Chair Irvine asked if the Planning Commission would have public hearings again, and Nick said it was possible. Chair Irvine asked the other Commissioners for their opinions. Commissioner Turner asked if they are expected to come up with language for three text amendments. Nick said staff would propose that it be three separate ordinances. Maybe one of the three would have a supplementary standard applicable to all of them, such as the hours for setup and takedown. This is still in the rough stages. Vice Chair Brown asked about home occupations, and Nick said Legal Counsel does not believe these are viable for event venues. There is one related case pending at the Land Use Board of Appeals. Commissioner Criss confirmed with Nick that this is only applicable to EFU lands. Nick said the Commissioners could expand it, and Vice Chair Brown said that often farm/forest lands are included. Commissioner Turner spoke about staff drafting three ordinances. It may be more appropriate for staff to put something together as they have a better understanding. He feels that private parks are should not be included, and wineries and breweries should be combined. We grow more things here for beer than wine. Vice Chair Brown mentioned the two bills passed by the State that require the County's endorsement. We need to do that first. Commissioner Powell felt that if the pending State standards were incorporated, we 3 probably don't need to do much. Commissioner Turner said that looking at 960, he does not understand why the lot sizes differ from subzones within Deschutes County. Why is one area 130 acres and another 63 acres? Nick said it is from the 1992 farm study and based on irrigated parcels at that time. Commissioner Turner asked about a property owner buying a neighbor's property, and Nick said you just cannot subdivide below those limits. Motion: Vice Chair Brown motioned that the Planning Commission refers S6960 and HB3280 to the County Commissioners for immediate approval as part of the Deschutes County Code, as adopted by the legislature. Seconded by Commissioner Criss. Discussion: Commissioner Turner asked if this precludes having more work sessions. Nick said no — there are still private parks. Chair Irvine asked if this would be a two-stage process to adopt the text amendments. Chair Brown said he motioned to adopt what the State gave us and we can add more to that. Vice Chair Brown and Commissioner Powell discussed what would happen if the Planning Commission recommended the Board approve SB960 and HB3280. Commissioner Turner said if we look at SB960 as adopted by the State, can the County make changes to the criteria? He is concerned about the duration of an event not exceeding 72 hours, 18 events per year. Each one could go for four days which may not be appropriate. Nick said, for example, sound amplification could only occur between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. — we could add parameters. Chair Irvine said if 960 and 3280 are adopted, there is a conflict. Until we adopt our own standards, there will be conflicting language in our Code. Nick said our Legal Counsel would be concerned if we make the language even more restrictive — if we want to make it more restrictive, we should start out that way and then make it less restrictive later if we desire. It would be more difficult to become more restrictive later. Chair Irvine asked how we can ask the Board to adopt these two when there is conflicting language. Nick suggested that if there are ways to apply both, we could do so — for example, SB960 says six events, 72 hours. The County could limit events to only weekends. Vice Chair Brown felt that this would be an ongoing revision to the rules as something new would probably come up every year. He would like to use SB960 and HB3280 as something good to use for a start. Chair Irvine mentioned going through the matrix at the last meeting. Commissioner Turner suggested staff come back with an approach to combine the two bills and send that up to the Board. Commissioner Klyce asked how that could be done, when HB3280 is State law and the wineries function under H63280. He cannot see combining the two into one document. SB960 should be for everything other than wineries. Commissioner Turner thought we should have some consistency but not combine the two for submitting to the Board — say, for example, restricting amplified music in both, limiting events to weekends, etc. Commissioner Klyce wondered if there was anything wrong with events at wineries being different, and Commissioner Turner said he felt they were all the same. Commissioner Klyce said that wineries tend to be larger commercial enterprises, and events under SB960 would be different. Commissioner Turner said he agreed with that. Commissioner Powell felt that impacts would be the same no matter where an event was held. HB3280 has different numbers in terms of how many events, but the impact would be pretty similar for both types of venues. Commissioner Klyce felt that the impacts would be different because wineries have structures where you could hold commercial events. Commissioner Powell said it was pointed out at a recent wine growers' meeting that 4 outside events are the most sought after and create the most conflicts. Maybe we should allow more events inside than outside. Commissioner Klyce said he would recommend the Board incorporate SB960 and HB3280 into the Code. Commissioner Criss thought that all of these issues dealt with high-value farmland, but Nick said that private parks are not allowed in high value farmland. Commissioner Criss felt that we are