1991-28208-Minutes for Meeting August 28,1991 Recorded 9/19/199191-2820+ _.
0107
MINUTES
9 _j
SES DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
�. August 28, 1991
Gh man, � '_%ai'in called the meeting to order at 10 a.m. Board
member`s"i```attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Nancy Pope
Schlangen. Also present were: Rick Isham, County Counsel; Brad
Chalfant, Property Manager; Nancy Kincaid, Planner; George Read,
Planning Director.
1. CONSENT AGENDA
Consent agenda items before the Board were: #1, signature of
City subdivision plat for Full Moon Estates off Purcell Blvd.;
42, signature of MP -90-63 creating three lots in the RL Zone
on 15th Street and Ferguson for Arn Hansen; #3, signature of
City mylar for Awbrey Butte Homesites, Phase 17 for W & H
Pacific; #4, signature of Order 91-111 amending refund Order
91-097; #5, reappointment of Norm Schultz and Bee Paulson to
Local Alcohol & Drug Planning Committee; #6, appointment of
Bob Durgin to unexpired term of Cliff McCabe on Special Road
District #8 Board of Directors; #7, chair signature of liquor
license renewals for Hook, Wine and Cheddar; Ponderosa Pizza
in LaPine and Sunriver; Paulina Lake Resort; Three Rivers
Market; Tom's Market; Elk Lake Resort; Ivy's Tumalo Store;
LaPine Book Store; Blondie's; Lucky's Tavern; Deschutes River
Trout House; Quail Run Golf Course; Hanks Meats; Mt. Bachelor
Lodges; Food Value Grocery; Alpine Foods; Sunriver Lodge and
Resort; #8, signature of Dedication and Acceptance of Right-
of-way along Quarry Road.
SCHLANGEN: I'll move approval of the consent agenda
items 1-8.
THROOP: I'll second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
2. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH POWDER RIVER CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY
Before the Board was Chair signature of an Intergovernmental
Agreement between the Oregon Department of Corrections and
Deschutes County for FY 1991-1992. The purpose of this
agreement was to subcontract available federal grant and state
general funds to Deschutes County for alcohol and drug
aftercare treatment to inmates during their first sixty days
after release from the Powder River Correctional Facility
Residential Alcohol and Drug Treatment Program.
PAGE 1 MINUTES: 8/28/91 CE
SEP �
).J.
M
4.
01071524
SCHLANGEN: Move Chair signature of contract with Powder
River Correctional Facility.
THROOP: I'll second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
CHANGE IN CONDITIONS OF HI-TEK TRUSS LOAN
Before the Board was a request from Hi -Tek Truss that they be
allowed to change the conditions of their loan. They were
considering a land exchange. Assessor Dana Bratton had given
an opinion that in this proposed exchange Hi -Tek would lose
about $38,000 of value. In return, Hi -Tek would receive an
additional $50,000 from the trade. If the cash was applied to
a reduction in the first lien position, the County would
benefit since the senior debt would be reduced by $50,000 and
the collateral value would only decline $38,000. The company
had always been current with its payments. The original loan
amount was $200,000 which had a current balance of $193,556
plus interest. Mike Burton, COIC recommended approval of the
land exchange with the condition that the $50,000 be used to
reduce the senior debt or be used for capital improvements
which would increase the value.
THROOP: I'll move approval of the change and that the
$50,000 needs to apply to the first mortgage or
capital improvements.
SCHLANGEN: Second.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
AGREEMENT WITH OREGON EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Before the Board was Chair signature of a Cooperative
Agreement with the Oregon Emergency Management Division. The
parties were agreeing to cooperate in the implementation and
maintenance of an emergency management program that addressed
the potential hazards to the jurisdiction in accordance with
the funding requirements of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Emergency Management Assistance Program.
SCHLANGEN: I move signature.
THROOP: I'll second the motion.
PAGE 2 MINUTES: 8/28/91
5.
6.
7.
