Loading...
2001-409-Minutes for Meeting April 26,2001 Recorded 5/4/2001VOL: CJ2001 PAGE: 409 RECORDED DOCUMENT STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF DESCHUTES *02001-409 * Vol -Page Printed: 05/09/2001 10:00:18 DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE (This certificate constitutes a part of the original instrument in accordance with ORS 205.180(2). Removal of this certificate may invalidate this certificate and affect the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence in any legal proceeding.) I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received and duly recorded in Deschutes County records: DATE AND TIME: DOCUMENT TYPE: May. 4, 2001; 1:11 p.m. Public Hearing (CJ) NUMBER OF PAGES: 32 MARY SUE PENHOLLOW DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK Kr -Y -,;i`it. cv M 2001 ES 01 Vbg p , Board of Commissioners 1130 N.W. Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 • Fax (541) 388-4752 www.deschutes.org Tom De Wolf Dennis R. Luke MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING Mike Daly DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2001 Chair Tom De Wolf opened the hearing at 4: 00 p.m. Present were Commissioners Tom De Wolf, Dennis Luke and Mike Daly; also present were George Read, Paul Blikstad and Kevin Harrison, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Tom Blust and Gary Judd, Road Department; and approximately 40 citizens. The purpose of the public hearing was for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners to take oral and written testimony from the public on a decision to Be made by them on an appeal of the County Hearings Officer's decision regarding a conditional use application submitted by High Desert Development Partners, LLC for a Conceptual Master Plan for a proposed 650 -acre resort. The Board of Commissioners is hearing the appeal de novo on two conditions of approval. Commissioner De Wolf read an opening statement, giving an overview of the purpose of the public hearing and some background on the issue to date. DEWOLF: This is a public hearing on an appeal of a conditional use application by High Desert Development Partners for a conceptual master plan for a destination resort. It does say this in here, but this is the one that is known as Huntington Ranch. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 1 of 25 Pages Huntington Ranch Developmen Se onda Emergenc Access Issues Thursday, April 26, 2001 uarlity Services Performed with Pride DEWOLF: The applicant has requested approval of a 640 -acre destination resort on land that is zoned exclusive farm use, alfalfa sub -zone, and multiple -use agriculture, with a destination resort combining zone. The applicant has the burden of proving that they are entitled to the land use approval sought. The standards applicable to the applications are listed in the overhead that will be shown soon. Applicable Procedures. The procedures applicable to this hearing provide that the Board of County Commissioners will hear testimony, receive evidence and consider the testimony, evidence and information submitted into the record. The record as developed to this point is available for public review at this hearing, and it's also available at our Community Development Department during normal working hours. All information on this is wide-open to the public. Testimony and evidence at this hearing must be directed toward the criteria set forth in the notice of this hearing, also listed on the overhead. Testimony may be directed to any other criteria in the comprehensive land use plan of the County or land use regulations that any person believes apply to the decision. Failure on the part of the any person to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to afford the Board of County Commissioners and parties to this proceeding an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal at the Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue. The Order of Presentation. The hearing will be conducted in the following order. Deschutes County staff will give a staff report of the prior proceedings and the issues before the Board. The applicant will then have an opportunity to make a presentation and offer testimony into evidence. Opponents will then be given a chance to make a presentation, as well as anybody else - this isn't just proponents and opponents; but any interested party or anyone who has questions. After both proponents and opponents have made a presentation, the proponents will be allowed to make a rebuttal presentation. At the Board's discretion, opponents may be recognized for a rebuttal presentation. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 2 of 25 Pages Huntington Ranch Development - Secondary Emergency Access Issues Thursday, April 26, 2001 DEWOLF: At the conclusion of this hearing, the staff will be afforded an opportunity to make any closing comments. The Board may limit the time period for presentations. Questions to and from the Chair - that would be me - may be entertained at any time at the Board's discretion. Cross-examination of witnesses by anyone in the audience will not be allowed. If a person wishes a question to be asked of any person during that person's presentation, please direct those questions to the Chair after being recognized. If you really feel you need to ask a question at that time, let me know by raising your hand. The Chair is free to decide whether to ask such questions of the witnesses. The one thing that we require in any hearing of land use issues or otherwise is that everyone will conduct himself or herself in a respectful manner. Anyone who makes any sort of personal attack on anyone else, including the Board, County staff, the applicants or the opponents, will be cut off from further oral testimony today, and will be limited to submitting written testimony. Pre-Hearinp_ Contacts. I will now direct a question to the other members of the Board of County Commissioners. If any member of the Board, including me, has had any pre - hearing contacts, now is the time to state the substances of those pre -hearing contacts, so that all persons present at this hearing can be fully advised of the nature and context of those contacts, and with whom contact was made. Are there any contacts that need to be disclosed? LUKE: Just the file that came from staff. DALY: I have nothing. DEWOLF: Very early on, perhaps a year or year and one-half ago, one of the gentleman who may not even be a principal in this, David Day with DVA & Associates, had a brief conversation with me about the potential for this. I don't recall any specific details. