Loading...
1994-24000-Ordinance No. 94-022 Recorded 6/10/199494-24000 REVIEWED BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNT EGON An Ordinance Amending the Deschutes * LEGAL COUNSEL County Comprehensive Plan to Adopt Conflict Identifications and ESEE 9 Determinations under Goal 5 for 0135-2122 Certain Inventoried Historic Sites and Declaring an Emergency. ORDINANCE NO. 94-022 WHEREAS, the Land Conservation and Development Commisso.n issued Remand Order 93 -RA -883, requiring Deschutes County to, inter 4�ia, amend the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to complete the Goal 5 process for certain inventoried sites and to adopt policies ensuring preservation of sites; and WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Historical Landmarks Commission has conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendment and has made a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners and the Board of County Commissioners conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendments; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. ADOPTION OF CONFLICTS AND ESEE ANALYSIS. That the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Resource Element be amended to add the Conflicts and ESEE Analysis for the Fall River Fish Hatchery 'Ice House,' the Conflicts and ESEE Analysis for the Tumalo Creek Diversion Dam and Headgate of the Feed Canal and the Conflicts and ESEE Analysis for the Bull Creek Dam, attached hereto as Exhibits "A," "B" and "C" respectively and incorporated herein by reference. Section 2. FINDINGS. The Board of County Commissioners adopts as its findings and conclusions in support of this ordinance the findings in each of the Conflict and ESEE Analysis documents and the Findings attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by reference. Section 3. EMERGENCY. This Ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage. DATED this 8th day of June, 1994. O ISSIONERS D OF COUNTY Comm t/,99 ZOD ESCHUT COUNT , 0 EGON 0" (-,) , , , PO E S , LAN EN, Chair A ES TO ROOP, Co 'ssioner Ar- Z� 7 Recording Secret ry BARRY . SLAUGHTE , Commissioner PAGE 1 OF 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 94-022 (6/8/94) 0135-2123 Exhibit "A" CONFLICTS ANALYSIS AND ESEE DETERMINATION FOR FALL RIVER FISH HATCHERY 'ICE HOUSE' BASIC INFORMATION ADDRESS: 15055 S. Century Drive, Bend, Oregon TAX ADDRESS: 20-10-31, Tax Lot 100. LOCATION: E-1/2; NE -1/4, Section 32, Township 20S, Range 10E. Approximately 27 miles southeast of Bend. OWNERSHIP: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. EXISTING USE: Fish Hatchery operation. Ice House used for equipment storage. PLAN DESIGNATION: Forest INVENTORY This site was added to the inventory of the County's historic sites by Ordinance 94-006, and the inventory information included below was submitted in support of that inventory listing. It is repeated here to provide context to the conflicts and ESEE analysis. QUALITY: The best example of an early day ice house. Condition is good. QUANTITY: Only known ice house of this type. CONFLICTING USE DETERMINATION AND ANALYSIS Demolition and exterior alterations are the conflicting uses. ESEE ANALYSIS ECONOMIC: The intent of the zoning is to recognize the existing character of the area and to provide for compatible types of development. Demolition would provide for uses consistent with this intent. Exterior alteration would provide for conditional uses allowed in the zone. Exterior alteration may provide the owner with a structure better able to meet economic needs. Both demolition and exterior alteration may provide for a higher, better economic use of the property. Available information does not indicate any proposals or plans of such a nature, however. Several state and national studies indicate that tourism is an important economic consequence of preserving the resource site. A study by the National Tour Association found that visiting historic sites was the favored form of vacation touring among Americans 55 and older; the PAGE 1 OF 2 - EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. 94-022 0135-2124 largest and most significant demographic group for tourism. A 1989 survey of visitors to Oregon, found almost half of Oregon's visitors visited an historic site or area. The U.S. Travel Data Center reported that 51 percent of family vacationers who intend to travel in 1992 with children plan to visit historic sites. Film promotion, another local economic activity, is benefitted by preserving the resource site. Film makers often require historic landscapes, or structures to serve as backdrops for their films. SOCIAL: Demolition may provide for a higher value social use. Available information does not indicate any proposals or plans of such a nature, however. Demolition would result in the loss of an historic and architectural resource of aesthetic and educational value to the community. Exterior alterations would diminish the building's social value. Preservation of historic fabric, material and character can contribute to the County's "sense of place". This portion of