Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-10-13 - Planning Commission MinutesCommunity Development Department f 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 OCTOBER 13, 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, James Powell and Bill Rainey. Board members present were Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Tony DeBone. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner; Terri Payne, Senior Planner; Laurie Craighead, Assistant Legal Counsel; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. Minutes of May 26, June 23 and July 14, 2011 were approved. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS Commissioner Baney distributed information regarding event venues submitted to her by Doug White. Commissioner Powell thanked the Board for the grant for well testing in South County. Commissioner Criss said he appreciated Commissioner Baney's comments in the newspaper regarding DEQ responsibility in South County. III, JOINT WORK SESSION with BOARD: Commercial Event Venue Text Amendments Nick discussed the history of commercial events in the County. Commissioner Klyce asked if someone could come in now and apply under SB960. Nick said no, but they could apply under private parks or in conjunction with a commercial use. Commissioner Powell said he had gone through the previous public hearings and testimony and understood why three of the Commissioners, who had been in their positions the longest, had spoken about how much work had been done already and how much public testimony had been received. Many issues have been discussed previously including noise, traffic and alcohol. One of the interesting things that came out was the parcel size and maximum setbacks that were possible. For a 1000 -foot setback, you need at least 90 acres. For 10 acres it's a 300 -foot setback. Sounds travel in this area, and trees are not effective barriers. Some areas of the County seem to focus sound while others can disburse it a little bit. Our brains are wired in such a way that regular background noises such as traffic tend to fade. But an unusual sound, no matter how Quality Services Performed with Pride faint, is more discernible. If you are a little bit peeved at the situation, this also can increase hearing acuity. Window shaking is another problem. It was interesting that the representative for Country Gatherings said that property owners had improved their land and made it more valuable; all they wanted to do was bring the beauty of the area to the public. In the farming zone, if a neighbor is doing normal farming activities during an event, there will not be peace and serenity for event attendees. There are problems with enforcement by the County, and no other avenues have been created for people who are bothered by events. Commissioner Powell said he had seen a lot of form letters for both sides with signatures from people living in urban areas who supported/did not support events. Economics were brought up in relation to events and supported. There were also countermands by Ed Whitlaw in one of the testimonies. The impact on animals from unusual noises was brought up. Since both the supporters and detractors of events are co-dependent in this process, perhaps we need to devise some way to bring them to the table together and let them work out a way where both siders can be assured that they are being heard and some decision will come out of this. Ignoring it and hoping it will go away is not realistic. We should take an approach that ties an operator and event to the land. Commissioner Klyce had pointed out that most of the event operators are not interested in creating a lot of impacts for their neighbors. But according to the testimony, some have not been as understanding. This is the same problem we had when the irrigators and users of the River were fighting each other - there was a process that brought the parties together to craft a plan that is a great conservation of resources in the State. We are urbanizing rural lands with these events, bringing in traffic, noise and other activities which normally occur in urban areas. However you label it, we have to acknowledge it. There are GIS maps in the testimony showing 700,000 acres of EFU, 7000 parcels, 2500 of which are within destination resorts, irrigation districts, etc., leaving about 4500 parcels that would be impacted solely by something that was EFU. Commissioner Klyce said that one of the interesting things to come out of South County is that we are approaching the issues from the bottom up. He would like to do that here — set aside this course and expeditiously schedule a couple of public meetings to take testimony from both sides, not to react to proposed text amendments. He would hope the public could suggest solutions. From Nick's presentation, it is obvious that there is a groundswell of support for event venues. This issue will not go away. Commissioner Powell was concerned about re-creating what we have done in the past. It might be better to have people meet in a circle, something that does not physically separate players and makes them all equal in the process. The distrust between the two parties has to be dismantled. If the process goes well, it will self -police because they will have re- established respect for each other and feel they are being heard. There are a multitude of options we could explore such as different ways of dealing with sound — only amplified for voices, only indoors, etc. He would like to see workshops rather than work sessions, where everyone can participate equally. Commissioner Criss liked this concept and said there is a limitation to the way people usually testify. The parties would be addressing each other. In many cases, adversarial parties can work out a solution once they sit down together. There will be different people with different major issues, but common ground can be found. He liked the concept of the round table with an open exchange of ideas driven by the public rather than the Commissioners. He has facilitated a number of meetings and appreciated hearing where 2 people are coming from. He would like to be more educated on the issues as well. He was very interested in seeing what the State had done. Vice Chair Brown said that Commissioner Powell had talked about not structuring a conversation, but Vice Chair Brown said he would like to see the points of this matrix as the subject of discussion to make sure it is relevant. Having lot size as a discussion issue is not poisoning the well. We can find out where the disagreement or agreement is, for example. He would like to see an outline of the discussion issues. He also asked Nick to weigh in about SB960 being adopted by the County, not mandatory at this point etc. How much latitude do we have for modification to S6960? Nick said that SB960 indicates there has to be a direct connection to farm use. It is also limited to six events at 72 hours per event. We could be more restrictive on lot sizes, etc., but not less. Vice Chair Brown asked if we looked at SB960 as an overlay to this, could we make it more restrictive on timing and number of events? Nick said that we could not allow 10 events instead of six, for example. Chair Irvine and Nick discussed the meaning of "farm use." Commissioner Turner said he finds Commissioner Powell's approach creative and is open to that. His comments brought back the same memories of having sat through previous testimony; if we go through a similar process, the results are probably going to be similar. The Board and Planning Commission have both been split on this issue. By looking at process, though, we have taken a step over looking at the goals first. Maybe we need to take a look at the big picture. Commissioner Unger said this is a challenge. We watched the Association of Oregon Counties go through this at the State level. When you look at Deschutes County, we have forest/farm or urban land, but then we have to deal with State EFU issues and we have different things here — we cannot do some of the things described as profitable. He likes Commissioner Powell's approach. The State will be wanting to look at how we use our farmland differently. We are talking about balance — how do we balance the needs and uses of one property owner with another? People do get used to certain sounds while others are bothersome. The Douglas County case did not make it clear either. He has been to nice weddings on farmland, but neighbors do need to get along. He is at a loss as to where we can really go for a solution and likes the approach of bringing people together to look at land use. Home farming is big business but big corporations are taking over, so it would be good if we can help people to keep their land. Commissioner Baney said she liked Commissioner Powell's idea. Having sat in on the groundwater situation in South Deschutes County and the MUA-10 issues, they are not very similar. She feels that we were throwing a dart at the wall before, but now we have parameters. As she looks at it, she sees it as different now and encourages support of the round table conversation, but not just owner to owner. One option could be that you have to have a signoff from your neighbors. This could be a conditional use, but asking neighbors to get together to submit policy to the Planning Commission leaves out some of the necessary health and safety, transportation policies, etc., and this would require a very large table. What you are doing is taking the conversation out of the public light. During the farm taskforce, groups got together on conference calls and determined checkpoints but the train had left the station. She would prefer that we have more open meetings where we have the public testify. There is value to hearing one another in this type of format that doesn't exclude voices from the conversation. Commissioner DeBone would like to start to come to a consensus as to what we agree on so we can move forward. We need to try and figure out the matrix which would be very valuable. Every time we do this it takes a whole year. We may just be going around the same circle and another wedding season will have gone by. Commissioner Rainey said he could see the value of getting comments from workshops/round tables. If we are going to reach a resolution in some reasonable period of time, we need to move forward more expeditiously. We have the framework in the matrix and can get public input from both sides. We can make a real effort to reach out and get different people with different points of view to participate. But this has been going on for quite a period of time, and it is our job to take the input, take more input and propose some solutions to move this along in a more expeditious fashion than the round table proposal would provide. Chair Irvine asked how to structure this round table discussion. How