Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-12-08 - Planning Commission Minutes--�'F Community 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 DECEMBER 8, 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, Richard Klyce and James Powell. Absent: Todd Turner, Bill Rainey. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. III. PUBLIC HEARING: TA -11-3, Commercial Event Venues as Private Parks in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone. Nick presented a PowerPoint overview of the draft text amendments, alternatives and next steps. Public Comments: Gladys Biglor requested that these amendments not be approved. She shared some personal examples of conflicts. She owns MUA-10 zoned land and is surrounded by MUA-10 and EFU land. One of the Baneys' cows got loose nearby and ended up on her property. She and a neighbor spent the greater part of the morning rounding up the cow. They did not seek any retribution for damages to their property — those in farm country take care of each other. What if this happened during a wedding or other non-agricultural event? One of the farmers in Alfalfa asked several years ago who would represent him if a bride sued him for agricultural practices that harmed her event. Gladys said when she worked for the Forest Service, some of the practices created a lot of dust and smell, and fumigation was carcinogenic and had to meet strict codes. There was a lot of noise during harvesting, and shipping seedlings and cones created industrial traffic. They were surrounded by a number of residential neighborhoods whose owners Quality Services Perforfned with Pride did not like what they were doing, although the Forest Service practices had taken place for years. There is a reason for zones in Oregon and why we identify what can and cannot be done in those lands. She recommended a book called "Fire at Eden's Gate," especially Chapter 18 which details information about a governor who understood conflicts with zoning. She has also provided previous testimony on events before this evening. Commissioner Powell said he had read Gladys' testimony from 2008 and 2009. He wondered, if, based on her experience, she felt there was any way to make this work. Gladys said she would like to say that there is and it will take some time to get there — proponents and opponents did attempt to get together in 2007 to allow some of these uses. It didn't get very far for several reasons, one of which is the human conflict regarding land. It was almost impossible to get together due to the different views. The proponents wanted more than the opponents were willing to give up. The opponents were trying to limit harm done as much as possible, and that was not acceptable by the proponents. With a fair amount of work it may be possible to get there, but it will not be easy. James Gindlesperger said he was very unhappy to have to be here. We have been doing this for years, and he believes there will not be anything said tonight that has not already been heard. He does not understand why we need to do this. It has been indicated in previous testimony more than once that there are over 300 places to hold weddings in the County, and over 1,000 are held each year. There are 2500 properties which have been identified as places that could be approved for weddings. If you can require a setback of 500-700 feet it may be possible to deal with the noise. The health and safety issues are County problems — what affects him is living next door to events. His neighbor had 18 events in six months. Even when the bands were located inside at night, it was still intolerable. He found out he could sign a citation when the Sheriff would not, and the complaint then went to court — the Sheriff even agreed in court that the noise was obnoxious but would not sign the citation. This noise was too loud, and James lives 600 feet away. The Sheriff would not do anything about it. Regarding the bill to hold events on farmland, agencies came together and decided what was appropriate for the State. Our County Commissioners seem to feel they are better than the rest of the State and deserve something extra. Why? If you read LUBA cases on private parks, in several of the rulings a private park was defined as a tract of land set aside for public recreation. It is hard to see how any of these events could be considered recreation. He has not researched home occupation but finds it difficult to see how everyone at a wedding could be inside. Sometimes too many elected officials are businessmen who think their job is to make business and the County bigger. Their jobs should be to make the County better and this is not the purpose of these events. Commissioner Criss asked James whether he would be in favor of weddings if the noise limits could be enforced and the Sheriff would issue citations. James said the problem is that there is no rule that the Sheriff can go by. You really have to hold events a large distance from neighbors - on at least 90 acres of land. This started as a way for farmers to make extra money but realistically, if you farm less than 40 acres in this County you are not a farmer. Events are just a way for people to make extra money. Pam Hardy testified on behalf of 1000 Friends of Oregon. In the last couple of months they have traveled all over the State talking to farmers about whether the laws work for them. They met with 50 in Deschutes County and also with those in Burns. Farmers in Burns felt that a setback of a mile would be appropriate, or even five miles. They could 2 not imagine having an event 300 feet from their house. 