Loading...
2001-492-Minutes for Meeting May 23,2001 Recorded 6/15/2001VOL: CJ2001 PAGE: 492 RECORDED DOCUMENT STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF DESCHUTES *CJ2001-492 * Vol -Page Printed: 06/29/2001 15:19:44 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: Jun. 15, 2001; 3:09 p.m. Regular Meeting (CJ) NUMBER OF PAGES: 37 MARY SUE PENHOLLOW DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK KEYPUNCHED JUN 5 ` 1 20 S'-ANrVCD r JUN ES CIO?, /i L 17, 1 �q COUNT Y CLEr\KBoard of Commissioners 0 a A '.. -C 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 Mike Daly MINUTES OF MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, MAY 239 2001 Present were Commissioners Tom DeWolf, Dennis Luke and Mike Daly. Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Rick Isham and Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Jim Bonnarens and Tammy Credicott, Property Management; George Read, Chris Schmoyer, Damian Syrnyk, Paul Blikstad, Dennis Perkins, and Kevin Harrison, Community Development Susan Mayea Ross and Jenny Scanlon, Commissioners' Office. Also in attendance were Sue Brewster, Sheriff's Office; Marty Wynne, Finance Department; Scot Langton, Assessor's Office; Gary Smith, Mental Health; Timm Schimke, Solid Waste; media representatives Jason Carr, Z-21 TV; and Jeff Mullins, KBND Radio; and approximately twenty citizens. Chair Tom De Wolf brought the meeting to order at 10: 00 a. m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA A. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2001-059, Declaring the Results of the Election of May 15, 2001: the Passage of the Sheriffs Three-year Operating Levy. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 1 of 30 Pages Wednesday, May 23, 200lQuality Services Performed with Pride FA Sue Brewster indicated this is an item that she is pleased to bring before the Commissioners. LUKE: I move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. B. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Professional Services Contract between Deschutes County and Marc Williams for Psychiatric Services. Gary Smith indicated that the funding required for these services comes from ABHA (Accountable Behavioral Health Alliance), which is a regional mental health organization that has been working with Deschutes County for three years to beef up its psychiatric presence in Central Oregon. The funds total $1 OOM for three counties; but it has not been spent for three years as a suitable, willing psychiatrist had not been found. Dr. Williams will now fill that position. The total cost will be $86,400. There are two other contract psychiatrists working on a part-time basis; they are also paid out of ABHA dollars for the most part. LUKE: I move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 2. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on the Deschutes County Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2001-2002. Susan Mayea Ross explained that notice was published as required. There were a few changes; some are noted below. ■ Assessor's Office, page 2 - clarified the fee structure for other taxing districts and taxpayers - there is no charge to them to request information on themselves. Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2001 Page 2 of 30 Pages r ■ Clerk, page 34 - added IRS documents as a filing fee document; also added an e-mail setup fee for requests for labels and lists of names. ■ Administration, last page - County Administration has the authority to include or adopt emergency fees throughout the year; these now need to be incorporated in the fee schedule. Chair DeWolf asked Timm Schimke of Solid Waste to explain instituting a surcharge for litter control. Mr. Schimke said that there are uncovered load problems throughout the County around transfer station facilities and at the landfill. It costs approximately $100,000 per year now to pickup litter, through the inmate program. Employees will watch vehicles coming into the facility to make sure they are properly covered. This is a problem at all landfill and transfer locations. The County will pay minimum wage for bodies to pick up litter, mostly on the roads leading to the County's facilities. Mr. Schimke said he anticipates a $10 per load surcharge, which will be waived for those whose loads are properly covered and secured. Landfill employees will be handing out educational materials by about July 1, and will put the surcharge in place in sixty to ninety days. After the program begins, they will continue to hand out the educational material. Commissioner Daly asked if there are exceptions for loads that may not need to be covered. Mr. Schimke replied that the attendant would make a judgment call; this will be part of the educational process. Mike Maier asked if the attendants would tell the customers when they come into the facility, since they don't pay until they leave. Mr. Schimke said they would be told in advance as they come in. The landfill attendant may have to get the $10 fee up front. Mr. Maier said the County used to have a tarp program in place. Mr. Schimke said they will consider it again, but are attempting to recoup money that the County is now expending for cleanup. Chair DeWolf asked about purchasing a couple hundred tarps to give out at the beginning; Mr. Schimke replied that they would consider this. He said most haulers do follow the rules. They hope to have enough data later to know if the $10 fee is appropriate. The landfill fee will also be increased from $2 to $3 for yard debris. Chair DeWolf then opened the public hearing. Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2001 Page 3 of 30 Pages r Kevin Wayne of the Central Oregon Builders Association spoke. He said he has lobbied for the Builders' Association for over three years. The Association supports the fee schedule and the increases; it feels Deschutes County is very efficient and provides good service to members. Since no other testimony was offered, Chair De Wolf then closed the public hearing. Susan Mayea Ross said the final adoption is scheduled for June 27. 4. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Signature of Ordinance No. 2001-024, Identifying and Adopting Wildfire Hazard Zones According to AOR Chapter 629, Division 44. Kevin Harris gave an overview of the Ordinance (statement attached as Exhibit A). He said this is not a land use action, and there are no land use actions associated with this Ordinance. Chair DeWolf asked if there is a way to treat cedar shakes to make them non- flammable. Mr. Harrison replied yes, and that Dennis Perkins could explain this. Mr. Harrison further explained that a building permit is required when re- roofing; this was not previously required. There are four processes involved in determining a wildfire hazard zone: weather, slope, natural vegetation and the density of the vegetation. When these features are overlaid, a 7 or greater is a hazard zone. Most of Deschutes County is in this zone, excluding areas inside city limits, mining areas and geologic areas that don't have vegetation on them (i.e. lava fields). He further explained that staff suggests that the excluded areas should also be included so that the entire County would be included in the zone. This would ease administration and make everyone subject to the same rules. Commissioner Luke asked if subdivision CCR's now require shake roofing, would they have to change to allow alternatives. Mr. Harrison said the homeowner should be able to select an approved material. All homeowners' associations have been notified of this hearing, and that Dennis Perkins will do outreach with roofing contractors, along with a press release. There is no emergency clause written in the Ordinance. The first reading will be today, and the second will be in two weeks, along with adoption at that time. Chair De Wolf then opened the public hearing. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 4 of 30 Pages Wednesday, May 23, 2001 Gary Marshall, Assistant Chief, City of Bend Fire Marshal, spoke. He read a statement in support of the Ordinance (attached as Exhibit B). Commissioner Luke stated that the Fire Marshal said we would be banning this roofing. Mr. Marshall said it restricts new untreated roofs. Kevin Harrison explained that the Ordinance just adopts the map; that the restrictions already exist in the code. The roofing material will have to meet a class rating through the building code. Commissioner Luke asked if this means there will be no more untreated wood shake roofing. Mr. Marshall said that is the goal, and it needs to be done as a County. Untreated wood roofing threatens not just the structure, but also the area around it. If a wood shingle is treated with fireproofing, it has to be treated on every surface. Dennis Perkins said that he concurs; that it applies to only untreated wood shingles and shakes. Randy Davis, Redmond Fire Marshal, said he concurs and fully supports this. He said another problem with shake roofing is that a lot of water is necessary to extinguish a roof fire, and it usually collapses the ceiling. Ray Miao, President, Woodside Ranch Homeowners' Association, spoke. He said he and the Association generally supports this, but is concerned that it be worded carefully. The County doesn't want to negate CCR's that have been supported by Supreme Court rulings. Commissioner Luke said that all this says is a homeowner couldn't be restricted from putting on a non-flammable roof. Mr. Miao said they can change requirements through architectural review and guidelines; it is harder to change CCR's. He said he just wants to make sure the wording is clear and concise. Chair DeWolf said that if any subdivision requires untreated wood roofing, he expects that this ruling will supersede that. Commissioner Luke said the property owner would have to comply with building codes. A general discussion then occurred regarding CCR's and County requirements. Being no further testimony offered, Chair DeWolf closed the hearing. LUKE: I move for first reading of Ordinance No. 2001-024, by title only. DEWOLF: Second. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 5 of 30 Pages Wednesday, May 23, 2001 VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Chair De Wolf then did the first reading of Ordinance No. 2001-024, by title only. The second reading and adoption will be addressed on June 6, 2001. ADDITION TO THE AGENDA C. Before the Board was the Reading of a Proclamation, declaring "Make an Impact Week", Encouraging Community and Individual Responsibility for Disaster Preparedness. Jenny Scanlon read the Proclamation to the audience at this time. LUKE: I move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 3. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of Approval of a Text Amendment to Section 18, Amending Size Limitations for Individual Storage Units as Part of a Mini -Storage Facility. Damian Syrnyk gave an overview of the Application (his statement attached as Exhibit Q. He said that there are only five districts where a mini -storage unit can be placed, and there are specific standards for mini -storage units. The proposal is to increase the size from 500 square feet to 1,000 square feet. He said he checked Bend's code and it does not have a size limitation, just a thirty- foot height limit; it is treated similar to other buildings as a conditional use. Commissioner Luke said then there could be a 2,000 square foot building, several side-by-side, thirty feet high, in Bend. Mr. Syrnyk said it is possible, unless it didn't meet other conditions. The height limit in Deschutes County would remain at thirty feet; only the square footage would change. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 6 of 30 Pages Wednesday, May 23, 2001 J Mr. Syrnyk said that the applicant, Lance Miller, is here today. He has indicated he would like to be able to accommodate larger items of personal property, such as recreational vehicles, boats, campers, and so on; they are now only allowed to be stored outdoors. This provides an option for people to store their property in a secured unit. He had originally requested 2,000 square feet, but the Planning Commission thought that over 1,000 square feet was getting away from the concept of a mini -storage unit. However, some recreational vehicles are nearly fifteen feet wide and fifty feet long. Commissioner Luke said that if they are designed to hold recreational vehicles, what about propane, gasoline, and other hazardous material? Mr. Syrnyk said that the building division may require better firewalls, and the local fire department would also review the plans. Commissioner Luke asked if there are any unforeseen things that could happen with this ordinance, especially since they've asked for an emergency clause for one applicant. Chair DeWolf asked if that isn't what usually happens. Commissioner Luke said that he doesn't think they spent enough time on this. Damian Syrnyk said that the original ordinance was adopted in 1992. Redmond and Bend do not have any size limitations. Deschutes County can require modifications now. Commissioner Luke said that height limitations are to be addressed next; and that barns were taken out for this reason. Deschutes County changed the notification ordinance because of poles. He asked what this would do by making these bigger. Mr. Syrnyk said the Board could open the hearing and continue if it wishes; or it could do a first and second reading and include an effective date. Commissioner Luke asked if there would be power or plumbing in these units. Mr. Syrnyk replied that plumbing is not allowed. Lights are allowed. The units are for personal dead storage only. A general discussion occurred regarding zones where this might be allowed. Chair De Wolf opened the public hearing. Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2001 Page 7 of 30 Pages J Lance Miller, the applicant, then spoke. He said that one issue is that the proposal doesn't change any of the height restrictions - just the size of the partitions within the buildings. It does not change any of the other applicable restrictions. Commissioner Luke asked if it would have an eight -foot garage door. Mr. Miller said that they do not have to exceed building height limitations to put these in; the header height stays the same. Chair DeWolf indicated that the hearing would be left open, and this would be addressed again in two weeks. 5. Before the Board was Consideration of a Decision on the LUBA Remand (LUBA No. 99-047) regarding the Eagle Crest III Conceptual Master Plan (Application No. CU -99-85) PAUL BLIKSTAD: A hearing was held on April 10, and the Board left the written record open for two weeks and allowed the applicant another week to respond. We've gotten a draft decision from the applicant's legal counsel, and we think that the decision is ready for signature. I think the key issue for the Board, based on the testimony it has heard, is the sewer facilities at the resort and the problems they've had. Eagle Crest has committed to connecting to the Redmond sewage treatment plant, or they will install their own system, before any homes are built in Phase III. TOM DEWOLF: I've got a number of questions. Does staff support these conditions? LAURIE CRAGHEAD: Yes. DEWOLF: The questions I have, is that I've got a decision of the Deschutes County Hearings Officer from when the record closed on October 19, 1999, and she signed on December 2, 1999. There are a number of decisions in here that are different. Number 2 on what's being proposed here, what the Hearings Officer required was basically the same setbacks as in Sunriver. But we're here changing it from a 25 -foot rear setback to a 5 -foot rear setback. Why is this? Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2001 Page 8 of 30 Pages BLIKSTAD: The standards that were adopted by the Hearings Officer were attached as an exhibit to her decision. Those were the old Sunriver setbacks that established the 5 -foot minimum. The 25 -foot setback was in the original discussions, and staff wrote a memo to the Hearings Officer saying we just need to go with what was approved for Phase II, because we didn't want to have to administer two different standards. DEWOLF: So five feet is fine. BLIKSTAD: Yes. DEWOLF: On number 14, we're requiring posting 20 mile per hour speed limit. This was something new to me. I didn't know we had such a thing as a speed limit. I've seen the signs, but I didn't know that anything is enforceable in that regard. BLIKSTAD: Again, we were trying to be consistent with Phase II of Eagle Crest. DEWOLF: Why would we make a requirement for something that we don't enforce, as we don't enforce those speed limits. BLIKSTAD: That's true; we would rely on the developer. These are just a traffic -calming endeavor. LUKE: It allows narrower roads and all kinds of things. DEWOLF: We just had a number of discussions where we're making requirements and we're making conditions that we can enforce. Here's an example of one. I lost on a two -to -one vote on camouflaging cell towers because it's not in our ordinance and we can't enforce it. Here we're placing a requirement on this destination resort that we won't be enforcing. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 9 of 30 Pages Wednesday, May 23, 2001 BLIKSTAD: We can't enforce it; we just require the posting. CRAGHEAD: It is like Mr. Luke says. The posting helps to mitigate the fact of narrower roads. DEWOLF: Give me a break here. The reality is that you've got defined the widths of the roads, and all that is very clearly laid out in here. What we're doing is requiring something of a developer that isn't in our code. Why is this any different than any other land use decision? BLIKSTAD: My personal feeling is that within the confines of the criteria of the code, we feel we do have that authority. CRAGHEAD: There are also conditional use criteria that require things for safety issues. DEWOLF: Health and safety within the entire rest of Deschutes County does not include a 20 -mile per hour speed limit, to my knowledge. That's all I'm asking. LUKE: There are roads with no sidewalks or curbs. DEWOLF: We've got these in Sunriver and down south as well, but we're not enforcing a 20 -mile per hour speed limit. If they want to put up 20 mile per hour speed limit signs, they can if they want. But for us to require it - I just don't understand why we are putting a requirement on them that we do not and cannot enforce. It doesn't make sense to me. LUKE: We can enforce it. If they don't put these signs up, they don't get to build houses. BLIKSTAD: I wasn't the planner involved in the review of Phase II. My understanding is that the idea was to keep it consistent. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 10 of 30 Pages Wednesday, May 23, 2001 10 LUKE: If a car crashes at a higher speed, and there's an investigation and civil lawsuit, that posted speed would have some play in the trial, would it not? The roads are not a standard width, with no curbs or sidewalks. The posted speed should be the safe speed to calm the traffic that's there. CRAGHEAD: I think that's what we're looking at. Although we are not enforcing it, it is part of the mitigation of the narrower streets and no sidewalks; they are posting it to help with the safety of the residents. BLIKSTAD: This was a negotiated standard with the County Road Department. GEORGE READ: We can require this if we feel it is necessary. It is a valid requirement. DEWOLF: If LUBA comes into play, can we win? READ: I feel we can support this. CRAGHEAD: It's also in Kittleson traffic study. MIKE DALY: Even Oregon speed limit signs are advisories, not requirements. DEWOLF: Now for the sewage question. Does this memorandum of understanding direct that all sewage from Eagle Crest, from all Phases, would be connected to the sewer system? BLIKSTAD: It's my understanding that it's just Phase II and Phase III. Phase I is to be operated by the resort owners. DEWOLF: Have there been any spills or leaks with Phase I? Have there been any violations? Minutes of Board Meeting Page 11 of 30 Pages Wednesday, May 23, 2001 BLIKSTAD: I'm not aware of any citing on Phase I. DEWOLF: Regarding number 17, what does "toll the time line" mean? CRAGHEAD: That's the extension for the period of the appeal. This adds time on if a LUBA appeal holds things up. They can't even start building until this is done. DEWOLF: Regarding number 18, in the original decision by Karen Green, under water storage and delivery systems, the minimum required flow was 2,500 gallons per minute. In here, it is 1,000 per minute. BLIKSTAD: I don't know where she got that figure; 1,000 is okay, per the fire department. CRAGHEAD: I believe that was also corrected on the final master plan; it was an administrative decision. DEWOLF: Can we condition this so that our requirement is that they hook up to the City of Redmond's system? They want to do it and Redmond wants to do it; that's been clearly established. We have a memorandum of understanding, and everything is moving forward. Can we require that? And, if for some reason those negotiations fall apart, can this come back to us to reconsider the conceptual master plan, for a public hearing? CRAGHEAD: I believe that's how it's written now. LUKE: That's not what staff says. Staff said that they were looking at Redmond and/or doing their own system. CRAGHEAD: Right, except if they do their own system, they come back. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 12 of 30 Pages Wednesday, May 23, 2001 BLIKSTAD: If it's a change from Redmond, they have to come back. DEWOLF: So, there are a number of conditions that Karen had. She had 24 conditions, and this has 20. There are some additional ones here that weren't in Karen's, and there are some that are missing from Karen's. Is that because things have been mitigated or changed in the final master plan? CRAGHEAD: In the body of the decision there is a finding explaining these differences. DEWOLF: There have been a number of sewage spills and another one recently. Can we require cleanup of all of these spills, or is that out of our jurisdiction and is DEQ's response? CRAGHEAD: That falls under DEQ's jurisdiction. DEWOLF: I am concerned. I've seen the photos of people's back yards. Will DEQ make sure? It's entirely a DEQ issue; the County can't have any involvement in that. As a matter of fact, in talking with DEQ, if you wished for them to stop development, DEQ has a whole process they have to go through for a moratorium. It's entirely DEQ's process. DEWOLF: One of the questions that came up in testimony was about wells outside of the area being affected by groundwater contamination. Is there potential for contamination to such a degree that people living outside of Eagle Crest could have their water quality impacted? CRAGHEAD: That's a code enforcement issue with DEQ. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 13 of 30 Pages Wednesday, May 23, 2001 DALY: DEQ and environmental health only require a 100 -foot separation from a septic system drainfield to a well anyway. We're way beyond that anywhere. In terms of the distance that this stuff travels, the wells are pretty deep and the size of parcel is large. There are no wells in close general proximity. DEWOLF: Does subsurface makeup make a difference? READ: We need to rely on expert opinion. There is probably no evidence to show that this is a problem. DEWOLF: Do we need to monitor this, or does DEQ? LUKE: DEQ does that, and also tests the wells. Any property owner can have their well tested, too. READ: There's no evidence in the record that shows this could occur. DEWOLF: If two years down the road there is a problem, who gets sued? READ: Most likely Eagle Crest or DEQ. LUKE: How can we require this of Phase II? This is a land use issue on Phase III. They will be hooked up to Redmond or have their own new system. How can we impose requirements on an existing Phase that we've already done? That is a code or health enforcement issue and not a land use issue. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 14 of 30 Pages Wednesday, May 23, 2001 This is an expansion of destination resort. The criteria say you are changing a destination resort as a whole. It's a modification of an existing entity. Phase I is part of that entity. We have approvals and requirements in place for that Phase. LUKE: We could ask for a report back to the Board at different points in this Phase to see how the situation is going, not as a condition of approval, but as a code enforcement issue. CRAGHEAD: You may want to ask code enforcement to regularly monitor this. LUKE: DEQ will regularly monitor this. DEWOLF: Regarding number 17-B, they propose an alternate sewage disposal system if connecting to Redmond doesn't work out. Would it be coming back to County at that point? It doesn't say that now. CRAGHEAD: Wording has been added to that paragraph. It will come back to us if the Redmond deal doesn't work out. I think you probably don't have the revised page. That was the only change in the entire document. LUKE: Is this part of the solution to Phase II as well? CRAGHEAD: Phase II and Phase III need to connect to Redmond, or they will come back to the County. LUKE: For the record, no homes will be built in Phase III until this happens; and both Phase II and Phase III will be hooked up into Redmond, or they will come back to us with another proposal for both Phases if they can't connect to Redmond. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 15 of 30 Pages Wednesday, May 23, 2001 DEWOLF: Regarding number 7 of the memorandum of understanding, it says that this MOU is not intended to create a binding agreement for the design, construction and fees for an Eagle Crest sewer connection, but is intended to memorialize the understanding and commitments of Eagle Crest. So, does that sound legally like it is a commitment? CRAGHEAD: It's binding in its intention to make it happen, but could still of course fall through. But there's an 18 -month time limit here for them to come back if it falls through completely. LUKE: So really all they are able to do at this point is to construct their roads, put in curbs and sidewalks, utilities and so on. No homes could be constructed yet. LUKE: I move approval of the Eagle Crest Phase III conceptual master plan, application #CU -99-85. DALY: I second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 6. Before the Board was Consideration of a Decision on a De Novo Appeal Submitted by High Desert Development Partners on Conditions of the Hearings Officer's Approval of a Conceptual Master Plan for the Huntington Ranch Destination Resort. BLIKSTAD: (He gave a brief overview of the appeal.) The two conditions dealt with only the temporary secondary access and the permanent secondary access. We think the temporary secondary access condition is just fine, as they are going to use Sheridan Road, and the County and ODOT are okay with that. The question becomes the permanent secondary access road, and whether we think there needs to be a connection between Powell Butte Highway and the ultimate connection point at Highway 97. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 16 of 30 Pages Wednesday, May 23, 2001 DEWOLF: In addition to that other issue, the most recent letter I found from Peter Russell of ODOT, is that ODOT is still uncomfortable with the proposed #31 solution as identified by the applicant. They are kind of in a catch-22 due to the fact that the 19th Street planning process is not done. It makes very logical sense to me that we don't identify a particular road right- of-way until that process is done. What ODOT is asking is that we make sure it is a non -highway access. If I understand that correctly, what they mean is no direct highway access. But if they get on to 19th Street and then on to Yew and that interchange, if that becomes an access, that's not considered a direct highway access. BLIKSTAD: I concur. READ: I agree. DEWOLF: And that if there is any temporary highway access, there again I don't see us making any temporary highway access. BLIKSTAD: Other than the connection to Highway 126 from Sheridan Road. DEWOLF: Which is the other direction, and that wasn't a concern of ODOT. LUKE: In speaking with legal counsel on this, one reason for the secondary access is evacuation. But it is also an opportunity for emergency vehicles to get in there. It's there for emergency traffic. If their community is gated and someone happens to get on that public road, because the primary road is a public road, and got up there and an emergency happened behind them, it would be difficult for them to get out. I would like to see a requirement that the permanent secondary road be connected to the primary road. How they do that, through the subdivision or outside the subdivision, I really don't care, as long as they are tied together and the public has access. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 17 of 30 Pages Wednesday, May 23, 2001 DEWOLF: On that particular subject, I think that's a good idea. Maybe in order to answer ODOT's concerns, can we make a condition that would require or direct a work group to define that, including the developer, County staff, ODOT and BLM? LUKE: I would ask that the road be identified before the final plat is signed, where the road would be, in case it requires acquisition of BLM land. There are two parts, the conceptual master plan and the final master plan. This can be required. LUKE: The one just before they build. We'd have to look at the wording of the condition. There's one other issue, and you have to realize it's a separate process. Fitting it in could be difficult. There's a County road that goes through the resort area now in a north -south direction. I think the applicant wants that County road to be vacated. LUKE: The trade-off is when we know where the other road will be. DEWOLF: That's why I'd like to see us put together this little work group as part of the condition. There may be other roads out in that area affected by this whole process. That's a problem, because the long-term solution is a two-year process. The problem is they want to file a final master plan sooner than that. We kind of run into that same snag. DEWOLF: It's pretty easy to identify the road coming from Highway 126 to the resort. We could also identify a right-of-way that skirts outside of resort for public thoroughfare. The piece that's aFroblem is from where the secondary access terminates at the resort out to 19t Street. I would see that this is why we'd have this working group as part of this process. The fact that it exists in concept is that enough for a final master plan, or should this specific route be identified? Minutes of Board Meeting Page 18 of 30 Pages Wednesday, May 23, 2001 READ: I believe so. The one question would be the financing, and who pays for building it. LUKE: We could require that the secondary road connect to primary road for public access. The public needs to have access to the road. DALY: Let me understand. You want that primary access from Powell Butte Highway, and eventually you'd like to see it connect all the way through to 19th Street. LUKE: Yes. Mostly for emergency access. I don't see getting a lot of traffic in there. We want that ability, though. Also, the secondary road is to be identified before building. CRAGHEAD: This is required at 50% build -out. READ: It would be difficult for this at the final master plan, which is coming in about six months. LUKE: They can identify the route. I didn't say they have to buy the property. We need to identify the route. DEWOLF: You're not talking about the secondary access that goes to 19th Street. You're talking about getting to the resort over the railroad tracks to the highway. READ: This is part of the two-year process. CRAGHEAD: The secondary permanent road may not be identified for two years. Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2001 Page 19 of 30 Pages DEWOLF: You've got a road from Highway 126 to the resort. You've got the termination of the secondary access road that will eventually go somehow to 19th Street. That won't be identified probably for a couple of years. We need to identify the connecting road. LAURIE: My understanding is that we don't have the exact termination location yet. READ: I think we can do that. LUKE: The secondary access road will connect to the primary access road. That's a condition. Whether the road connects through or around the resort, it needs to be determined in the final master plan. DEWOLF: Without necessarily identifying the exact location of it? This would be so everyone understands a connection will be made. LUKE: The third question I would ask, and I haven't brought this up previously, is that there will be negotiations between the National Guard, the state, the City of Redmond, the County, BLM, ODOT on a possible road from 19th Street to Deschutes Junction. I would like that the developers of this project be active participants in these discussions about how to tie in to that road. DEWOLF: We need to set up a work group to include members of BLM, the developer and Deschutes County on this specific issue, the road around resort and to 19th Street. Not necessarily the huge group, but that we do define that we will have a group that includes these representatives on this specific issue. LUKE: Where does vacation of the road inside the development stand? Minutes of Board Meeting Page 20 of 30 Pages Wednesday, May 23, 2001 READ: I believe that the applicant wants to vacate that road prior to final master plan. They want to know whether they will have a public road running through the resort. The applicant is concerned that this is a last minute condition that they haven't had a chance to review. There's a concern whether the road is necessary; and would like to make that argument before final master plan. LUKE: We need to make sure they can get out in emergency. This road is here for emergency personnel and evacuation purposes. DEWOLF: There will be two roads, but the question is whether it will be a public access road. There is a basis for doing this, but the applicant would like to review this further. BLIKSTAD: I don't think we can identify it as part of the final master plan. DEWOLF: I don't think so, either. There's too much work to be done. LUKE: You can identify whether it's going to be inside or outside of the resort. What about the abandoned County road? What's the timeline? ON.'"D It's up to the applicant. The County can set it up either way. We need to come to a conclusion about the access prior to master plan approval. DEWOLF: Can we review the final master plan before staff approval? Minutes of Board Meeting Page 21 of 30 Pages Wednesday, May 23, 2001 CRAGHEAD: Code allows for this if you want. I'm having trouble with this concept regarding the street vacation. It needs to be for a public purpose. This is a vague condition and it's hard to determine when and what the applicant would be required to pay for the connective road, and how to time all that since it's such an open concept. READ: We will work on conditions and return in a couple of weeks. The applicant has asked that the final master plan determination process for access include another look at public need. What I've heard the Board say is no, we're not going to do that. I think that's a critical issue. If we bring it back for review, or if the Board says you're going to do it, if that happens then we have a clear direction on how to write the conditions. (Paul Blikstad presented an oversized map of the area for the Board to review.) A general discussion then occurred regarding the County road being open to the pubic or restricted for emergency use only. CRAGHEAD: The applicant doesn't have a problem with having a road skirting the development, and paying for it. The question is the process to get there. DEWOLF: Is requiring a work group too vague? CRAGHEAD: A working group is okay. We need to determine what is the applicant required to do. DEWOLF: We will have this back on the agenda in two weeks to consider the decision then, unless the applicant wants to reopen the hearing. This will allow some time to do a draft of the written conditions and requirements. I've heard two of you now saying that you think the connectivity should be required. This doesn't include assessment of the need; it really is just where and who builds it. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 22 of 30 Pages Wednesday, May 23, 2001 J DALY: I believe it should be connected, too. LUKE: That makes three of us. CRAGHEAD: Public access for emergency purposes? LUKE: Public access to the road, period. Not into the subdivision, unless the road goes through the destination resort. READ: The other option that the applicant has is to ask that we reopen the record. DEWOLF: The difficulty is that we don't have the opportunity to talk about this with the applicant. Laws restrict our ability to do really good work in a timely manner. Let's not make a decision today; it's back on our agenda in two weeks and we'll find out what everybody wants to do. If we choose to reopen it, we can restrict it down to just this one issue, since everything else seems to be fine with everybody. Laurie, talk with the applicant and find out if they are interested in doing this. LUKE: I would hope that if they don't want to open it, in two weeks you will bring to us a draft of the proposed conditions. 7. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Findings and Decision for Files CU -00-132 and SP -00-59 (Appeal File No. A-01-9), Reversing the Hearings Officer's Denial of an Appeal Requesting the Establishment of a New Transmission Line and Supporting Poles on Land Zoned Exclusive Farm Use. LUKE: I move signature. DALY: Second. Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2001 Page 23 of 30 Pages VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 8. Before the Board was the Second Reading and Consideration of Signature of Ordinance No. 2001-004, Amending Section 18 of the Deschutes County Code Zoning Ordinance regarding Changes to the Building Height Exception Rule (Making the Rules More Restrictive). LUKE: I move for second reading. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Chair De Wolf then did the second reading, by title only. LUKE: I move signature of Ordinance No. 2001-004. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Before the Board was the Consent Aizenda. LUKE: I move approval of the Consent Agenda. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Consent Agenda Items: 11. Signature of a Memorandum of Understanding between Deschutes County and Central Electric Cooperative regarding Expansion of their Facility Minutes of Board Meeting Page 24 of 30 Pages Wednesday, May 23, 2001 12. Signature of Resolution No. 2001-034, Initiating Legalization Proceedings for a Portion of Pinehurst Road 13. Signature of Order No. 2001-056, Directing that Pinehurst Road be Surveyed and Setting a Public Hearing for June 27, 2001 14. Signature of Resolution No. 2001-030, Accepting a Petition to Vacate a Public Utility Easement within "The Ridge at Eagle Crest" 15. Signature of Order No. 2001-044, Vacating a Public Utility Easement within "The Ridge at Eagle Crest"; and Acceptance of the Engineer's Report Relating to Said Vacation 16. Signature of Order No. 2001-052, Changing the Name of a Portion of Sheep Lane (also known as Mountain Sheep Lane) to Bear Lane (off Silver Fox Drive, South of Sunriver) 17. Signature of Order No. 2001-054, Changing the Name of a Portion of Whitewater Lane to Whitewater Loop (near Burgess Road in La Pine) 18. Signature of Order No. 2001-055, Assigning the Name of Bull Springs Road to an Unnamed Access Road (Off Shevlin Park Road) 19. Signature of Order No. 2001-055, Changing the Name of a Portion of Guss Way to Guss Lane (off Solar Drive, South of Sunriver) 20. Signature of Order No. 2001-050, Accepting a Petition for the Designation of Territory as "River Forest Acres, First Edition, No -Shooting District", and Setting a Hearing Date of June 6, 2001 21. Signature of License Agreements between Deschutes County and Four Property Owners for Work to be Performed on their Properties as Part of the La Pine Demonstration Project 22. Signature of Order No. 2001-057, Authorizing the Sale of Property (off Byram Road and Bear Creek Road) to Michael R. Hulsey 23. Signature of a Deed of Dedication regarding the Old Canal Boulevard Right - of -Way (Per an Intergovernmental Agreement between Deschutes County and the City of Redmond) 24. Signature of a Bargain and Sale Deed per JoAnne Maxwell's Request to Repurchase a County -owned Parcel Previously Owned by Her 25. Signature of Order No. 2001-058, Authorizing the Sale of Property (Located at Innes Market and Gerking Market Roads) to Nunzie Gould Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2001 Page 25 of 30 Pages 26. Signature of Grant Contracts between Deschutes County and the State of Oregon Economic & Community Development Department for the Alyce Hatch Center Expansion Project (#CO -1001) 27. Signature of a Personal Services Agreement for Fiscal Year 2001-2002 between Deschutes County and the Humane Society of Redmond for Animal Shelter Services 28. Signature of Policy No. P-2001-010, Investment Policy Guidelines Rescinding Previous Investment Policy No. P-009-2000 29. Signature of a Letter Reappointing Betty -Marie Baker to the Deschutes County Special Transportation Fund Advisory Committee, with a Term Expiration Date of December 31, 2004 30. Signature of Letters Reappointing Joe Bankofier and Bob Jackson to the Deschutes River Mitigation and Enhancement Committee, with a Term Expiration of February 28, 2004 31. Signature of Letters Reappointing Alan Albertini, Tom DeWolf, Susan Mayea Ross, Gary Peters and Eric Sande to the Central Oregon Community Investment Board, with a Term Expiration Date of June 30, 2003 32. Signature of Letters Reappointing David Culver and Rick Leeper to the Deschutes County Noxious Weed Advisory Board, with a Term Expiration Date of December 31, 2003. 