formal would it be? It would need to be pretty formal from the standpoint of capturing all of the comments, and staff time needs to be considered. This Planning Commission has a very full agenda for the next few months and the holidays are coming up. Commissioner Rainey felt that the Commissioners need to take hold of this issue and move forward. Chair Irvine said that maybe we are beyond the round table concept and should have hearings and make a recommendation rather than punting this down the road for another six months. Commissioner Unger mentioned that we have already had hearings and it will be a rehash if we hold separate public hearings. The Planning Commission could make a recommendation to the Board that they could carry forward. He and Nick discussed logistics. Commissioner Unger said that EFU at the State level is pretty black and white and we may need to propose changes to State law to make something legal. There are major differences between the west and central and east sides of the State. Commissioner Baney asked what we can address today in terms of a text amendment. Maybe we should only look at the pieces of SB960. There can be many recommendations, but she would hope to see something that is applicable today. Commissioner Powell said he appreciates the concerns that have been expressed. He has had experience with directed workshops and round tables. The issue here is not one of logic but of emotion. The logic is right on the matrix. He can come up with a way to balance/measure everything on the matrix but does not have an enforcer, a way to measure it and be totally objective about any of it in terms of making a proposal to the Board. Once a debate goes from logic to emotion, unless you give people an opportunity to express those emotions (and not in a confined space) and decompress, you will get a kickback. It doesn't make it right or wrong, it's just the way we are. We have HB3280 and SB960 so things are different. The more you push into the face of an emotional issue, the more pushback you will get. It is the irrational part of us that responds. The decisions about South County were made on the best logical evidence available at the time, and it didn't matter. Commissioner Baney said that at the State level, legislation is presented, language is drafted, run up a flagpole and the conversation happens on the side. Understanding happens and that comes into the testimony collectively, but you still continue forward. How do we get involvement with 4500 potential parties as landowners? How do we involve more people than have participated so far? Do we need to involve caterers, photographers, sanitation people? Commissioner Klyce and Nick discussed the schedule for the next couple of meetings. Do we have time to include something? Nick said we have already scheduled a public hearing for the Transportation System Plan update for the next meeting. On November 10, we were 4 planning to meet in South Deschutes County for the TSP as well as a draft of the South County Plan scope of work. Other than the TSP that has been publicly noticed, everything else is fluid. Chair Irvine spoke about staff time and costs such as hiring a facilitator. Nick said the time would be substantial. The AOC process, as Commissioner Baney spoke about, took six months. You would almost need to appoint a group of people to participate; otherwise you would be starting over with a different group each time. Commissioner Turner asked about a goal — when should this text amendment proposal be brought forward? Commissioner Rainey asked if there were legal concerns about round table sessions with selected people invited. Laurie said that if we have a quorum, it has to be noticed. A subcommittee could report back to the Commission without notice. Commissioner Baney spoke about the necessity of making a determination. This is much bigger than just weddings, agritourism and SB960. Commissioners Unger and Baney discussed the first of the year as a goal. Commissioner Unger spoke about all of the work on South County. Commissioner Turner said he felt that events were a separate issue from agritourism and wineries. Events are an issue all unto themselves. Laurie said that one option would be to package a notice that language is not set in stone but needs to be vetted by the public, just to start the conversation and indicate that our minds are not made up. This was a perception in South County — that the decision had been made. Regarding private parks, she feels it is important to make a decision soon because right now there are no parameters. If we want events as private parks, this needs to determined. Someone could come in with an application now and we would need to determine how restrictive we want to be. Commissioner Irvine and Laurie discussed current sidebars if someone came in for a permit. Paul said that we would have to review potential impacts on farming. Country Gatherings' text amendment application was pulled because it wasn't going to work for any of them, and this was not in the record. Whatever language we draft, it has to be workable. Chair Irvine said his issue with the round tables was time and cost, and he would be in favor of taking what we currently have and starting with that. Commissioner Rainey agreed. Vice Chair Brown felt that the notices for public hearings should have language to make it clear that anything is fair game and there have been no prior