0107 152["
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
ACCEPTANCE OF ROAD DEDICATION IN DRRH
Before the Board was signature of Declaration of Dedication
and Acceptance of Dedication of real property at Savage Drive
and Upland Road in Deschutes River Recreational Homesite
Subdivision for roadway and utility purposes.
THROOP: I'll move acceptance of the road dedication.
SCHLANGEN: Second.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL REQUEST FROM SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT
Before the Board was a request from Support Enforcement for
approval for Support Enforcement staff to attend the Western
Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council Training
Conference in Boise, Idaho from October 30, 1991 to
November 1, 1991. They would not be able to use a County car.
THROOP: I'll move approval of request for out-of-state
travel. That does not include the automobile.
SCHLANGEN: Second.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
REGIONAL STRATEGIES ROUND 3
Before the Board was a request from Lise Glancy, Manager of
the Regional Strategies Program within the Oregon Economic
Development Department, that the County notify her by
September 3, 1991, of the County's proposed regional
configuration (i.e. counties in proposed region, rationale,
key industries being considered) for Round 3 of the Regional
Strategies Program.
The Board decided to send a letter to Lise Glancy indicating
that Deschutes County would have only a one -County strategy
since both Jefferson and Crook Counties had already indicated
they wanted to go it alone. The Board said the letter should
also indicate that the Board felt it was premature to select
the key industries being considered since the Regional
PAGE 3 MINUTES: 8/28/91
0107 1526
Strategy Committee (by OEDD rules) would not even be formed
until October 1, 1991. The Regional Strategy Committee would
be appointed by the Board and would include public and private
sector members. By November 1, 1991, that committee would
recommend and the County would then approve the strategy for
Round 3. Then the Committee and the County had until February
1, 1992, to "flush out what that strategy would be."
THROOP: Why don't I move approval in concept of the letter
so we can get it sent before the 3rd.
SCHLANGEN: I'll second that.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
Commissioner Throop expressed his disappointment that
Jefferson and Crook Counties did not want to have a Central
Oregon regional strategy this year as had been done in the
past.
8. RATIFICATION OF CHAIRMAN'S APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS
Before the Board was ratification of Chairman Maudlin's
approval of warrant vouchers in the amount of $65,339.22
during the week of August 19, 1991.
SCHLANGEN: I move ratification.
THROOP: I'll second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
9. CURRENT WEEKLY WARRANT VOUCHERS
Before the Board were weekly bill in the amount of
$422,243.33.
SCHLANGEN: I move approval of warrant vouchers upon
review.
THROOP; I'll second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
PAGE 4 MINUTES: 8/28/91
10.
11.
12.
0107 1527
RESOLUTION 91-083 DECLARING SURPLUS PROPERTY
Before the Board was signature of Resolution 91-083 declaring
that an IBM Series 3 Model 40 copy machine was no longer need
by the County, declaring it surplus property, and directing
that it be transferred to the Deschutes County Chapter of the
American Red Cross.
SCHLANGEN: Move signature of Resolution 91-083.
THROOP: I'll second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
BARGAIN AND SALE DEED FOR CITY OF REDMOND
Before the Board was signature of a Bargain and Sale Deed
conveying real property (Lot 5, Block 3, Casper Mobile Acres
in Redmond) to the City of Redmond for the payment of taxes
and costs in the amount of $2,111.67. Brad Chalfant said that
pursuant to the upcoming Sheriff's sale schedule from
September 20, 1991, the City of Redmond was redeeming one of
the properties and had already give the County a check for the
redemption amount.
THROOP: I'll move approval.
SCHLANGEN: Second.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
ORDER 91-114 INCREASING FUNDS IN TREASURER'S TRUST FUND
Before the Board was signature of Order 91-114 increasing
funds in the Treasurer's Trust Fund in the name of Deschutes
County and the Economic Development Department of the State of
Oregon by Order 90-070. Deschutes County had entered into an
amendment to Community Development Block Grant Program Grant
Agreement No. 85 -314 -ED providing for the escrow of certain
Community Development Block Grant program income in a
treasurer's trust account in the amount of $120,000 to be
invested in the state investment pool. Order 91-114 would
authorize and direct the County Treasurer to deposit an
additional $144,000 into that fund. Chairman Maudlin said
that a letter had been received from Betty Pongracz, OEDD,
regarding the Consep Membranes Business Loan, which requested
that the County place another $144,000 in the Treasurer's
Trust Fund to be invested in the state investment pool.