the built environment can serve as a visual and intellectual record of the county's irreplaceable cultural heritage. It can link the county with its past traditions and values. ENVIRONMENTAL: In general, demolition of this resource would result in adverse environmental consequences, particularly to the visual environment. The site has historically contributed to the beauty of the area. Site rhythm and balance would be neutralized. Relationships between various forms, materials and open space would be lost. Aesthetic qualities may be diminished by exterior alteration. ENERGY: Available information does not indicate demolition with subsequent new construction would result in energy savings. Further information indicates that if the attributes of historic buildings are allowed to function as they were intended, a great deal of energy may be saved without retrofitting. Additionally, information does not indicate that exterior alterations are necessary to improve energy efficiency. common energy-saving steps do not warrant exterior changes to the historic fabric, in most cases. CONCLUSION Both the historic resources of the site and the conflicting uses are important relative to one another (3C). The building has historical and architectural significance. Information indicates significant economic, social, environmental and energy consequences would be suffered if the site were not protected to some degree. However, to constrain the property owner by fully protecting the site (3A) by precluding any alteration or demolition would not recognize the site as dynamic. However, allowing conflicting uses fully (3B) does not provide for the preservation of the resource's historic and architectural values. Accordingly, a balance to allow the conflicting uses in a limited way so as to protect the resource to an acceptable extent shall be made. The site shall be protected in accordance with the Historic Preservation Ordinance. PAGE 2 OF 2 - EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. 94-022 0135-2125 Exhibit "B" CONFLICT ANALYSIS AND ESEE DETERMINATION FOR TUMALO CREEK - DIVERSION DAM and HEADGATE OF THE FEED CANAL ADDRESS: Off of Stag Drive, Northeast of Shevlin Park on Tumalo Creek. TAX ADDRESS: T -17S, R -11E, S-23, TL -800, 1600, 1700 OWNERSHIP: Private (Tumalo Irrigation District). EXISTING USE: The dam, a low overflow weir dam 94.2 feet in length and 4 feet 3 inches above hardpan, impounds Tumalo Creek to divert water through a headgate structure into a Feed Canal which conveys water to Tumalo Reservoir. PLAN DESIGNATION: Open Space and Conservation/Rural Residential. INVENTORY This site was added to the inventory of the County's historic sites by Ordinance 92-018, and the inventory information included below was submitted in support of that earlier inventory listing. It is repeated here to provide context to the conflicts and ESEE analysis. LOCATION: Northeast of Shevlin Park on Tumalo Creek. Tax lot 5900 in 17-11-00. QUALITY: The structure is currently in use by the Tumalo Irrigation District. The entire diversion weir, wing walls, waste way and headgate are of reinforced concrete construction with steel angle irons embedded in the concrete slots for the operation of flash boards and fish screens. The condition of the entire structure is good to excellent. QUANTITY: It is the only extant structure of its period type, design and use associated with the Tumalo project, the first irrigation project constructed in Oregon through direct appropriation. CONFLICTING USE DETERMINATION AND ANALYSIS Demolition or alteration of the site, both generally and specifically with respect to fish and wildlife resources at the site. Fish resources in Tumalo Creek are listed as a Goal 5 resource in the County's Goal 5 fish and wildlife inventory, and the fish resource ESEE requires that conflicting uses to be balanced to protect the fishery resources and conflicting resources. The fishery conflict arises because alteration of the structure is required under state law in order to protect fish resources. ORS 498.248 requires any person who diverts water from any body of water in PAGE 1 OF 3 - EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 94-022 0135-21.26 this state to maintain all fish screening or bypass devices that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife determines necessary to prevent fish from leaving the body of water and entering a diversion. The Department of Fish and Wildlife has determined that screening must be designed, installed, operated and maintained (including repair/replacement and cleaning) on the site to prevent the passage of fish from Tumalo Creek through the Headgate and into the Feed Canal. "Screening" is defined as a screen, grating or other barrier and related improvements or measures necessary to ensure efficient operation of the screening device. ESEE ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION ECONOMIC: The site has been developed to provide irrigation water important to the agricultural sector of the local economy. Protection of fish provides economic benefits to the