resolutions. Commissioner Turner said he was in favor of trying to move forward. Commissioner Rainey agreed that we may need another meeting to figure out what exactly we are going to move forward on. Commissioner Klyce asked Commissioner Rainey if the Planning Commissioners wanted to discuss how to move forward. Chair Irvine said there were four proposals, and he would recommend putting the home occupation aside and moving forward with the State legislation and private parks. Vice Chair Brown disagreed and felt we should take testimony on all four points. Commissioner Rainey said he agreed with this. There was a consensus on moving forward on all four points. Nick, Laurie and Commissioner Irvine discussed having clear language in the notices. Nick said the earliest date we could take testimony would be 45 days, and we need a couple of weeks to prepare the notices. He and the Commissioners discussed kicking this off in early December. Commissioner Turner asked Nick about having public testimony at work sessions. Nick said the key is that when a work session is not noticed for public hearing, people may not attend who want to speak. If you have work sessions on a privately initiated text or plan amendment, it is tricky. Laurie said that a work session with public comments is a public hearing. Generally, at a work session you 5 can invite people to come and talk. If you start inviting people in the audience up to the microphone, it creates a public perception of a public hearing. Lt. Shane Nelson of the Sheriff's Office testified. Chair Irvine asked him about Code Enforcement resting with the County rather than the Sheriff. Laurie said that most of the enforcement would be by County staff. When it comes to noise, Community Development contracts with the Sheriff's Department for those complaints. Commissioner Unger said he did not blame the Sheriff for not wanting to get into an emotional conflict. Commissioner Rainey asked if the Sheriff's Department would do anything about outrageous noise. Lt. Nelson said they would give folks an opportunity to comply with the law before issuing a citation. They will not shut down an event but will issue a citation if someone does not comply. Commissioner Powell asked what the Sheriff's office would like to see come out of this process. Lt. Nelson said it is a balance and something to consider would be size of property and number of events. Vice Chair Brown asked what areas they can cite — what is available? Lt. Nelson said they look at the noise ordinance specifically. Laurie said that if a deputy saw a wedding on EFU land where it is illegal it would go to Code Enforcement, but the Sheriff's Department has to witness it. Lt. Nelson said there is a patrol division and an enforcement division. The patrol division would look at noise. Commissioner Criss asked if we could put any language into an ordinance that would help law enforcement. Lt. Nelson said the outdoor mass gathering has a limit right now. They have had experience with decibel meters spiking at different times. The Sheriff's Department does not want to enforce a decibel limit as someone could walk by and cough, which would spike it. Commissioner Criss asked if there was a line that could be drawn like 70 dB 60 feet away from a property, for example. Lt. Nelson said there is a grey area. When he responds to a complaint about noise, he listens to it from the standpoint of someone who has just arrived. Because he doesn't live in an area, he does not know how the line could be more specific. Commissioner Criss asked about the largest number of calls as to types of complaints, and Lt. Nelson said he personally has been called for traffic, noise and some parking issues that might create hazards. Every event is unique. More often than not, noise seems to be the biggest issue. Vice Chair Brown and Commissioner Turner said they would prefer not to add extra meetings. Nick and Chair Irvine discussed scheduling. Commissioner DeBone said if the Planning Commission holds a public hearing on December, is the Board required to have a public hearing? Nick said yes, and he and Commissioner DeBone discussed not letting this drag on. The Board members adjourned IV. WORK SESSION: Comprehensive Plan Housekeeping Amendments — Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner. Terri summarized the amendments which acknowledge what we have already done, such as the Deschutes Junction, Terrebonne and Tumalo Plans. Vice Chair Brown and Terri discussed the locations of these in the Comprehensive Plan. Motion: Commissioner Rainey motioned to adopt the amendments as presented in Terri's Memo. Seconded by Commissioner Turner. Motion passed. V. WORK SESSION: Transportation System Plan Update — Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner. Peter summarized the process to date and explained the memorandum and attachments. Commissioner Turner asked about the number of roundabouts and why we are looking at building more. Peter said there is one outside Sunriver; we are looking at adding them because of reduced costs, and they meet the requirements better than adding traffic signals. Chair Irvine and Peter discussed paving and costs. Commissioner Turner asked if there is any traffic count data used as criteria in determining the type of intersection, and Peter said it is discussed in Traffic Memo #3 — there are criteria for whether or not to put in a traffic signal, for example. Commissioner