PAGE 5 MINUTES: 8/28/91
THROOP: I'll move approval of the Order.
SCHLANGEN: Second.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
13. ACCEPTANCE OF DEDICATION ON LADERA ROAD
Before the Board was signature of an acceptance of real
property (a 60 foot wide strip of land on Ladera Road) from
Terra Dynamics, Inc., as a public road. Rick Isham said this
would be an exception to the County's standard policy because
the property did have an incumbrance (mineral rights), however
both Planning and Public Works approved it.
THROOP: I'll move acceptance of the dedication on Ladera
Road recognizing that there may be some very small
element of liability there that probably has little
likelihood of coming to fruition.
SCHLANGEN: I second that.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
14. INDEMNITY AGREEMENT FOR PRO CANAM RACING, INC.
Before the Board was signature of an Indemnity Agreement for
Pro Canam Racing, Inc. to conduct an off-road race on
October 12, 1991, near Brothers.
SCHLANGEN: I move signature of Indemnity Agreement.
THROOP: Second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
15. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR COLE AND JONES
Before the Board was signature of a Development Agreement for
a light industrial warehouse and office facility on 0. B. Riley
Road for Robert and Ilene Cole and Diana Jones.
THROOP: I'll move signature of the Development Agreement.
SCHLANGEN: Second.
PAGE 6 MINUTES: 8/28/91
16.
17 .
18.
1529
VOTE: THROOP: YES -
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
ORDER 91-113 ESTABLISHING EUSTON LANE
Before the Board was signature of Order 91-113 establishing
the road name of Euston Lane.
THROOP: I'll move the name of Euston Lane.
SCHLANGEN: Second.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
DYNIX CONTRACT FOR LIBRARY COMPUTER
Before the Board was approval for signature, subject to Legal
Counsel review, of Contract with Dynix for computerization in
the County Library.
THROOP: I'll move signature of the Dynix Agreement subject
to Legal Counsel review and approval.
SCHLANGEN: Second.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
PUBLIC HEARING: CHANGES TO COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE
RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION
Before the Board was a public hearing concerning proposed
changes by the Planning Commission to the County Zoning
Ordinance. The proposed changes were to clarify existing
language and to adapt the ordinance to changing circumstances
regarding the following issues: bed and breakfast inns,
campgrounds, residential homes and residential facilities,
exclusive farm use zones, solar setbacks, non -conforming uses,
home occupations, fill and removal from bed and banks of a
stream, mini -storage facilities, variances, and planned unit
developments in forest zones.
George Read gave the staff report. He said that for
approximately the last year, during the period review process,
the Planning Commission had been reviewing the zoning
ordinance. One of the purposes of the changes under
discussion was to conform with the County's periodic review
order. State statutes required that the County review its
PAGE 7 MINUTES: 8/28/91
010'7 1530
ordinances every 5-7 years and to make changes so that
Deschutes County's ordinances would be consistent with the
State Statute and Administrative Rules and any changes to the
statewide planning goals which had occurred during that time.
The periodic review had been separated into several sections
with each section concerning a different component. They were
currently in component #2. The first was the codification of
the Ordinance, #2 was to address statutory amendments, #3 was
goal 5 and related issues; #4 was to implement the new forest
rule relating to Forest Lands; #5 amend farm land regulations
to be consistent with the goals and administrative rules; #6
Rural Lands issue.