1000 Friends of Oregon is in favor of events that truly support the farm use of the property such as dinners, agricultural skills workshops, things that don't disrupt the stability of farm use and annoy the neighbors. There would have to be some limit — an acre may be too small. Any text amendment adopted should make the use subordinate to the use of the property along with an evaluation to ensure that the use will not disrupt land use in the area. They are glad to see the County adopting State law. In Harney County, a small operation is 10,000 acres. In this County, operators need to be able to have small events that connect with people they are selling their products to - direct sales that foster relationships. Instead of lumping large and small events into the same category, it should be easier to do things like farm dinners with perhaps 30 people, serving food that was grown on that farm. For bigger events/concerts/weddings, they would like to see the County make sure events will not impact neighbors and require negotiations with neighbors. For amplified sound, there could be a very large setback such as 1000 feet; or there would need to be some way to demonstrate that the event will be no louder than a conversation held at the property line; or the owner would need to get a waiver from surrounding property owners. There needs to be a way to measure impacts with clear, objective criteria. Regarding SB960 and HB3280, the legislature's intent was to say "these shall be the intended ways that events will happen on farm use," and these are the only places where events can be held. In SB960 there is evidence of legislative intent by the mention of only allowing events where they have been held before. If the County does enact events allowed under private parks and home occupations, the language should mirror 960 and 3280 as much as possible. They would like to see the uses are actually subordinate to and supportive of farm uses and which will not disrupt the stability of land uses in the area. Language should be included if private parks and home occupations are allowed. Define exactly what qualifies as a private park and what types of structures are permitted. Kerry Downs testified that he lives and farms on EFU and has also held weddings on his land. At the beginning of this four-year process, we were trying to push a rope up a hill and this was all brand-new information. But now we have a State that has created 960. We should adopt it as written. He could live with anything in it at this point as it relates to what he has done on his land. By definition and by nature, farming is noisy, smelly, dusty and for years people have been living next to those elements. He would like to know how his hosting of six events on his property a year could create more of an impact than farming 365 days a year, especially during hay baling and other activities with no time restrictions. There are all sorts of restrictions in 960. The noise ordinance in the County says that if a police officer can hear the source of the noise from 25 feet, this is prima facie evidence. It is actually a distance of 25 feet from the property line, according to the Sheriff. If an activity is creating noise that can be heard that distance from the property line, he agrees with being cited or having a permit pulled. J Bar J puts on the horse event ever year in this County and it creates noise. Equestrian events can be held in the EFU zone all day long. He feels that the six events mentioned in 960 are reasonable. How can anyone living in EFU and being subjected to noise, dust and smell say it would be a hardship if events are held? 0 Chair Irvine and Kerry discussed the requirements of SB960. Kerry said he could live with the current restrictions and make them work. Commissioner Klyce and Kerry discussed Oregon's right -to -farm legislation, which states that if a wedding is being held next to a farm, the bride has no recourse for damages that occur as a result of farming operations. Commissioner Criss asked Kerry about complaints he has received. Kerry said one of the complainants lives 10 miles away but still shows up when he has events on his property. Tony Aceti commented on written testimony he submitted. There should be more than one level for permitting, depending on the size of the event and timing of an application. Trying to make one permit fit all types of events is a problem. Commissioner Powell asked Tony whether he thought that concerts and events that may not be directly related to farm use should be allowed in EFU zones. Tony said he used concerts as examples of extraordinary events that would concern people. He does strongly believe the legislature acknowledges that, especially in the counties suffering hardships regarding farmland, there is a place in the definition for large events on farmland. Activities could occur that supplement farm use — the legislature put this in to sustain people on hobby farms, etc. He has dealt with the farmers in Burns who have 8000 -plus acres. They probably have events going on and no one knows about them. There are places where events could happen, and places where they should not happen. Extensive events should require higher mitigation. We need to be able to survive, and farming does create noise, smells and dust. Let's compromise and come up with something workable. Becky Wilkins said she and her husband own two businesses that are wedding event related, one having to do with sound (Star Productions) and also a limousine service. They also publish a resource guide for weddings in the County. Her main point is the economic impact that the County is suffering. Weddings contribute about $44,000 to their area. Direct costs to local businesses are about $14,000 per event. Events that were shut down in recent years have lost at least $140,000 to photographers, catering, rentals, etc. — all of the contributing vendors. Shutting down ten venues that could host ten events results in a loss of $4 million a year to these businesses. She has seen businesses go out of existence in the last four years due to weddings being shut down. There is a significant difference between a wedding being held on a small property versus going to a resort, for a minimum of $15,000 to walk in the door plus $40-$50 per head for catering to start. There is a significant difference between having a wedding in a forest and having a reception which brings up the noise amplification problems. With good equipment and proper placement this can be controlled. They support a conditional use permit where things like parking would be covered. We need to put our local vendors back to work. She goes to Portland four times