Turner asked why the intersection at Deschutes Junction was not on the list of projects. Peter said it has not been determined a need under the current criteria. Vice Chair Brown spoke about $61 million in County road projects and over $400 million in all projects. The difference is really completely out of the County's hands and handled by the State as to generation of capital - is the County responsible for any of this? Peter said that typically the State looks for some contribution from the locality on a project. Vice Chair Brown asked where the money comes from if we had to spend, say $100 million as our share. Peter said that there is no way we can afford to build all of these projects. There is State revenue based on registrations, gas taxes, system development charges, perhaps timber and the rest from the federal government or ODOT. The County has a blue-ribbon panel looking at funding and the operation of the Road Dept., and we hope to have a final number in January as to the shortfall in operations. We can only really plan on one high- priority project a year. The Board has to go through the list and figure out what we can afford to build in the next several years. Vice Chair Brown said he was concerned about how realistic this is in terms of upcoming years — how much of this is real and how much is projected? Those in the know seem to think it will take us 12 years to get back on our feet, and he has a hard time with funding. Peter said that we have to look at other ways to reconcile the lack of funds. Do you change standards, find new funding mechanisms? What we are doing in the TSP is laying out needs for what we have to build, and then the Board has to go back every 3-5 years and figure out what where we have sufficient funds. There is a backlog of maintenance and identified deficiencies in the system — you either build or change your standards. It has to be reconciled. Vice Chair Brown and Peter discussed prioritizing, traffic studies and costs. Peter and Commissioner Turner discussed what happens if the local government doesn't have the money for a project, and Peter said it has resulted in projects being delayed in the past, or sometimes ODOT has paid for the whole thing. By listing the costs, we are not obligating the County to pay for them. Commissioner Turner asked if SDC's can be used for maintenance and Peter said he did not believe so. Indirectly, though, they do benefit maintenance as more money is available for that. Peter said that back in 2007, any intersection being considered for a traffic signal had to be looked at first in terms of suitability for a roundabout. Things have changed and ODOT will not look at roundabouts until a study in Kansas is completed. There are limits to what the County will contribute once a roundabout is determined to be used — if ODOT decides to build a lighted intersection, the County is only liable for its share of a roundabout. ODOT could object to the Board, etc., about the roundabout and it could go to LUBA, or 7 they could let it lie until the actual point of construction ten years down the road, at which point the rules might have changed. Peter also added that the amount of money the County receives is written in statute and does not change — a certain percentage comes from gas tax revenues, etc. Commissioners Klyce and Rainey spoke about the need for passing lanes in Sisters. Peter discussed other projects and priorities as indicated in the memo and attachments. Peter also mentioned that the County is not taking any new roads into the system for maintenance due to lack of timber funds. Commissioner Rainey and Peter discussed cycling lanes. Commissioner Klyce asked if the cycling community has identified a source of funding for improvements to the roads for cycling, or a group that is willing to work on it. Peter said they haven't so far. One other thing to consider is the extra costs for road improvements when the cyclists are only on the roads for a few months out of the year. Commissioner Rainey suggested that Chuck Humphries might be available to speak at the next meeting. Commissioner Criss asked whether there have been discussions about a bypass in La Pine. Peter said there have, but it would be within the City so it would not show in our TSP. Commissioner Criss said it might include some BLM land or large-scale industrial lots that are outside the urban growth boundary. Peter said the only discussions he had heard about were outside that area. Commissioner Criss and Peter also discussed the formula for the width of turn lanes in areas such as Wickiup Junction. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS Nick said we could be kicking off public hearings for the TSP at the next meeting and have the initial draft of the South County Plan scope of work available. December 8 could be put aside for event venues entirely. On November 10, when we have the second public hearing on the TSP in South County and have a meeting on December 15 in Sisters. In January, we will have had three public hearings on the TSP. Nick suggested putting the Comprehensive Plan Action Plan on hold for a bit to focus on the TSP, the South County Plan and event venues. Commissioner Brown asked if Nick could indicate on the schedule which meetings will require a quorum. Nick said a quorum will be required for public hearings. VII. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Sher Buckner Administrative Secretary M