George Read said this package also included some minor
housekeeping changes and some changes to address problems and
issues which had come up over the years. The Planning
Commission held numerous meetings and hearings regarding this
package and was recommending the changes before the Board for
consideration. He went through the package and pointed out
the significant changes to the Board. He said that the
definitions of residential facilities and residential homes,
and the definition of family were necessary to address the
fair housing act. This would allow care facilities in
residential homes so there would be no discrimination. The
definition of guest house was changed to state they it would
contain no kitchen, kitchenette or other cooking facility.
They had been allowed in the past and as a result, guest
houses had occasionally become second homes.
George Read outlined what he anticipated would be accomplished
at this hearing: staff report would be given raising the
major issues, public testimony would be taken, then the public
hearing would be continued with a work session scheduled prior
to the continued hearing date.
He continued that the County was required by the periodic
review order from LCDC to address substantial changes in
circumstance or amended state statute, and administrative
rules had to be addressed for the farm zones. Since the
County was putting off review of the farm zones until probably
spring, he said this package did not address the real changes
but only the statutory changes required by state law with one
exception. There were several uses that had been added. The
breeding, boarding and training of horses for profit was
allowed outright in the state statute. He felt the Board
might want to consider whether they wanted to make it a
conditional use. The exclusive farm use zones had been
combined into one zone since the only difference between them
was the minimum lot size standards. They were combined to
reduce the duplication while indicating at the end that EFU-20
etc. meant a minimum lot size of 20 acres etc. Churches and
schools were currently outright permitted uses in the EFU
PAGE 8 MINUTES: 8/28/91
0107 1531
zone, and the Planning Commission recommended they be made
conditional uses since churches and schools had an impact on
farm land which should require some review. This proposal
also made it consistent with their practice of have all
dwellings in a farm use zone through the conditional use
process. They tried to condense the criteria for reviewing
farm uses. Bed and breakfast operations had been added to the
EFU zone. This was not required by statute, however LCDC did
not object to it because the intensity had been left fairly
small. The conditional use standards in EFU zones remained
basically the same and consistent with the policies the County
had implemented in the past for the review of farm dwellings
with one exception: the standard for a farm dwelling stated
that "the dwelling is customarily provided in conjunction with
the current farm use on the property and the occupants of the
dwelling will be principally engaged in the day-to-day
operation of the farm." The word "principally" had been
added, because the DLCD requested this change be made. It was
unclear exactly what this word change would mean, since DLCD
did not give a clear definition. He requested that the Board
consider how the word "principally" should be defined, and
whether this change needed to be made now or could be deferred
until the County rewrote it EFU zones later.
In Multiple Use Agriculture (MUA) zones there was an error
since dwellings were made a conditional use and schools and
churches were left as outright uses the in MUA-10 zone. He
thought it was the intent of the Planning Commission to make
them conditional uses.
Bed and Breakfast operations had been added to several of the
zones. Golf courses were added to the RR -10 zone. Mini
storage facilities were added. Multi -family housing had been
added to the RSRM-zone where municipal sewer was available.
Automotive wrecking yards would be required to be totally
enclosed by a site obscuring fence and would be a conditional
use in the rural industrial zone. The solar height
restrictions were amended for PC zones to the 14 -foot fence
standard rather than the 8 -foot fence standard. They had made
some exceptions to the paving standards for parking lots in
areas where there were surface water drainage problems, i.e.
LaPine. Since 1981, it was the policy that recreational
vehicles would be allowed on individual lots for no longer
than 30 days which was unclear. The Planning Commission
recommended that recreational vehicles be allowed to remain on
a lot not to exceed 30 days in any 60 -day period, while
allowing a temporary use permit for up to 120 days in any
year. The Planning Commission felt that the current ordinance
on nonconforming uses was too restrictive and recommended
"that an alteration of a nonconforming use not include the
expansion of a use or structure or a change of use." General
standards relating to conditional uses were added since in
PAGE 9 MINUTES: 8/28/91
010'7 1532
some cases there were no standards to evaluate the conditional
uses. The home occupation standards were revised. One issue
that the Planning Commission had trouble with was whether a
typing business constituted a home occupation requiring a
conditional use permit. They questioned how to differentiate
between a minor home occupation and a larger home occupation.