a year to encourage brides to come here to get married and tells them to book at least a year ahead due to limited venues. We need to do something quickly so that at least part of next season can be saved. People have put thousands of dollars into their properties that they cannot get back at this point. Chair Irvine asked Becky what she felt about the proposal of noise being allowed only until 8:00 p.m. She said it should be 10:00 like other areas of the County. This is strongly enforced by their sound company. Commissioner Criss asked Becky for a submittal in writing about solutions for sound issues. Becky said her husband would be glad to submit one. Commissioner Powell mentioned Becky's testimony in previous hearings and controversy about the numbers. He said that, as a promoter for weddings, events are being sold based on the beauty and tranquility of the area. He asked what she could do, as a promoter, to ensure that the people that come here for an event of this nature understand what the neighbors are allowing them to do and how a user can honor what the neighbors are providing by enduring the sound, traffic and inconvenience. One event is not an issue — multiple events are. Becky said that part of it comes down to the conditional use permit (ample parking, dust abatement, etc.). Each facility owner would have a contract that would incorporate ending times for events, perhaps fines for garbage, hiring a security officer, other things that would be easily written into the use permits. There is a beautiful area in Redmond that has been closed down but has had no complaints from neighbors. They made sure they were cohabitating with their neighbors. Some of these properties include considerable investments in time, money, etc., and property values have increased. Becky said that there are only about ten weekends of summer that are good for events. Commissioner Powell felt that the issues that make or break events are not only going to be dictated by contracts but also by the attitude of people coming to events. As a promoter, what can Becky do to ensure that people coming here to smaller farms, especially, understand what they are getting and what their own responsibilities are? Becky said she promotes goods and services for people to use in Central Oregon. Their magazine represents what they consider the highest quality service providers in the area and she knows each one. She feels that we should be bringing people to Central Oregon and not driving them out of the County as we have for the past four years. Commissioner Klyce said that a conditional use permit is a different process and can cost over $3,000 to pursue — he wanted to make sure Becky is referring to the right type of permitting process. She said that she may have the term wrong but that she feels parking and other issues should be clearly addressed. Megan Serbus spoke on behalf of Country Catering. As much as 30% of their annual revenue has been generated from events, and they have employed as many as 50 people who are working to make extra money. They have a family-owned business and these events provide a large impact for small property owners. She personally had to change her own wedding plans due to a location being shut down. Larger venues also cost more than smaller properties. She agrees that there need to be limitations on activities, with fines for violations, so that neighbors do not get upset. Mike Duggan said he owns 200 acres of land and leases another 350 acres near Smith Rock. They have cattle and hay, but those are not enough to pay bills. Their children suggested a pumpkin patch, and a few years later brides requested that their weddings be held on his property. This pulled his family out of a financial hole. The Pumpkin Patch produces big income for them now. They have petting zoos, pony rides and are well known. He would encourage getting this thing passed. Weddings help them a lot - even one or two a month during the summer would be a great impact. With weddings, they also offer barbequing a whole hog which is part of the ag business. Mike said he would like to know what this process/permitting will cost. He got a conditional use permit for the pumpkin patch which runs with the land. An event venue permit should be the same. There should be also an identification of what events are — they are not allowed under his current permit. He would like to look at property line 5 distance — his property is over a mile long and he would have events near the front of his property, so the neighbors a mile away probably would not care. He has 26 neighbors and has had only one complaint from someone who misread a map. He also thinks the 8:00 p.m. noise limit is too early and 10:00 is better. David Wigant also added that he had been involved in previous discussions during prior years, and some businesses have gone by the wayside due to the length of time involved in the discussions. The County has gone through harder times in general in the last few years. The cost of permitting is a big deal and may cost more than it is worth to hold the events. Would a traffic study be \ required, for example? How much would this cost? Definitions have to be so clear. The word "weddings' should be included in the definition of an event so there is no confusion. Mike's permit allows him to do certain things and we want to make sure that adding weddings is compatible with an existing conditional use permit. David mentioned that there was also a lot of discussion about structures, and Mike spoke about getting permits for his barn. How will his existing barn permits fit into this new agritourism definition? It is encouraging that the State has provided an avenue to make this achievable. Commissioner Criss asked why Mike had to quit having weddings on his property. Mike said his conditional use permit contained the word "events," which his lawyer felt included weddings. The lawyer felt that Mike should hold weddings and wait for a citation from a neighbor who complained, and then sue the County for lost income. But Mike and his wife did not want to go down that road. They warned prospective brides that a Sheriff