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 3 of 25 Pages Huntington Ranch Development - Secondary Emergency Access Issues Thursday, April 26, 2001 DEWOLF: At this time, do any members of the Board need to set forth the substance of any ex -parte observations or facts of which this body should take notice concerning this appeal? Ex -parte means any contact that has taken place with either supporters or opponents relative to this particular application. LUKE: I have none. DALY: None. DEWOLF: I don't believe that I have, either. Any person in the audience has the right during the hearings process to rebut the substance of any communication or observation that has been placed in the record. Does anyone have anything that they would like to rebut, or anything that you feel we might not have remembered that someone has had communication with us about? (There was no response from the audience) DEWOLF: Not seeing any, I'll move on. Challenges of Bias, Pre -judgment or Personal Interest. Any party prior to the commencement of the hearing may challenge the qualifications of the Board of County Commissioners as a whole or any member thereof of bias, pre judgment or personal interest. This challenge must be documented with specific reasons supported by fact. I will accept any challenges now. (There was no response from the audience.) Not seeing any challenges, I will skip the next paragraph and will proceed with a statement that I would like to read. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 4 of 25 Pages Huntington Ranch Development - Secondary Emergency Access Issues Thursday, April 26, 2001 DEWOLF: I want to clarify that in this hearing, we're only here regarding the two secondary access issues, and no other evidence is relevant during this particular hearing. That's the only thing that this hearing is dealing with. Commissioner Luke then asked for a map to view; an oversized map was provided to him by Paul Blikstad at this time. This map is already a part of the record. We will leave the record open at the end of tonight's proceedings for written testimony and response to today's testimony. We will leave the record open for seven days for further written testimony. The applicant will then be given time to respond. These opportunities are allowed according to state law. The Board will then set a date for its decision at that time, based on the amount of additional material that has been submitted and what needs to be gone through. We will begin with a staff report. Paul Blikstad then read his staff report (Exhibit A, 2 pages, attached). BLIKSTAD: For the record that the applicant has waived 150 -day review period, so there is no time crunch at this time. There is a letter from the BLM (Bureau of Land Management) on record, indicating their preferred access is an existing road known as Sheridan Road. (He referred to map posted on the wall.) The road basically follows the canal. That's the general location of Sheridan Road, and a portion of it toward Highway 126 is actually paved; another part is graveled. This is BLM's preferred alternative for a temporary secondary access road, as it is an existing road and doesn't require any new construction. Janet Hutchison of BLM is here to discuss this issue further if the Board has any questions. We concur with the applicant's revised wording for condition #30. At the time of the close of record it wasn't clear which alternative could be used, and it was only very late in the comment period that we got the letter from BLM saying that this is really their preferred alternative. We agree with applicant. DALY: Does the alternative preferred by BLM indicate if it's east of the canal or west of the canal? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 5 of 25 Pages Huntington Ranch Development - Secondary Emergency Access Issues Thursday, April 26, 2001 BLIKSTAD: Could I let Janet speak to that? DALY: You bet. Was the letter from ODOT? I just read it. It said that if they were going to come out east of the canal, certain things would need to be done at Highway 126. BLIKSTAD: I think the sight distance situation is not an issue with that existing paved road, but I'll let Tom Walker speak to this. I think that even the Oregon Military Department uses it. It's staff s opinion that the applicant's proposed wording is acceptable. As you know, we have approximately a two-year process out there on what is going to happen with the south end of Redmond, specifically in regarding to road connections. If 19th Street is a solution, we think it can work. It may involve some construction on the part of the County. We think the applicant's proposed wording can work. If the applicant is required to get the access and right-of-way in place prior to final master plan approval, that in essence will probably mean that the two- year window of the study going on in Redmond would have to conclude before any final master plan can be submitted. LUKE: Can I ask a process question? Tonight we'll have a hearing and a decision may be made on the access road. The destination resort has been approved by the Hearings Officer; there could be an appeal, but I haven't seen an appeal come through. It could go to LUBA, but I haven't seen that either. DEWOLF: No. It's all done. LUKE: So, now they'll have to start submitting their plans and specific items that were called for by the Hearings Officer's opinion, following land use laws. What kind of process time are we in? BLIKSTAD: It would depend on whether we determine a hearing is needed on the final master plan. You're looking at probably twelve to fourteen weeks. If it's an administrative decision, which is what we did originally on Eagle Crest III, it could be as soon as six to seven weeks. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 6 of 25 Pages Huntington Ranch Development - Secondary Emergency Access Issues Thursday, April 26, 2001 LUKE: Then, from there, what happens before construction? BLIKSTAD: They would need to get site plan approval. My understanding that probably one or both of the golf courses would go first, and that would require site plan review. LUKE: And that takes how long? BLIKSTAD: We could probably do those administratively, so six to seven weeks. UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: Asked for clarification where 19th Street is on the map. LUKE: Pointed it out, and said that part of it will be in the city. Why Sheridan Road? JANET HUTCHISON (of BLM) The military currently uses that, and it's upgraded mostly to the standards that they need for the temporary secondary access road. There is gravel on it. The existing right-of-way grant, the way it shows on the map, part of it is there and part isn't, so it would entail about 1/2 mile of new construction. We prefer not to do that. We won't make a decision until our document is completed and is out for public comment. LUKE: You are actually going through a study of this whole area right now? HUTCHISON: Yes, it's the revision of the Brothers -La Pine Resource Management Plan. This is expected to be done in December of 2003. LUKE: George Read (of Community Development) has brought up that maybe BLM will be interested in the County maybe vacating some of its roads in that area after your study is done. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 7 of 25 Pages Huntington Ranch Development - Secondary Emergency Access Issues Thursday, April 26, 2001 HUTCHISON: Possibly part of Morrow Road from the canal east. BLIKSTAD: (Pointing to a road on the oversized map) I've driven this road, and it isn't this straight. It would involve significant work. GEORGE READ: I'd like to clarify a couple of things. The issue is, why wait to have the secondary access road approved, is the primary question. What has happened is the Bureau of Land Management and the National Guard, as you have heard, are doing plans; the City of Redmond would like to do more planning for roads and other uses in the south Redmond area, including access to the Fairgrounds and maybe ultimate long-range expansion. ODOT (Oregon Department of Transportation) is doing its Highway 97 corridor plan, which affects how people travel on the Highway 97 corridor. Redmond would like to look at some urban reserve land, planning longer than twenty years because this are a very rapidly growing area and the plans right now are only for twenty years. The county is involved in trying to pull that together, because it is actually the review agency for a lot of that stuff, as least where local land use regulations are concerned, and the Board directed us to try to find a solution. The regional community solutions team, which is a bunch of state agencies, got together and talked about what we can do to fix this. There was a consensus - building process, and some of you attending some of those meetings, to look at a process over the few years to analyze all of the uses, roads and demands in the area to try to come to some consensus, and also to develop a program to involve the public in making decisions as to where we will end up with this. READ: So, to require the applicant to wait for that process to end before they can get their final master plan - and they can't turn any dirt until they get their final master plan approval - would delay it a long time. So that's the issue. The criteria for the secondary access road is a discretionary criteria. Basically, our code requires one paved access to everything. The secondary access is for fire reasons, and it doesn't have to be a paved road. Finally, the planning director or the public works director, Tom Blust, can require an additional standard County road access if we determine that it is needed. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 8 of 25 Pages Huntington Ranch Development - Secondary Emergency Access Issues Thursday, April 26, 2001 READ: Well, this is a development with up to 700 units in it, and to have one access with an emergency access did not seem adequate to us, so we recommended a secondary paved access. However, the recommendation of Community Development was before a twenty-five percent build -out, or about 175 units; public works said before 350 units; the Hearings Officer made a finding that before it was half built -out, they needed to build the road. But, the fact is that this is a discretionary road. It doesn't come until later on in the development, and that the development can't proceed beyond 350 units until this road is built, kind of makes this a little different criteria than your typical criteria where you have to have these things worked out ahead of time. Secondarily, what we do have to analyze is whether the access points that might be chosen will work. That's what the applicant has proposed. The conditions say that they have to show, prior to the final master plan, that the access points have to work. So that was still left in there, just the way the Hearings Officer had it. The only thing is that they don't have to determine the actual location of the road on the BLM land before they file their final master plan; but they do have to analyze the access points to show where it could end up on the highway. The other thing, and I think Paul (Blikstad) misspoke, is that the final master plan, according to what is proposed here, does require a full -on public review; it is not necessarily just an administrative decision. You have to have notice and you have to look at it full the full process. When they do put this together and do the analysis and decide where it will actually connect to the other public roads - 19th Street or the highway - that will be available for full public review. It's not an administrative decision. DEWOLF: With a public hearing? READ: It does not specify a pubic hearing. Under our regular laws, the planning director has the ability to approve, deny or send to a hearing at his discretion. However, the Board could require one if desired as a part of this process. DEWOLF: I'm not saying that at this point, no. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 9 of 25 Pages Huntington Ranch Development - Secondary Emergency Access Issues Thursday, April 26, 2001 READ: That's really what is in front of you. I want to make sure you know that the application for the approval isn't appealed, only these two conditions of approval - the one for the exact location of the temporary secondary access road; and then the final location of the secondary access road after 50% build -out. DEWOLF: The original application was approved by the Hearings Officer with the thirty - some conditions, and that as a whole was not appealed, correct? READ: That is correct. DEWOLF: So that is no longer subject to appeal; that time has passed. READ: That is correct. DEWOLF: So all we're dealing with are items 30 and 31. LUKE: (To Janet Hutchnson.) Now, the proposed temporary alternate is Sheridan Road, from your standpoint. HUTCHISON: That's our preference, yes. LUKE: Is it your preferred choice permanently? HUTCHISON: I think the military may have some problems if it was the preferred permanent road. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 10 of 25 Pages Huntington Ranch Development - Secondary Emergency Access Issues Thursday, April 26, 2001 LUKE: So if it's not the preferred permanent road, is there going to be a problem if perhaps 19th Street was selected, through negotiations with the City of Redmond and Deschutes County, as the alternate, paralleling the railroad tracks and down to a road coming west out of the subdivision? Would there be a problem with them using that access, or are you suggesting that might be closed? Do you see a problem with this being a permanent secondary access in the future? As we go through this process, we don't want them to come forward in the future asking that this to be a permanent secondary access, and BLM says it won't work. You are going through your planning process. To me it makes a lot of sense to at least have a suggestion of where this thing should go, so that in your planning process you can take that into account. 1 UTCHISON: They are looking at the alternative of 19th Street in the planning process as well as any recommendations that they receive from community solutions team, which is what George was referring to. BLM will analyze that. READ: Maybe I can speak to that just a little bit. One of the things that looks like it will be a really nice thing to come out of this community solutions process is that we all have various criteria. ODOT has criteria, the County has local land use criteria, the state has statewide land use criteria, and the BLM has criteria as well. What we are looking at is trying to combine our processes for looking at those criteria, put all our criteria together and have one process, so that it is one public review process for that whole planning effort. So, the goal - and hopefully we can get there - is to have it be one solution that we all agree to as part of one process. LUKE: George, could you take a moment to explain to the audience what the community solutions program is, and what it is doing. READ: The community solutions program is actually a program of Governor Kitzhaber. The theory is that instead of doing things piecemeal, dealing with one agency over here and one over there, that we try to collaborate and work together through one process, combining our processes. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 11 of 25 Pages Huntington Ranch Development - Secondary Emergency Access Issues Thursday, April 26, 2001 READ: We were really successful in La Pine through our Regional Problem Solving program, and that was actually some of the impetus for the whole statewide community solutions program of bringing everyone together and working through one process instead of having disparate processes where conclusions can end up in different places at different times. LUKE: In real language, you are actually bringing different agencies together into the same room to talk about the same things at the same time to try to get all the ideas together. READ: Yes. By the way, the County did put $30,000 into that planning process, and the state put $25,000 into it, so it is a funded planning process, and we hope it will work. NANCY CRAVEN: (Attorney, representing the applicant.). I'm joined here by Tom Hicks, who is a member of the development team; Scott Denny and Tom Walker from W & H Pacific. I appreciated George's comments, because I think it provided a little bit of context for you as to why we filed this appeal. We got the approval from the Hearings Officer, and in reviewing the conditions felt that they needed to be clarified, and that's why we filed the appeal. We've limited it to the two topics that you have spoken about, and frankly only one of them probably requires a significant amount of conversation. We've also, since the Hearings Officer's decision, entered into settlement agreements with the Boonesborough Neighborhood, the Sisters Forest Planning Committee, and ARLU DeCo. We've done so largely because we are all in agreement that we'd like to see the access issues here head to the north and work collaboratively with BLM to accomplish a result that is consistent with what George described to you. The first issued that we've appealed on is the identification of the temporary emergency secondary access. The only issue we've raised here is one of location, as you just discussed. The Hearings Officer I think just didn't catch the last letter from BLM that related to that issue. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 12 of 25 Pages Huntington Ranch Development - Secondary Emergency Access Issues Thursday, April 26, 2001 CRAVEN: The first one dealt with the existing access, and if you read the letter from the regional manager, I think you'll find that perhaps they realized that the access point that heads directly west to the highway is, in fact, not an existing road. They want us to use Sheridan Road. Now, this would be for emergency purposes only. It will get gated with a breakaway gate, and likely will never be used. It's only going to be there for a temporary purpose and time, and for emergency uses only. LUKE: Is it gated now? CRAVEN: Sheridan Road? LUKE: Yeah. CRAVEN: No, I don't believe so. LUKE: You're going to gate a road that the public has been used to using? CRAVEN: It would be gated at our boundary only. With regard to that, we would like you to acknowledge the letter from BLM that was submitted but not caught by the Hearings Officer, and adopt the BLM's recommended temporary emergency secondary access. You did receive, as Commissioner Daly stated, a letter from ODOT that recommended perhaps some improvements to Highway 126 with regard to that access. We've talked with ODOT, and Tom Walker has had conversations with them, so you may want to ask him to elaborate on this. Our understanding through conversations with ODOT is that they were looking at the wrong road with regard to its connection at Highway 126. Also, I don't think they realized that this road is going to be gated and that our folks are not going to use it except in times of emergency, such as a wildfire. So, we're not intending to put traffic at that intersection of 126 and Sheridan Road. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 13 of 25 Pages Huntington Ranch Development - Secondary Emergency Access Issues Thursday, April 26, 2001 DALY: They are aware, or they aren't aware? CRAVEN: I don't believe that when they wrote that letter to you that they were aware of those circumstances, but they are now. The letter came from Peter Russell, and we left lots of messages for him but haven't connected. His letter referred us to David Boyd, and that's whom we've been talking with. DEWOLF: But you don't have anything from them in writing at this point to clarify this? CRAVEN: (She shook her head "no".) The second issue, and we've filed this after conversations with George Read, is in regard to trying to clarify the Hearings Officer's decision. So, frankly the permanent secondary access road is consistent with the long-range planning process that we're all involved in. The Hearings Officer required that prior to the final master plan, we identify evidence of where the location of that permanent secondary access is going to be. We can't do that because of the long-range planning process now underway. George (Read) recommended, and we agree, that by modifying that condition slightly so that we are required to identify the probably connections from the BLM land to a City of Redmond, County or state road, and study the traffic impacts in the event that BLM selects one or more of those alternatives, that the land use planning process, which is an issue for you in regard to an emergency secondary access, will be accomplished. So, what we'd like to do is not wait for the long-range planning process to be completed for us to identify the permanent secondary access. DEWOLF: Can you state that again? CRAVEN: It's a question of timing. We do not need to wait for the planning process that is underway with the City of Redmond, BLM, you and the state for us to identify where the road is going to be located. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 14 of 25 Pages Huntington Ranch Development - Secondary Emergency Access Issues Thursday, April 26, 2001 DEWOLF: What you are saying is that you've got, with Sheridan, a temporary secondary access for emergency purposes only; and that there is no need to identify the permanent one in advance of the planning process that will take place, that would be a natural secondary access permanent solution. CRAVEN: We are agreeing as a part of the final master plan to identify the probable connections of that permanent point and study the traffic associated with that. But the exact location within the BLM property will not be identified prior to the final master plan. LUKE: What's the hammer? What hammer does the County have if we don't do something in the planning process if in the future the community solutions team identifies a certain route that we want you to use, and we want you to take that access. What's the hammer that says you have to do it? CRAVEN: We'll have a condition of approval that will require us to do it. We won't be able to build over 50% until we have that thing built. I think that the hammer of no more building is a pretty significant one. Our intent is to allow the project to move forward consistent with your planning process. You obviously have a hammer when needed consistent with the County Road Department's recommendations. LUKE: I've crossed the bridge at Morrow Road; although it is nicer than when it was just wood, it is marginal and not sufficient as a main bridge. Are you going to replace that bridge? Do you have an agreement with the canal company already? WALKER: We have worked repeatedly with the canal company on the crossing; the next step is to actually submit a final design. Obviously we need to get through this process before we proceed to that step. We've worked very carefully with them and BLM and the Bureau of Reclamation. DALY: Where is that crossing, Dennis? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 15 of 25 Pages Huntington Ranch Development - Secondary Emergency Access Issues Thursday, April 26, 2001 LUKE: You go from Deschutes Junction clear over to Powell Butte Highway, over the canal. As a matter of fact, they used to do that when the train depot used to be at Deschutes Junction. WALKER: The Oregon Military uses that bridge; they call it the Bailey Bridge. LUKE: I have a clarification question. The road you selected at 6585-C coming in, why wouldn't you come straight in on the west side of the canal? It's a straight road. WALKER: The applicant actually identified a road that was more east -west to come into the resort. Through a long planning process with BLM and the Oregon Military and others, dealing with wildlife issues and military operations, 6585-C seems to be preferred. CRAVEN: Now, we're still not through the BLM process, so Janet (Hutchison) and her team will determine what that access will be ultimately. We've identified 6585-C as our preference because of comments on wildlife and Oregon military operations. Chair DeWolf then opened the hearing for public comments. CHUCK MCGRAW: I'm the Senior Planner for the City of Redmond. In light of the political situation between the City and County, I decided to take this on. (He then read a two-page letter from Jo Anne Sutherland, Redmond City Manager, attached as Exhibit B.) When I read this I was not aware of the BLM decision on the secondary road. I also asked Randy Davis from Redmond Rural Fire Department to attend, but he was unable to come. We are concerned that if the secondary access road isn't improved, whichever road it is, it would be a problem during emergency fire situations. DEWOLF: You have a station at Roberts Field. Is there a direct connection to Sheridan from there? There's a runway that goes almost out to Sheridan Road. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 16 of 25 Pages Huntington Ranch Development - Secondary Emergency Access Issues Thursday, April 26, 2001 MCGRAW: There's an Oregon military road; there's also runway protection zone. You would need to talk with Carrie Novick (Manager of the Redmond Airport). I would assume that they would have to go all the way out to 126. LUKE: I don't think those fire engines can leave the airport. MCGRAW: I believe the fire engines would have to come out of the downtown station. DEWOLF: It would be quicker on 126 than on Sheridan. We're also talking about off of Powell Butte; you've got the north station of Bend that could respond. MCGRAW: Randy doesn't care where it is as long as he can get to it quickly. LUKE: The existing access road (shown on the oversized map by a blue line) that's there won't be closed, will it? WALKER: That's an access approved by BLM that meanders around. LUKE: If there is a wildfire, as you are evacuating out Sheridan Road, the fire trucks could still use this road to get towards the fire. WALKER: In all honesty, there are hundreds of roads all over that area. So you're right, there are all kinds of access. LUKE: If we left the record open, would you want to review this letter with this new information with your fire chief before you submit testimony? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 17 of 25 Pages Huntington Ranch Development - Secondary Emergency Access Issues Thursday, April 26, 2001 MCGRAW: I believe Randy would like to be able to look at the differences between the Sheridan Road access and the others. Our concern is that timing is important for this developer, and it is important to make sure where the alignments are, and being aware of the 50% build -out. If there is a way to do that that allows them to get to that 50% build -out, and we know where that alignment is - we being the jurisdictions involved in the community solutions team effort for the collaborative planning - I don't' think we'd have a problem with that. We just need to know for our own comfort level where that alignment is going to be, and I understand that the applicant is looking at a range of connections on to a given facility. That probably is just as important as an alignment. Our key issue is whatever you do, try to make it so we know within a fairly short period of time where that alignment is going to be. 19th Street with the City and the County is crucial in a regional context. LUKE: We come to conclusions and then talk about them hooking into it. MCGRAW: I believe they should be a party to the discussions when we get into the collaborative planning effort, because that is the best way to get to the quickest highway, west of the property. LUKE: Again, would you like us to leave the record open for a short period of time? MCGRAW: I would appreciate it, and I would get Randy Davis right on this. We will need to get some of the information from the record that we weren't a party to. DEWOLF: We would love to have continued great communication with the City of Redmond, as we always have enjoyed. A general discussion then occurred regarding the overall BLMplan. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 18 of 25 Pages Huntington Ranch Development - Secondary Emergency Access Issues Thursday, April 26, 2001 JOE SHELDON: I have concerns with the map. (He then referred to the oversized area map.) I'm a member at large of the Boonesborough Owners Association. Boonesborough people are very nervous about this whole development. Boonesborough corner to corner is 1.8 miles to the northeast corner of Boonesborough. You talk about going east; if you go west, you could tie up with a paved road in probably about two miles. We're extremely nervous that any traffic could be routed onto Morrow Road, right in the north side of Boonesborough. The logical route would be to take Morrow Road for a couple of blocks, then turn on McGrath Road, and cut down to Dale Road to get over to Deschutes Market Road. It's a very short route. LUKE: Why would they go that way? The main access will be off of Powell Butte Highway. To improve Morrow Road, from the BLM's standpoint, would take a lot of effort. The whole purpose of the secondary access road is to evacuate one way, and bring emergency vehicles in another. SHELDON: That sounds great. Given those conditions, can we have a statement in the record that Morrow Road going west would never be considered for any kind of access to Huntington Ranch. LUKE: Never is a long time. My father-in-law had a dairy farm since just after World War II, and we were kind of nervous when Boonesborough went in. We have no authority over that. We cannot tell BLM what they can do with their property. However, they don't like a lot of traffic out in that sensitive area either. DEWOLF: We can't make that kind of promise. To look at it logically, from a financial perspective, it makes no sense. SHELDON: Maybe if they run low on funds, they may want a short route for access. LUKE: The condition of approval is Road 6585-C. That is the road they have to approve. They cannot approve any other thing on BLM's property without permission. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 19 of 25 Pages Huntington Ranch Development - Secondary Emergency Access Issues Thursday, April 26, 2001 DEWOLF: They'd have to start all over in order to get a different access road. What we're identifying does not include Morrow Road. SHELTON: What you are saying is that there is no chance that Morrow Road going west will ever be used. DEWOLF: Going west from where it's identified on the map, that's correct. Not as part of this land use application. Now, if they were to make a different application at some point for some reason, like if they got really mad at you and wanted to put this road in just to spite you, they would have to go through a different land use process to create that. LUKE: And BLM would have to approve it, because it's their property. I don't think it would happen. SHELDON: Maybe that will help some of us be a little less nervous about this development. KATE KIMBALL: I'm with the Sisters Forest Planning Committee. I'm here to tell you that we did not file an appeal, although we considered it. Instead, as Nancy indicated, we entered into a settlement agreement with the applicant. This is a process comment. I want to apprise you that the settlement agreement covered habitat, water issues and road access. We are in discussions with them. wanted to let you know that we are working with them, and are very interested in this project and have some concerns which I hope will be worked out. LUKE: Have those settlement negotiations been brought to the County? Maybe we don't agree with them. Are they part of the record? KIMBALL: What we've had is paper delivered to me, and Nancy and I have talked a couple of times. It's been really exciting. I will provide you with a copy. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 20 of 25 Pages Huntington Ranch Development - Secondary Emergency Access Issues Thursday, April 26, 2001 LUKE: I have a question. Will this be a gated community? And will the road from Powell Butte be a public road, but dead ends at Huntington Road? Can the public continue to go north on Sheridan Road toward 126; will there be any tie-ins there for the public? TOM HICKS: I'm the managing member of High Desert Development Partners. In response to your question, the intent here for the secondary access, which George Read brought up, is tied to the 50% build out. I think it is important to remember that typically in this type of development we would be selling lots on the front end. The build -out of those lots could be five or ten years. Our intent would be to gate the secondary access so that the secondary access point, if it goes up towards 19th Street, would be only for residents so increased traffic is not created. Resort guests would use the primary access of Powell Butte Highway, and they may be given a pass or a temporary gate card to go out to Redmond, for example, but not necessarily for through traffic at this point. LUKE: Let's say that I live in Cimmaron City and I want to get to the Fairgrounds, and 19th Street has been extended down to where the existing access is. I could come out Powell Butte Highway and would get to your destination resort, and that road would not be gated, so I could drive into the resort. HICKS: There would be a guard gate at the main entrance. DEWOLF: Like at Eagle Crest? HICKS: Exactly. LUKE: But I could not then get over to 19th Street, if that is the extension of it, to go to Redmond. I'm still going to have to go clear back into town. So you'll have a road that dead -ends. One of the things I spoke with George Read about is that the permanent access road could go around the development and tie into the permanent secondary road; which the public could use, and would keep the public out of your development. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 21 of 25 Pages Huntington Ranch Development - Secondary Emergency Access Issues Thursday, April 26, 2001 DEWOLF: If the City and County agree that this is a good idea, we'd have to look at the traffic impacts to 19th Street. HICKS: We don't have a problem with that, but it's probably way out in the future. I'd like to bring up a couple of points. We've conversed with the BLM and Oregon military, and Sheridan Road is the best choice to use. It is in a condition right now to accommodate emergency vehicles. If it needs some improvements to bring it up to a certain level, we've worked hand-in-hand with the Redmond Fire Department, and in fact have agreed to put in a substation at Huntington Ranch for the Fire Department if and when they feel it's necessary. For the gentleman who got up to speak with respect to Deschutes Market Road, the distance is closer for us to go the way we are proposing. It accomplishes a major thing, and that is to have a separate direction than the primary access. LUKE: Currently you can pick up the road near the canal, the ditch rider's road, how does that connection happen at the bridge? People do use that on occasion. Will the ditch rider's road still be there? HICKS: You just cross over it. You go back down towards the property from that point. You cross it at the bridge; in our discussions with north unit, they actually want us to make it so people can't turn onto the ditch rider's road, as they don't want traffic on their road. TRACY BOYER: I live in Boonesborough. I ask that the final master plan be left open for public review and comment. DEWOLF: That will be a whole different process, and it will be open for public review and comment. BOYER: Will it be subject to appeal? Minutes of Public Hearing Page 22 of 25 Pages Huntington Ranch Development - Secondary Emergency Access Issues Thursday, April 26, 2001 KEVIN HARRISON: Yes. DEWOLF: My intention at this point is to leave the record open for any additional testimony for seven days, which would be 5:00 p.m. next Thursday, May 3. The applicant will have six days after that to respond, 5:00 p.m. on May 9th. That will allow the Board to have the entire record for about six days, and I suggest that we will probably be making a decision on this on the following Wednesday, May 161h LUKE: I sure would like to see the conditions that the applicant has agreed to with other parties before the record closes. CRAVEN: I'd like to submit into the record now the three settlement agreements that we did enter into with different folks. One is the Boonesborough Neighborhood; one is ARLU DeCo, and one is Sisters Forest Planning Committee. (Exhibit C, three pages attached.) I would also like, during the course of the next week, to work with Chuck to make sure that we get to him the agreement we already have with the Fire District in regard to fire station and those plans, so that we can coordinate with them. And I think we would like, as a part of our submittal, to propose some findings consistent with what Paul (Blikstad) mentioned, if you are to accept a modification to the conditions consistent with the conversations with George (Read) that we proposed some conditions for your Legal Counsel to review. DEWOLF: That sounds great. The thing that I'm looking for is that it seems very logical to me to not have this process be at cross-purposes with the planning process that is taking place. This seems very logical to me, although government doesn't always work logically. CRAVEN: That was the purpose of our appeal, and we will propose findings to Laurie (Craghead, County Legal Counsel) and see if we can work through them consistent with where we started out with this with George. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 23 of 25 Pages Huntington Ranch Development - Secondary Emergency Access Issues Thursday, April 26, 2001 LAURIE CRAGHEAD: I am worried that since the road is not identified that we could end up with another Eagle Crest notification issue, in terms of how far from the road we've provided notice. I haven't come to a final conclusion on this. CRAVEN: We've looked at that, and the roads that have been evaluated or identified so far as alternatives are not within 500 feet of any private property. But I will address that with you as well. UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: Regarding the proposed finding of Powell Butte Road, can the public have a chance to comment on them as well? CRAGHEAD: What she is asking that the findings be in the public record, and that the public has a chance to comment on those before the close of the written record. CRAVEN: It's typically difficult to draft the findings when we haven't seen all the evidence that might come in during the course of the next week. I'd be happy to make them available as soon as we can following closure of the record to the public. DEWOLF: But if we close the record to further testimony by the public, what good does it do the public to see those findings if they can't respond to them. CRAVEN: The record could stay open with regard to comments on the findings, but no new evidence. DEWOLF: So we will leave the record open for seven days for anything to come in; six days for the applicant to respond, plus findings. That puts us to Wednesday, May 9. At that point, we will allow the opportunity for people to respond to those findings only and no additional testimony until Monday, the 14th, at 5:00 p.m. CRAGHEAD: Please clarify what you mean by anything can come in until the 3rd. That's on these two issues only. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 24 of 25 Pages Huntington Ranch Development - Secondary Emergency Access Issues Thursday, April 26, 2001 DEWOLF: We don't meet on the third week; so we won't make a decision until May 23rd Okay, let's do this: The public has until May 3rd, 5:00 p.m., to submit additional testimony. On May 91h at 5:00 p.m. the applicant's response to additional testimony plus proposed conditions and findings is due. People will have an opportunity to respond to those findings until May 14th at 5:00 p.m. The applicant is to respond on May 16th at 5:00 p.m. The Board will make its decision on May 23rd DALY: Are you going to address the issue with the DOT letter? CRAVEN: Yes. We'll finalize and confirm resolution of that issue with ODOT as a part of our response. Chair Tom De Wolf then closed the oral testimony portion of the public hearing, and adjourned the meeting at 5:15 p.m. DATED this 26th of April 2001 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Tom DeWolf, Chair Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner ATTEST: MiAael M. Daly, C/nimissioner Recording Secretary Minutes of Public Hearing Page 25 of 25 Pages Huntington Ranch Development - Secondary Emergency Access Issues Thursday, April 26, 2001 Before the Board today is a public hearing on an appeal of the County Hearings Officer's decision of the Conditional use application submitted by High Desert Development Partners LLC for a Conceptual Master Plan for a proposed 640 -acre destination resort. The criteria relied upon by Staff and the Hearings Officer for review of this application is listed on the overhead. The conceptual master plan application is the first step in obtaining approval for a new destination resort. The second step in the review phase for the resort is Final Master Plan. If Final Master Plan approval is granted, the projects within the resort must then be reviewed through either site plan or subdivision applications. High Desert Development Partners submitted the application for CMP approval on October 6, 2000. The public hearing on the application was held on December 14, 2000, with the written record held open until January 12, 2001. The Hearings Officer (Karen Green) issued a written decision approving the CMP on March 6, 2001, listing 33 conditions of approval. The applicant submitted an appeal of the Hearings Officer's decision within the 12 -day appeal period. The Board determined it would hear the appeal de novo, but limited the appeal only to conditions of approval nos 30 and 31, which deal with the temporary secondary access and the ultimate permanent secondary access, respectively, based on the applicant's notice of appeal. Staff will address these conditions separately. Condition no. 30: I sc The literal reading of condition no. 30 appears to limit the temporary secondary access out of the resort to a road location that extends west and north from the resort property out to Highway 97. It is staffs understanding from discussion with BLM that the preferred alternative for temporary secondary access for the resort is actually an existing road that runs north and slighly east of the resort property along the irrigation canal and which is referred to as Sheridan Road. Staff concurs with the applicant's amended wording for this condition, based on BLM input. Staff-notes- 1men is no su ds is the// d. The-apptica CCS l K� (CCPyPc ig way 126 is 16 s (W -r -F -to-Y, xi Staff believes that itersectoon of High ay 426 is ;are 1114q � Atlo— the temporary secondary access will be sufficient. BOG 0( ,on ktC,- Condition no. 31: -16 I -A,;4 tv The applicant has recommended wording changes to this condition, the most important of which l :�-(o � S 4e,11'IP n oar• i� would be the difference between requiring that the applicant establish the exact location of the cc P4 Vpt permanent secondary access and obtain the necessary right of way and access permits for that road prior to final master plan submittal, and instead requiring the applicant to determine only the dOat secondary access road connection to either a City, County or State road (i. e. where a connection out of the resort would end up at a state, city or county road), and demonstrating that the necessary right of way and access permits can be issued (Staff believes this may involve perhaps obtaining a letter from the BLM stating they would grant the right of way and access permit). This is different than having the actual right of way grant in place. The Hearings Officer discussed the permanent secondary access on pages 24-25 of her decision. If the Board approves the applicant's request for changes to the wording of this condition, changes to the Hearings Officer's findings with respect to the criteria under the sections before you would need to be made. The letter from Peter Russell of ODOT has requested that the word "state" be dropped from the applicant's recommended wording under subsection "a" of condition no. 31. Mr. Russell has also requested additional language under condition no. 31 as outlined on page 2 of his letter. Staff is not sure that the added language will