recreational/tourism sector. Fishing and related expenditures by residents and visitors makes a significant contribution to the local economy. Installation of fish screening devices is consistent with the economic development and use of the property. Historic resources serve as the industrial base for heritage tourism, a growing component of local and state economies. Interpretation of both natural and historic resources could contribute economically. SOCIAL: Protection of fish contributes to the livability and quality of life in the County. Protection provides for a number of positive social consequences, including educational, recreational, aesthetic and other natural resource benefits. Protection is consistent with maintaining the cultural significance of native, wild fish in the Deschutes River Basin. Protection of the site as an historic resource contributes to the livability and quality of life in the County. The site is part of the agricultural and cultural history of the area. Protection of the site as an historic resource provides educational, recreational and aesthetic benefits. The Tumalo system was important in Central Oregon's history as the most troubled of the Carey Act projects. The site is an important element of the story. The design reflects irrigation engineering technology of the historic period. ENVIRONMENTAL: Information indicates screening devices will not have an effect on the flow of Tumalo Creek. The devices are not associated with high or low water flow impacts such as erosion, insect production, fish cover, sediment load, etc. Minimum to moderate consequences may occur to the visual environment. Available information concerning design, size, materials and placement of screening devices is minimal. The compatibility of the devices with the site/setting and the impact to existing scenic vistas is unknown. Potential impacts to the structure's physical integrity are not fully understood. ENERGY: No energy consequences have been directly associated with protection of the historic resource or with protection of fish resources. PAGE 2 OF 3 - EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 94-022 0135-2127 CONCLUSION The historic resource and conflicting uses at the site are important relative to each other. The site is a significant historic resource associated with the County's agricultural and economic history. In addition, the structure is significant as an example of early irrigation engineering. The analysis of the economic, social and environmental and energy consequences of not protecting the site indicates the site should be protected as an historic resource. On the other hand, full protection of the site would preclude the owner's ability to alter the site and would fail to recognize the site as dynamic. This conflict is heightened by the consequences that would be suffered by another Goal 5 resource: the fishery resource of Tumalo Creek. Fish resources are important to the County and State. Positive economic and social consequences of fish resources indicate those resources at the site should also be protected. The economic, social and environmental consequences should be balanced to conserve each conflicting use. Accordingly, a program must be devised to limit the conflicting uses. This shall be done by utilizing the County's Historic Preservation Ordinance, with certain specific modifications, as outlined in the ESEE conditions set forth below: 1. The aspects of this historic site to be protected shall include the concrete elements of the project shown on the original engineering drawings. These elements include the diversion weir, wing walls, wasteway and headgate but do not include the earthen dam. In addition, the existing mechanical appurtenances to these protected concrete elements, such as the gates and or valves controlling water flow, shall be protected. No portion of the diversion canal shall be protected. The elements identified herein for protection shall be referred to hereafter as the "protected elements." 2. Installation, operation and maintenance (including repair, in- kind replacement and cleaning) of fish screening devices, as defined, described or required under ORS 498.248 and fishways as defined and as may be required under ORS 498.268, shall be allowed without review under the Historic Preservation Ordinance by the Historical Landmarks Commission, but with 30 days notice to the Historic Landmarks Commission by and through the County Planning Division, provided that such installation, operation or maintenance does not irreversibly alter the engineering design of the protected elements. Upon the passage of 30 days without adverse response from the County Planning Division and/or Landmarks Commission, it shall be conclusively presumed that no review of the proposed changes is required. Any such installation would be considered to not irreversibly alter the protected elements if the installation did not require removal of portions of the structure that would alter the structure's outline or if after removal of the installation the protected elements can be restored to their original appearance and materials. For purposes of this condition, the addition of a fish screen to the structure in a manner that merely changes or masks the original appearance of the structure shall be of no consequence. PAGE 3 OF 3 - EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 94-022 0135-2128 The required notice under this section shall include plans showing the details of the proposed installation, including what changes would be required to the surface of the protected elements. 