might show up with a citation and have had no weddings for two years. He was part of the Country Gatherings group that pulled its application previously with the County. Nick Lelack spoke about some of the potential permitting costs. Conditional use permits are about $3,000. This does not include costs for attorneys/consultants, etc. to prepare the applications. Paul Blikstad also discussed a hearings officer deposit of $3,000. Wineries are already permitted in EFU zones. We propose that agritourism would also be a permitted use in EFU. The permit would cost $1,230 with no site permit required. If we can make an administrative decision and there is no opposition there would be no hearings officer's fee. Nick said that for wineries, the bill is pretty clear. It is important to define what agritourism means and whether weddings are allowed or now. David Wigant asked if the fees would cover all sizes of events and Nick said yes. We would need to define a new fee for a renewal permit which is stipulated in State law and we cannot change that. Over six events would require a permit being renewed every two years. Paul Blikstad added that he had had preliminary discussions with Mike to decide how he was going to get where he wanted. He wanted a pumpkin patch, petting zoo, Christmas tree sales. We went to a hearings officer who set exact parameters and Mike then wanted to add weddings which the hearings officer said were not allowed. Mike asked if we put this in via what the State has called for, can we hold off the opponents so we do not have to spend $3,000 on hearings? Nick said we need to have clear definitions and make sure standards are met. There is a compatibility standard which is a catch all and opens up a lot of doors for private parks and home occupations. Dave Wigant asked if private parks would be a less arduous process. If someone lives 10 miles away and wants to appeal an application or complain, rather than a neighbor who lives 500 feet away, there should be some definition as to who can complain. 3 Harry Ketrenos submitted written testimony and said he cannot believe how long this has gone on. He hopes we can get this done and not keep dragging it on. He feels that private parks and home occupations do not fit for events. The Board owes its residents a closer look at neighbors of the Faith, Hope and Charity wine center who are furious about the disruption to their lifestyles. The County needs to enforce its own rules and stop making the neighbors do it and cause more tensions. Voluntary compliance does not work with events. If you are an event operator with 300 people coming in, how do you control them? People are happy and celebrating, making noise, leaving the party with tires peeling — what does a contract mean? Absolutely nothing. There is no good way to control people who may be out of control. The County and Code Enforcement officers are not there in the evenings. The Sheriff's Dept. will respond and they are polite, and they will agree that music is loud but they will not file a citation. Neighbors have to do it. Harry has done this and his neighbor now hates him and has put up a cinder block wall. Hard feelings do not die. The music does not carry predictably — he can hear it as plain as day from far away, and if he drives closer to a neighbor who is hosting a party, the music may be less loud closer to the location for some reason. How do you have regulations to enforce this? These people who are celebrating are only there for one night and then they are gone. The next weekend it's another group. If permits are allowed, he does not know how to regulate them. If one neighbor has events some weeks and other one during alternate weeks, you may still have events all around you for the whole summer. Leslie Ketrenos mentioned that we have tried round table discussions. Land owners often will not file written complaints against neighbors because it creates problems and they are scared to turn in complaints. She and Harry have offered to go out and listen to events for people and file complaints so neighbors do not have to fear retaliation. Sounds do travel differently, and decibel levels may be tolerable at a property line but higher farther away, especially if there is nothing to block sound. The Sheriff has testified that he is opposed to having anything do with that. A car backfiring can change the reading. Farming is noisy but she loves the sound of balers. That's why she lives in the country — she likes the sounds of cows mooing, horses and donkeys braying. Country living is not about weddings. These people come into the country and think they can make as much noise as they want. They do not understand that their noise carries. They shoot off fireworks which disturbs the animals. Even if people respect their neighbors and shut down music at 8:00 they could still have the party until 9-10-11:00. The County needs to monitor the noise. We want to be able to enjoy our homes and lifestyles. Earl Bowerman testified that he owns EFU property and has hosted events there. He is encouraged by what he has heard from a neighbor who is open to decibel limits. He recommends we adopt the existing outdoor mass gathering permit process. Officers can monitor decibel levels and can issue citations. He submitted a matrix regarding lot sizes. No farmer puts his house in the middle of 160 acres. They will locate closer to utilities. Under private parks and agritourism, we should keep the lot size of ten acres in place but have the recourse of decibel limits as well. Commissioner Irvine asked if Property B in the matrix has another house that burns down and the owners replace it closer to the property line, what happens? Earl felt that would have to be taken into consideration, but they would probably build the house in the same place near utilities. They could subdivide a lot which may be a situation a few years later, though. Commissioner Criss asked Earl what he felt about having structures to contain 7 noise, and Earl felt that if the property is ten acres or less, events should be contained indoors. Having people outside and visiting is part of enjoying