They ultimately decided to leave home occupations as a
conditional use in all cases.
George Read said the fill and removal standards had been
amended. The state statute allowed the creation, restoration
and enhancement of wet lands as an outright use in EFU zones.
They felt the language might be inconsistent with the fill and
removal section. Throughout this ordinance, excavation, fill,
and removal had been added to all of the zones. Currently it
was only regulated in the flood plain zone. The state had
adopted new wetlands regulations which required that the
County notify the Division of State Lands about any fill and
removal in wetlands, and there were wetlands outside of the
flood plain. The question for the Board was whether or not
the County should regulate wetlands outside of the flood plan.
This proposal would regulate wetlands. It would create more
work but making this activity a conditional use let everyone
know that there were restrictions up front. The Planning
Commission recommended regulating fill and removal in all
areas, including the scenic water ways. Exceptions to the
conditions of the fill and removal conditional use standards
were: emergency actions taken to mitigate violations and fish
and wild life enhancement projects.
Mr. Read continued that the ordinance established some
standards for mini storage facilities. The Planning
Commission reviewed Bed and Breakfasts and decided to keep a
narrow definition so there could be a consistent definition
throughout the ordinance. Large Bed and Breakfasts in EFU
zones would not be permitted. The standards were very similar
to the City of Bend standards except the Planning Commission
recommended that instead of two rooms with a maximum of six
people, three rooms with a maximum of six people would be
allowed in the County. The Planning Commission asked the
staff to take a look at country inns, which would be larger
than Bed and Breakfasts, since dude ranches were allowed in
the MUA-10 zone and some forest zones. They were also looking
at large-scale destination resorts. There was a provision in
the state statute for small-scale destination resorts which
hadn't been addressed in this ordinance.
Currently campgrounds were allowed in Forest and Farm zones
and in MUA-10 zones but not in RR -10 zone. Recreational
Vehicle parks were allowed in the RSC zone and in the urban
areas. Campgrounds were a hotly debated issue at the Planning
Commission. There was currently no definition and no
PAGE 10 MINUTES: 8/28/91
010'7 1533
standards for a campground even though it was a conditional
use. The Planning Commission recommended standards. He felt
one issue the Board needed to consider was that campsite
hookups for water/sewer/electricity were not allowed under the
Planning Commission proposal in order to keep campgrounds a
rural use. The other restrictions were significant
limitations on commercial uses within the campgrounds.
A Type 2 variance allowed a 25% deviation from the standards
of the ordinance particularly lot size and set back. The
Planning Commission felt that was too large because there were
larger parcels in the County, so they established a type 2
variance for 10% deviations from the standards of the
ordinance which would have a reduced fee and would be an
easier standard to meet.
He recommended that the following language be removed from the
ordinance: "Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance,
the minimum lot sizes required by this ordinance shall be met
for each use established on an area of land." They had
problems determining what this language meant, i.e. you can't
have a home occupation in an RR -10 zone unless you have 20
acres?
DLCD had reviewed this package and had submitted some comments
concerning adding campgrounds and excavation and fill to the
Forest zones. DLCD said the administrative rules stated that
the Goal 4 rule must be implemented before making any changes
to the forest zone. DLCD had back off from that position.
In 1984, ordinance 84-015 changed the standards for cluster
developments and removed them from the F-2 zones, but they
were allowed as a conditional use in the F-3 zone. At the
same time, Planned Unit Developments (PUD) were not removed
from the F-2 zone. Since PUDs had more restrictions than
cluster developments, he felt it was an oversight. He also
felt that allowing PUD's in the F-2 zone was a land use
conflict and wasn't consistent with Goal 4. So Ordinance 91-
037 would clarify that issue.
He recommended that this public hearing be continued for about
three weeks and that it should be kept open for oral testimony
since the package was so large and a number of changes would
be made before the next hearing.