work, as it appears to limit the secondary access road connection for the resort to Highway at 19"' Street in Redmond. The applicant's traffic study that CV (,&,t , A _ 1� I/ c F 2— would be required for this connection may or may not show that the intersection will function at an acceptable level of service. Any questions for staff? Peter Russell (ODOT), Janet Hutchison (BLM) 7 es M0 o T � O Z 6& CITY OF REDMOND Community Development Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1130 NW Harriman Street Bend, Or. 97701-1925 RE: A-01-7 (CU -00-118- High Desert Development Partners) Dear Commissioners: 716 SW Evergreen PO Box 726 Redmond, OR 97756-0100 (541) 923-7721 Fax: (541) 548-0706 E-mail: cdd@redmond.or.us Web site: www.redmond.or.us On behalf of the City of Redmond, I wish to offer the following comments regarding the appeal of Conditions Numbers 30 and 31 of the Hearings Officer's decision on an application for a Conditional Master Plan for a 640 -acre destination resort. First, the City of Redmond wants to go on record as fully supporting the proposed destination resort planned by High Desert Developers. We feel that this development will contribute greatly to the overall economic well-being of the Bend -Redmond area. Second, the city supports the Hearings Officer's Condition No. 30, which requires a temporary, secondary access road be constructed across BLM land along an existing right-of-way prior to the commencement of combustible construction on the resort. In light of the ever-present fire danger in Central Oregon, this is a very important requirement that would help protect the health, safety and welfare of the various landowners in the area. The city also supports the intent of Condition No. 31 which requires the identification of the permanent secondary access road. In light of the newly organized collaborative planning effort between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Deschutes County, the Oregon Military Department, the City of Redmond, and the State of Oregon, this proposed road plays an important part in solving regional transportation issues. Because of the importance of these regional transportation issues, Redmond Mayor Ed Fitch is making a special trip to Washington D. C. in May to meet with the Director of the Bureau of Land Management in an attempt to speed up the Bureau's land use planning process. Again, in light of the extreme fire danger situation constantly facing Central Oregon, these conditions seem to be practical measures to ensure that the public's health, safety and welfare are addressed. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. �_Lj Planning Building Economic Development Code Compliance Sincerely Jo Anne Sutherland City Manager 0 MAR -21-01 02:01 PM 28D9.6297 541 330 6181 P.01 Sylvan Knolls-Boonesborough Property Owner's Association P.O. Box 5132 Bend, OR 97708 On March 5, 2001, the Deschutes County Hearings Officer approved the Conceptual Master Plan Application of High Desert Development Partners ("hereafter HDDP"). The Sylvan Knolls-Boonesborough Property Owner's Association ("hereafter SK -B PDX') was a party of the land use proceeding related to the approval of the conceptual master plan. -.._ .. To resvolve their difference and to avoid an appeal of the conceptual master plan by SK - B POA, SK -8 POA and HDDP agree to the following: By: 1. HDDP agrees to provide SK -B POA with all information and documents relevant to its application to the BLM for its secondary access from the resort and to include SK -B POA in any further discussions with the BLM on its secondary access. 2. HDDP agrees to appeal only those portions of the hearing officer's decision relating to temporary and permanent road access. 3. SK -B POA agrees not to appeal the hearing officer's approval of the conceptual m t p an approval (CU -00-118). � , r ... . • r. : • • • k_i Nancy Cravr, for the applicant DATE: 3 —2-Z " Z--<J� FROM : Wildlife Management Ins ate FAX NO. : 541-382-9372 Mar. 19 2001 11:30AM P1 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT On March 5, 2001, the Deschutes County Hearings Officer approved the Conceptual Master Plan application of High Desert Development Partners "hereafter HDDP_" Sisters Forest Planning Committee ("SFPC") was a party to the land use proceeding related to the approval of conceptual master plan. In order to resolve their differences and to avoid an appeal of the conceptual master plan by SFPC, SFPC and HDDP agree to the following: 1. The parties agree that SFPC may participate in the completion or resolution of the wildlife habitat/mitigation plan with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife that will address the no net loss of the wildlife habitat requirement contained in Section 18.113.070(D) of the Deschutes County Code. HDDP is prepared to discuss as a part of the wildlife habitat plan whether changes to its grazing rights are appropriate to assure adequate offsite mitigation. 2. HDDP's contract with Avion Water Company for domestic water requires compliance with state law and regulations. HDD? will insure that SFPC is provided with adequate information to demonstrate that Avion has complied with state law including mitigation requirements, if any, in its provision of water to HDDP. 3. HDDP agrees to provide SFPC with all information and documents relevant to its • application to 13LM for its secondary access from the resort and to include SFPC in any further discussions with BLM on its secondary access. 1 4. HDDP agrees to appeal only those portions of the Hearings Officer's decision relating to temporary and permanent road access. 5. SFPC agrees not to appeal the Hearings Officer's approval of the conceptual master plan approval (CU -00-118). /0. &,"', By y Cra en, or a applicant DATE: L oC • &�a� VV, Katharine W. Kimball, for SFPC DATE: ]Macintosh 1ID:tl sktop Folder:k251136 v2 - 5Erl'1.EW-N'1' AGREEME • MAR -19-01 MON 16:42 LOCAL FAVORITES PO. Box 1508 Sisters. OR 97759 541 - 549-1117 541 -548-6544 Board of Directors Bob Bates Bend Jeffrey Boyer Bend William Boyer • Sisters Ron Carainella Redmond William Kuhn Bend Howard Paine Sisters Ernest Poole La Pine 541 383 2089 P.01 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT On March 5, 2001, the Deschutes County Hearings Officer approved the Conceptual Master Plan application of High Desert Development Partners ("hereafter HDDP' ). The Alliance for Responsible Land Use -Deschutes County ("hereinafter "ARLU-DeCo") was a party to the land use proceeding related to the approval of conceptual master plan. In order to resolve their differences and to avoid an appeal of the conceptual master plan by ARLU-DeCo, ARLU-DeCO and HDDP agree to the following: 1. HDDP agrees to provide ARLU-DeCo with all information and gocuments relevant to its application to BLM for its secondary access from the resort and to include ARLU-DeCo in any further discussions with BLM on its secondary access. 2. HDDP agrees to appeal only those portions of the Hearings Officer's decision relating to temporary and permanent road access. 3. ARLU-DeCo agrees not to appeal the Hearings Officer's approval of the conceptual master plan approval (CU -00-118). By Nancy grave , for the applicant Jeff Boyer for ARLU-DeCO DATE: ? (� Z �� DATE:`` t l The Alliance for Responsible Land Use in Deschutes County