3. Any alteration that would improve the operating efficiency of the project such as by modernizing the operating functions of the protected elements, such as by the electrification of previously mechanized functions or by the installation of remote sensing devices, shall be allowed without review under the Historic Preservation Ordinance by the Historical Landmarks Commission, but with 30 days notice to the Historic Landmarks Commission by and through the County Planning Division, provided that such installation, operation or maintenance does not irreversibly alter the engineering design of the protected elements. Upon the passage of 30 days without adverse response from the County Planning Division and/or Historic Landmarks Commission, it shall be conclusively presumed that no review of the proposed changes is required. Any such installation would be considered to not irreversibly alter the protected elements if the installation did not require removal of portions of the structure that would alter the structure's outline or if after removal of the installation the protected elements can be restored to their original appearance and materials. For purposes of this condition, the addition of remote sensing equipment to the structure in a manner that merely changes or masks the original appearance of the structure shall be of no consequence. The required notice under this section shall include plans showing the details of the proposed installation, including what changes would be required to the surface of the protected elements. 4. Ordinary maintenance shall be allowed without review under the Historic Preservation ordinance. 5. Any irreversible alteration or demolition of the protected elements not specifically permitted under conditions heretofore described shall be reviewed under the Historic Preservation ordinance by the Historical Landmarks Commission. PAGE 4 OF 3 - EXHIBIT B TO ORDINANCE NO. 94-022 0135-2129 Exhibit "C" CONFLICTS ANALYSIS AND ESEE DETERMINATION FOR BULL CREEK DAM BASIC INFORMATION ADDRESS: Tumalo Reservoir Road TAX ADDRESS: 16-11-33 TL 2700 SW 1/4, SW 1/4 OWNERSHIP: Public (State of Oregon) EXISTING USE: A dam (OS&C) PLAN DESIGNATION: Agriculture/Forest INVENTORY INFORMATION This site was added to the inventory of the County's historic sites by Ordinance 92-018, and the inventory information included below was submitted in support of that earlier inventory listing. It is repeated here to provide context to the conflicts and ESEE analysis. LOCATION: At Tumalo Reservoir beneath Bull Creek Dam Bridge. Tax lot 2700 in 16-11-33; SW 1/4, SW 1/4. QUALITY: Dam made of concrete with iron railings, excellent condition. QUANTITY: One of two examples of industrial development regarding irrigation projects. CONFLICTING USE DETERMINATION AND ANALYSIS Demolition or alteration of the dam. Despite earlier concerns expressed by the Tumalo Irrigation District about the necessity of installing fish screens at the diversion point, it appears that if the diversion at the headgate of the canal is screened, such alterations will not be necessary at this site. Accordingly, the conflict with fish resources that was found to exist at the Tumalo Diversion Dam and Headgate site is not present here. ESEE DETERMINATION ECONOMIC: The existence of the dam allows for the economic use of the surrounding property. The site has been developed to provide irrigation water important to the agricultural sector of the local economy. Exterior alteration may provide the owner with a structure better able to meet economic needs. Both demolition and exterior alteration may provide for a higher, better economic use of the property. Available information does not indicate any proposals or PAGE 1 OF 2 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE 94-022 0135-2130 plans of such a nature, however. Historic resources serve as the industrial base for heritage tourism, a growing component of local and state economies. SOCIAL: The building of the dam played an important part in the lives of the workers in nearby Tumalo. Protection of the site as an historic resource contributes to the livability and quality of life in the County. The site is part of the agricultural and cultural history of the area. Protection of the site as an historic resource provides educational, recreational and aesthetic benefits. The Tumalo system was important in Central Oregon's history as the most troubled of the Carey Act projects. The site is an important element of the story. The design reflects irrigation engineering technology of the historic