John Boyle from LaPine questioned Mr. Read's statement that it
didn't make sense to take out something more restrictive and
leave in something less restrictive. George Read said that
cluster developments which were more restrictive were removed
from the forest zones while planned unit developments which
were less restrictive were left in the forest zone. Mr. Boyle
said he felt that sounded like something a communist might
PAGE 11 MINUTES: 8/28/91
010'7 1534
say. He asked about whether the golf course language also
included mini -golf courses. George Read said they were not
included in the Planning Commission recommendation, but they
could go through the process to consider them. Mr. Boyle
asked that it be considered. He felt that everyone should
have an opportunity to review the changes prior to the public
hearing.
Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing and asked for
testimony.
Eric Dolson, member of the Deschutes County Planning
Commission, testified that he had a hand in the creation of
the policies before the Board at this hearing. He recommended
that the document be considered while looking at the recent
phenomenal growth in Deschutes County. He felt that the pace
of growth in the County was beyond their ability to adequately
plan, which was why a very careful approach was called for.
Once farm and forest land was lost, it was lost for
generations, whereas they could always change the law to
allow more development.
Brian Meece, 19498 Mammoth Dr., Bend, 97702, submitted some
written testimony. He felt it was too restrictive for bed and
breakfast establishments to be allowed to use only three rooms
with six people from both an economical and practical
standpoint. He suggested four rooms and eight people would be
more economically feasible for the operator.
Frank Conklin from Conklin Guest House in Sisters, testified
on behalf of eight Bed and Breakfast Inns in the County. Most
of the expansion in Bed and Breakfasts was occurring in old
homes which had a large number of bedrooms. Ashland had 45
Bed and Breakfasts while Central Oregon had approximately 20.
They were concerned about the size limitations and felt that
public components (health and safety standards) should be
incorporated instead of a bedroom limitation unless the public
interest would be negatively affected. They wanted to be
involved in a work session to bring forth the issues of public
interest. The Oregon Bed and Breakfast Guild, which was
concerned about health and safety standards, recommended no
limitation on the number of bedrooms.
James Lee, 634500 Boyd Acres Road, Bend, supported
Mr. Conklin's testimony. He asked for a clarification on the
wording that "no more than three sleeping rooms shall be
available for the accommodation of any visitors." He asked
whether it meant "occupied." George Read said the Planning
Commission spent a lot of time with this wording, and he did
not recall their exact reasoning so felt this area might need
to be clarified. Mr. Lee suggested that if the intent was to
limit the number of bedrooms occupied, than that was what the
PAGE 12 MINUTES: 8/28/91
010'7 1535
language should say. He was concerned about the Bed and
Breakfasts being limited to single family homes since there
were operating Bed and Breakfasts which were using guest
houses. He asked if the intent was to eliminate those.
George Read said he felt it was. Mr. Lee felt that this
should be made clear and that comments be requested from
existing inn keepers who use guest houses. He felt the
Commission should be aware that the national definition of a
Bed and Breakfast was a Bed and Breakfast homestays; while the
Bed and Breakfast Inn was defined as having more than three
available bedrooms. He asked that the definition of Bed and
Breakfasts be divided into classifications: Bed and Breakfast
Homestays, Bed and Breakfast Inns (which were not addressed in
this ordinance) since they had an average size of 5 to 12
rooms. Nationally the Professional Bed and Breakfast
Association had stated that the break-even point economically
for a professionally run B & B was seven rooms. He felt it
was time to have a workshop with the inn keepers to form a set
of regulations which would accommodate the community and
address tourism but would not be detrimental to residential
areas.
Commissioner Throop said that the City of Bend was the first
jurisdiction to address the Bed and Breakfast issue, and they
came up with a limitation of two bedrooms and six people. He
asked Mr. Lee if he was involved in the hearings with the City
and why he felt this limitation was made. Mr. Lee said he was
told that they didn't want to open "Pandora's Box" since they
didn't know enough about the Bed and Breakfast industry to
write a code that would properly address it. His operation
was in the County and he had not been involved in the City
discussions.