aesthetics. The definition of commercial event now could include a renter having a group of kids on the property. Fifty people on the property having a barbecue with a renter using the property could get someone hauled into court. Melissa Vandenbrooke said she has an events rental business and has seen this take place since 2005. She does support the EFU event use and is encouraged that we are looking at this and adopting SB960. She would encourage looking at Aspen Hall and Hollinshead Park which are very restricted as to how long attendees can use facilities. They have both indoor and outdoor areas. There is a manger/owner on site. The people who own these farms and ranches and want to host these events are business people and don't want guests lingering and running around at all hours of the night. They will see to it that people adhere to contracts and leave the property at a certain time. She feels the challenges here can be worked out. The industry has huge potential in this area. Commissioner Powell asked Melissa what she can do to make this work as a promoter. She said she cannot be responsible for everyone's actions, but the brides and clients she works with are very reasonable and understand not to bring in a lot of liquor. They understand music limits and other restrictions. She stays on site at her events and makes sure things are kept under control. Commissioner Powell said he appreciated Melissa being on site and making sure clients understand the area. Cody Serbus of Country Catering felt there are things we can work out. People who are holding events need to respect their neighbors. He felt an 8:00 p.m. restriction would not work because no one starts dancing until after it is dark. He has catered close to 1,000 weddings and has never heard fireworks going off. There should be rules and fines in place. He feels he could potentially lose $1,000,000 over the next 25-30 years in business if he cannot cater events. Motion: Vice Chair Brown motioned we close verbal testimony and leave the written record open until January 5. Seconded by Commissioner Criss. Discussion: Commissioner Powell wondered if everyone is comfortable with what they have heard or we need to have another opportunity for people to have a dialog over specific issues such as traffic. Vice Chair Brown said we have heard this before, and some of these folks have been at every hearing we have had for four years. He appreciates some of the changes that have occurred on both sides. He does not think leaving the verbal record open serves any purpose. People can still submit written testimony. Chair Irvine asked if, after hearing LCDC's proposals and others, we close the process at this point, are we closing it as it's written now, or can changes be made? At what point are the changes incorporated into a document? Vice Chair Brown felt that deliberation process to take place in the future would address this. He would like an open forum to talk about noise, decibels, whatever, that should be done in an open meeting rather than having staff come back with what they think we want to hear. Commissioner Klyce asked if we deliberate on these issues, such as wanting to put verbiage into a mass gathering process, do we have to go through a public hearing process again? Nick said no, and there will be more public hearings before the Board. Commissioner Powell suggested one more meeting with invited people to have further discussions. Vice Chair Brown thought that people attending this evening have made major 9 modifications to what they have said before which will be shared during deliberations by the Planning Commissioners. The public can still submit written testimony until January 5. We have been given some very straightforward issues to address. Commissioner Criss added that people really want us to get this done. If we try to add another meeting, we will wind up in February and then March and events will not be held next summer. Nick said that one of the best things about this process is that it will not be a moving target. Staff will not make any changes between now and the next meeting. The public has stated many specific changes they would like to see such as clarifying definitions. He asked that the public be as specific as possible in their written comments. Vote: Motion passed. Nick added that if anyone wishes to meet with Paul or Nick during the next few weeks, they are available to talk. Commissioner Powell had a meter with him and added that the testimony here was about 65 decibels. IV. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS Commissioner Powell said he has written Peter Russell about two things regarding the Transportation Plan. The proposed Helmholtz route in Redmond goes right through an area of hobby farms. Does a designation from a previous TSP reign supreme? Regarding Ward and Hamby Roads, what is the motive? There is a straight shot to Juniper Ridge. Are these things changeable once put into the TSP? Nick mentioned our upcoming Work Plan update with the Board on December 19. There is a "cleanup" of Code/housekeeping items. Another item is a possible approval of a variance for existing solar if neighbors do not object. Harney County submitted an application to the DLCD to look at sage grouse. In 2015 the federal government will take a look at the listing, and Deschutes County may play a large role in developing grant applications; we have the eight best areas for sage grouse in the country. Commissioner Criss brought up an erosion problem in the Deschutes River from logs being put in place which is also causing cracks in a foundation. No one seems to want to pay for it. Fish & Wildlife showed up with a boat but the river was frozen at the time. The Corps of Engineers has been notified that this is an issue; Commissioner DeBone has also been notified. We need to get this fixed. There have been no reports, as far as Commissioner Criss knows, as to whether a fish habitat has been created. There is also no engineering report saying they could do this in the first place. V. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Resp tfully submitte r Buck er Administrative Secretary