making decisions based on faulty determination of agricultural land and inaccurate soil studies. We are talking about soil analyses that are not correct. Nick said the text amendments do not approve events on any property — they provide an opportunity for an owner to come in and apply. If a property is designated as high-value farmland and an owner does not believe this is true, they would have to demonstrate it. Commissioner Turner did not see anything in SB960 or HB3280 regarding the size of the events (attendance). That is what concerns him more than anything else if we ask the Board for adoption. Nick said SB960 does limit the number of people, but only for single events. Chair Irvine was concerned about sending these two up to the Board when he knows there are conflicting criteria. Vice Chair Brown said the Board did indicate there may be conflicts. Commissioner Klyce felt that flexibility is needed when dealing with different types of events, and he is comfortable with the inconsistencies. Vote: Vote split three to three — failed. Motion: Commissioner Turner motioned to direct staff to come back at the July 28 meeting with drafts of all three ordinances for review. Seconded by Commissioner Criss. Discussion: Commissioner Criss said that some of this has been done by staff with the matrix. We need to take impacts into account and read through everything to see which events would be of serious concern. Commissioner Klyce wondered if Commissioner Criss could provide input into decibel levels since he is a musician and plays at some of these events. Commissioner Klyce read from the staff report for the previous text amendment regarding event venues not being applicable in private parks. Staff and Legal Counsel have stated that events are not eligible under private parks. Should we continue going this route or consider something else? He would like to suggest that we consider including events under home occupations. There is nothing in State law that would prohibit it. Dave Hunnicutt feels that home occupations would be a good fit for wedding events. Is there any support for rewriting the County's home occupation ordinance to add events? He knows there is litigation in progress that will give us a good indication of whether or not home occupations are viable. He understands that opinion may be rendered in a month or so. Chair Irvine said that staff had already indicated this was not a viable use — if this is already their position, how can we ask them to draft something contrary to that? Nick said we did see what Benton County decided, and the County has interpreted it a certain way to this point. We do not know if private parks can be allowed as event venues under EFU. One option would be to develop the same text amendment for home occupations and private parks for event venues — add a "type 4." Commissioner Klyce said he would like to follow an alternate track because there is so much in the record against private parks as event venues. Commissioner Turner said he would rather see us consider home occupations than go the private park route. The issue that will come up is events that could work in private park settings but must be recreationally oriented. Weddings are the issue. Maybe roping or some similar activity is recreationally oriented and will work, but 5 weddings are not. This Commission re -wrote the home occupation ordinance a couple of years ago and spent a lot of time on the classifications. If this is to be a Type 4 home occupancy, do we want to be like Las Vegas with wedding chapels throughout the County? We could certainly put conditions on that type of business. Commissioner Powell and Nick discussed the original applications for event venues as a mechanism to try to help farmers generate revenue and keep their land. What is the rationale for home occupations as they are not limited to farmland? Nick said they could be limited to that zone. Commissioner Klyce said it would be more feasible for us to craft an ordinance to allow events under home occupations. Commissioner Powell said that 56960 and HB3280 are both very specific about that. What is the difference? Commissioner Klyce said he felt home ordinance language would give us the most flexibility. Vote: Motion passed. Motion: Commissioner Klyce moved to have staff explore the home occupation ordinance vis-a-vis event venues on EFU land, in addition to the above Motion. Seconded by Vice Chair Brown. Vote: Motion passed. V. DISCUSSION: Legislative Update — Nick Lelack, Planning Director. Nick said there was a bill for the deed restrictions at Caldera Springs to be lifted (in connection with overnight units) which did not pass. Minor changes to DLCD procedures were adopted. The big changes were the adoption of SB960 and H63280. Vice Chair Brown wondered how the 36 counties in the State feel about these. Nick said there has been general support, perhaps because the counties are not required to do anything about it. Jackson County, for example, approves them through conditional use as do other counties. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS. Commissioner Criss asked about the status of the local wetland inventory. Peter said he is expecting approval any day. He would like to provide the Commissioners with the main report which is about 25 pages, and then print out one copy of the entire 600 -page document with maps to save expenses. It would also be on the website. It is the largest local wetland inventory undertaken in the State of Oregon. VII. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respe tfully submitted, 4eruckner Administrative Secretary