Sally Solesbee testified that she was trying to establish a
Bed and Breakfast in the Redmond area. Her main concern was
that she had a guest house which she used for visiting
children and grandchildren while the bedrooms in her home were
rented. She could not take care of these family members in
her guest house without a kitchen. She suggested that guest
houses be limited concerning the time someone could stay there
rather than the facilities allowed. Chairman Maudlin said
that if the guest house currently had a kitchen, she would not
be asked to take it out, and that this ordinance would only
pertain to guest houses built in the future. Commissioner
Throop explained the need for the kitchen restriction: when
someone in her circumstance sold their home, the new owner
might want to convert the guest house into a second home.
There was a law in Deschutes County that allowed only one home
per parcel.
Dennis Luke, 320 SE Reed Market, Bend, testified that he was
a contractor and that the builders would be more than happy to
PAGE 13 MINUTES: 8/28/91
010'7 1536
work with the Planning Department on the review of these
ordinances. He was concerned about solar access language and
whether all fencing would require building permits. He asked
if it was intended that Sunriver be exempted from portions of
the Solar Access Ordinance. George Read said there were no
changes proposed in the solar ordinance that differed with
current policy. It was on the Planning Department's agenda to
review all of the solar regulations in the future. The
changes that were made were clarifications to items which were
currently unclear in the ordinance. As a matter of policy,
Sunriver had been treated with a 14 foot solar fence in all
cases, and this package would put that policy into the
ordinance. The language concerning fences did not make any
changes but would notify people that building permits would be
required for fences over six feet in height.
Penny Allen, PO Box 7217, Sisters, testified that she was a
member of the Sisters Forest Planning Committee. She said the
Committee was organized in 1985 with the purpose of educating
the public on and helping to enhance the recreational, scenic
and environmental resources on forest lands within Central
Oregon. They did not believe that development should
compromise the integrity of the lands that attract people to
Central Oregon. Their committee fully supported measures
which would retain forested lands as an important part of the
County's environment and economy. They felt forest land zones
F-2 and F-3 should be retained exclusively for forest use and
that private lands not managed for forestry uses should be
acquired by parties who would manage them for forest uses,
that PUDs be deleted as conditional uses in F-2 and F-3 lands,
and that the County quickly adopt the state's forest lands
rules which have amendments to preserve F-2 and F-3 lands for
forest use only.
John Gill, 64201 Tyler Road, Bend, testified that he was the
owner and manager of Rock Springs Guest Ranch which was a
nonconforming use. In policy 5 of the Rural Development
Section of the Comprehensive Plan, it indicated that
destination resorts and dude ranches were important to the
local economy. He was concerned with some of the language on
nonconforming uses, because he felt it would limit his ability
to adapt to changes in the market place. Chairman Maudlin
asked what the ranch was zoned. Mr. Gill said it was EFU-20.
Commissioner Throop pointed out that the County was required
to comply with state statute and that the language changes
resulted from state statutes. Chairman Maudlin said that
although the dude ranch would remain a nonconforming use in
the EFU zone, the language under consideration would make it
simpler to change that nonconforming use.
Becky Lu Brown, PO Box 8800, Black Butte Ranch, said she was
testifying as a representative of the Forest Lands Coalition.
PAGE 14 MINUTES: 8/28/91
01o7 1537
She had questioned some of the language concerning cluster
developments and was told that the most current draft did not
include cluster developments in F-2 zones. She said that the
Forest Lands Coalition represented a joint effort of five
Deschutes County organizations which had a shared interest in
advocacy to retain forested lands as an important part of the
County's economy, ecosystem and environment. The coalition
included the Black Butte Ranch Association, the Deschutes
County Rural Preservation Committee, Friends of Black Butte
Ranch, Friends of the Metolius, and the Sisters Forest
Planning Committee. They supported: (1) retaining for forest
uses those lands now zoned F-2 and F-3, (2) deleting PUDs as
conditional uses in F-2 and F-3 zones. Chairman Maudlin asked
what the zoning was at Black Butte Ranch. Ms. Brown said it
was RR -10 and was not defined as a destination resort.