period. ENVIRONMENTAL: Removal or alteration of the dam would produce serious consequences to property owners in the vicinity. moderate to extensive consequences would occur to the visual environment, including impacts to scenic vistas. ENERGY: No energy consequences. CONCLUSIONS Both the historic site and the conflicting uses are important relative to one another. The resource is part of the agricultural and economic history of central Oregon. In addition, the structure is significant as an example of early irrigation engineering. The ESEE consequences analysis indicate the historic attributes of the site would suffer if not protected to some degree. On the other hand, to fully protect the site (3A) by precluding any alteration or demolition would place undue constraints on the owners and would fail to recognize the dynamic nature of the site. Accordingly, the conflicting uses shall be balanced so as to place limits on each of the conflicting uses but in a limited way so as to protect the resource to an acceptable extent ( 3C) . Therefore, the site shall be protected under the Historic Preservation Ordinance, subject to the conditions set forth below. 1. The aspects of this historic site to be protected shall include the concrete elements of the project dam shown on the original engineering drawings. In addition, any existing mechanical appurtenances to the protected concrete elements for the control of water flow shall be protected. 2. Installation, operation and maintenance (including repair, in- kind replacement and cleaning) of fish screening devices, as defined, described or required under ORS 498.248 and fishways as defined and as may be required under ORS 498.268, shall be allowed without review under the Historic Preservation Ordinance by the Historical Landmarks Commission, but with 30 days notice to the Historic Landmarks Commission by and through the County Planning Division, provided that such installation, operation or maintenance does not irreversibly alter the engineering design of the protected elements. Upon the passage of PAGE 2 OF 2 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE 94-022 0135-2131 30 days without adverse response from the County Planning Division and/or Landmarks Commission, it shall be conclusively presumed that no review of the proposed changes is required. Any such installation would be considered to not irreversibly alter the protected elements if the installation did not require removal of portions of the structure that would alter the structure's outline or if after removal of the installation the protected elements can be restored to their original appearance and materials. For purposes of this condition, the addition of a fish screen to the structure in a manner that merely changes or masks the original appearance of the structure shall be of no consequence. The required notice under this section shall include plans showing the details of the proposed installation, including what changes would be required to the surface of the protected elements. 3. Any alteration that would improve the operating efficiency of the project such as by modernizing the operating functions of the protected elements, such as by the electrification of previously mechanized functions or by the installation of remote sensing devices, shall be allowed without review under the Historic Preservation Ordinance by the Historical Landmarks Commission, but with 30 days notice to the Historic Landmarks Commission by and through the County Planning Division, provided that such installation, operation or maintenance does not irreversibly alter the engineering design of the protected elements. Upon the passage of 30 days without adverse response from the County Planning Division and/or Historic Landmarks Commission, it shall be conclusively presumed that no review of the proposed changes is required. Any such installation would be considered to not irreversibly alter the protected elements if the installation did not require removal of portions of the structure that would alter the structure's outline or if after removal of the installation the protected elements can be restored to their original appearance and materials. For purposes of this condition, the addition of remote sensing equipment to the structure in a manner that merely changes or masks the original appearance of the structure shall be of no consequence. The required notice under this section shall include plans showing the details of the proposed installation, including what changes would be required to the surface of the protected elements. 4. Ordinary maintenance shall be allowed without review under the Historic Preservation ordinance. 