Starr Reed, Chairman of the Black Butte Ranch Association,
testified representing the association. He said Black Butte
Ranch was a 1,830 acre development located 8 miles west of
Sisters and was created by Brooks Resources over 20 years ago.
There were 1,253 homesite, two golf courses and related
amenities surrounded by Deschutes National Forest land and
private forest lands. The Association was a nonprofit,
homeowners entity governed by an elected board of directors.
They supported efforts to eliminate the siting of new PUDs as
a conditional use in F-2 and F-3 zones. While Black Butte
Ranch was located in the middle of prime forest land, they
felt in was evident today that steps needed to be taken to
protect our natural resources.
Allen Bartholomew testified that the Friends of Black Butte
Ranch wanted to maintain the biological, aesthetic, and
community character of Black Butte Ranch. They supported the
goals of the Forest Lands Coalition. They felt it was
extremely important that existing forest lands be retained for
forest uses, and they recommended that the Deschutes County
Commissioners adopt the Planning Commission recommendation to
remove PUDs as a conditional use in F-2 and F-3 zones.
Tygh Redfield of Sisters testified that he was representing
the Rural Preservation Committee which was also part of the
Forest Lands Coalition. They wished to retain exclusively for
forest purposes, those lands in Deschutes County which were
now zoned F-2 and F-3. They wished to delete PUDs as a
conditional use in F-2 and F-3 zones since they contradicted
statewide provisions for land use and conservation.
Peter Hazel, Black Butte Ranch, indicated that he was
testifying on behalf of the Friends of the Metolius which
supported the Forest Lands Coalition's stand concerning the
elimination of the PUDs from the F-2 and F-3 zones. He said
the Friends of the Metolius was a nonprofit organization
PAGE 15 MINUTES: 8/28/91
010'7 1538
governed by an elected board of directors. Membership, while
centered in the Metolius basin in western Deschutes County,
was distributed widely throughout the United States. Their
general goals were to advocate and encourage the conservation
and protection of the environment and ecological systems of
the Metolius basin, to serve as a resource to the Forest
Service while providing assistance, suggestions and monitoring
regarding the management of the Metolius conservation area
established in the current forest plan for the Deschutes
National Forest.
Betty Marquardt, PO Box 1138, Sisters, testified that she
wasn't in favor of Bed and Breakfast Inns being allowed in
residential neighborhoods. She felt that definite standards
should be made, and that they should be sited in commercial
zones, high-density residential neighborhoods, in rural
services centers, and some EFU lands abutting highways. They
should have to have a business license, there should be
parking standards, health inspections, and density rules.
People in residential zones purchased their property because
of the strict zoning rules, safety for adults and children,
and because they didn't want to be in transient neighborhoods
like Bed and Breakfasts would create. She felt the number of
rooms and the number of occupants should be raised, but they
should not be located in residential neighborhoods. She felt
this would be another ordinance that the County would have
trouble enforcing. She felt they should be a conditional use
so that the County would have better control over them.
Dennis Haniford, PO Box 416, LaPine, testified concerning
nonconforming uses. He represented Dick Carpenter and Dorothy
Sergeant who owned a lot in which, had a lease option. They
had understood that the property could eventually be zoned
commercial. Commissioner Throop suggested they read a supreme
court ruling on 1,000 Friends of Oregon v. Curry County which
dramatically changed the rules for commercial uses outside of
urban growth boundaries. Because of this case, the County's
options were much more limited now than had been in the past.
Chairman Maudlin announced that this public hearing would be
continued until September 25, 1991, at 1:30 p.m. in Room A of
the Juvenile Justice Center. Verbal testimony would be
allowed at this public hearing.
PAGE 16 MINUTES: 8/28/91
0107 1539
DESCHUTES C®tTNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Tom hr�op, oQ ssion
Nancy ope S Ia gen, Commissioner
N�
Dick Maudlin, Chairman
BOCC:alb
PAGE 17 MINUTES: 8/28/91