5. Any irreversible alteration or demolition of the protected elements not specifically permitted under conditions heretofore described shall be reviewed under the Historic Preservation ordinance by the Historical Landmarks Commission. PAGE 3 OF 2 - EXHIBIT C TO ORDINANCE 94-022 0135-2132 Exhibit "D" FINDINGS OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SUPPORTING ADOPTION OF CONFLICTS AND ESEE ANALYSIS FOR BULL CREEK DAM AND TUMALO DIVERSION DAM AND HEADGATE OF THE FEED CANAL Procedural Background On March 18, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) adopted Ordinance 92-018, which adopted an inventory of significant historic buildings and sites. At that time, there was a list of 19 sites with insufficient information upon which to make an inventory decision. The Fall River site was amongst those sites. Also on March 18, 1992, the Board adopted Ordinance 92-019, an ESEE Analysis of Inventoried Historic Sites. At that time in response to concerns raised by the Tumalo Irrigation District, the Board deferred a final conflicts and ESEE analysis of the Bull Creek Dam and the Tumalo Diversion Dam and Headgate of the Feed Canal. The District raised concerns about accepting the Landmarks Commission's recommendation to protect both sites under the County's Historic Preservation Ordinance as a "3C" site. Testimony indicated both structures would require alteration to comply with new regulations of the Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Department of Water Resources. Both sites were, however, placed on the County's Inventory of Privately Owned Goal 5 Historic Resources with the adoption of Ordinance 92-018, on March 18, 1992. On August 17, 1993, the Land Conservation and Development Commission issued Remand Order 93 -RA -883 requiring, among other things, that Deschutes County complete the Goal 5 process for the Bull Creek Dam and the Tumalo Diversion Dam sites and that it adopt a policy for the sites with insufficient inventory information as to when the inventory process on those sites would continue. The Fall River site has now been added to the County's Goal 5 historic inventory by Ordinance 94-006. (Findings under that ordinance further detail the background of that listing and are incorporated herein by reference.) Accordingly, the County is now required to complete the Goal 5 process by analyzing conflicting uses and the ESEE consequences of protecting or not protecting the historic attributes of the site. The purpose of the Fall River Ice House conflicts and ESEE analysis adopted under this ordinance is to fulfill that requirement. Similarly, Goal 5 requires that the Goal 5 process be completed for the Bull Creek Dam and Tumalo Diversion Dam sites, as was specified by LCDC in its remand order. The purpose of the conflicts and ESEE analyses for the Bull Creek and Tumalo Diversion Dam adopted under this ordinance is to fulfill that requirement. New information provided by the Tumalo Irrigation District in January 1994 indicates that screening devices will not be installed at the Bull Creek Dam site, so the reason for the original deferral of that site from completing the Goal 5 process no longer exists. PAGE 1 OF 2 - EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 94-022 0135-2133 Compliance with Goal 5 Goal 5 is met through the amendment of the Comprehensive Plan by the adoption of the site-specific ESEE decision and through the County's Historic Preservation ordinance, codified as Chapter 2.28 of the Deschutes County Code, and through the plan of action set forth herein. Goal 5 and the Oregon Administrative Rules, OAR 660-16-010 et seq. have been followed in this process as follows: (a) The Bull Creek Dam and Tumalo Diversion Dam sites were adopted as inventoried sites under Ordinance No. 92-018. The Fall Creek Ice House site was inventoried under Ordinance No. 94-006. As part of those listings, quantity, quality and location of each historic site was determined as required by OAR 660-16-000. (b) Conflicting uses for all three sites have been identified on a site specific basis according to OAR 660-60-005 in the individual conflicts and ESEE analysis documents adopted by this ordinance. (c) The Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) consequences of designating these sites or not designating these sites as historic resources has been examined in the individual conflicts and ESEE analysis documents adopted by this ordinance. (d) As part of the ESEE process, a determination has been made as to each of these sites, based upon the ESEE analysis, to balance the conflicts inherent in historic preservation of the site and unconstrained use of the site. A program to meet the goal has been adopted in the conclusion of each ESEE statement describing how the ESEE determination will be implemented. In all cases that will be accomplished through the County's historic preservation ordinance, subject to any modifications set forth in the ESEE document. PAGE 2 OF 2 - EXHIBIT D TO ORDINANCE 94-022 Re: ESEEs for Tumalo Irrigation: Projects. Your file No. 4-214 Dear Bruce: I went over the conditions you''drafted °ate." hxed' o - w.y. office on Friday with the Tumalo Irrigation District manager. With the knowledge that there is little chance that the Board of County Commissioners will exclude the installation of fish screens or electrification of mechanical functions from either notice or review, which is what the District requests, ,the conditions are better than those originally proposed.