33. Signature of a Letter Appointing Pat Kliewer to the Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commission 34. Signature of Resolution 2001-033, Amending Resolution 2000-087, Transferring Appropriations within Various Funds of the Fiscal Year 2000- 2001 Deschutes County Budget, and Directing Entries, nunc pro tunc as of December 13, 2000 9. Before the Board was Consideration of a Request from an Adjacent Property Owner for an Access Easement across County -owned Land (off Rickard Road). Jim Bonnarens explained that there would be no cost to the County, and there would be no negative effect on County property. Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2001 Page 26 of 30 Pages LUKE: I move approval, subject to legal review, including a full legal description and street address. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. ADDITION TO THE AGENDA. D. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2001-060, Authorizing the Sale of County -owned Property (off Deschutes Market Road) to Michael Scannell. Tammy Credicott said that the minimum bid was set at $184,000; the offer is for $180,000, which falls within fair market value. The property is forty acres off Deschutes Market Road that has been for sale for eight months. LUKE: I move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 10. Before the Board was Consideration of an Appeal from Sunray, Inc. regarding Deducting Credit Card Fees from Room Tax Collections. Marty Wynne stated that the amount deducted over an eight-year period is approximately $15,000, but the County can only go back three years, per ordinance. An audit shows that the amount deducted was above -board. They were audited a couple of years ago by the County's auditor, and this was not detected. The ordinance allows a penalty of 10%; the County will not assess the penalty or the 18% interest; it only wants the amount of money that is due, which is $6,205.03. Laurie Craghead said there is no procedure in place for this. The room tax code says that owner -operators have a right to appeal. Land use procedures would be followed; and the Board can choose to hear this or not. Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2001 Page 27 of 30 Pages a . i Commissioner Daly said he would like to hear this appeal. Commissioner Luke said he doesn't mind hearing it, although it's not required. Laurie Craghead said there are no notice requirements, so the Board can hear it at this time. Ed Willard of Sunray Property Management spoke. He said his company has spent about $2 million over the last few years in room taxes. He said that Helen Rastovich, previously of the County, used to answer his questions, and that she said it was not necessary to pay room tax on credit card charges, as this was not the intent of the ordinance. Therefore, they did it this way for nine years. He said he is here today for a matter of fairness. He got a 10 -day notice to come up with $6,000, which also stated that Helen didn't have the authority to do this. He explained that this means someone will get laid off so he can pay this, since he only has six months to do so. He stated he started paying it when he was notified, and that he won't sue over this but feel it's unfair to pay the back amounts. A general discussion occurred on how the amount is structured. Commissioner Luke stated that he has a problem with forgiving this, as it sets precedence. Marty Wynne said that other operators, per their reports, have not deducted it. Chair DeWolf said the Board could make a decision on this in two weeks, if desired. Chair DeWolf left the meeting at this point. Commissioner Daly said that $6,000 all at once is a big hit. Commissioner Luke asked if this might be spread out a little longer. LUKE: I move to deny the appeal; but move to allow the amount due to be paid over six months without penalties or interest. DALY: Second. Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2001 Page 28 of 30 Pages i L . VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Acting Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 35. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District in the Amount of $1,153.14 (two weeks). LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Acting Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 36. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $14,568.04 (two weeks). LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Acting Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 37. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $1,114,930.85 (two weeks). LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Acting Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2001 Page 29 of 30 Pages a C . ADDITION TO THE AGENDA E. Before the Board was a Discussion of the County's Bills for the Week of May 28th. LUKE: I move that next week's bills be approved with two signatures of the Board (without the signature of the County Administrator), plus the approval of Marty Wynne, Finance Director. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Acting Chair votes yes. Being no further business to address, Acting Chair Mike Daly adjourned the meeting at 12:25 p.m. DATED this 7th Day of May 2001 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Minutes of Board Meeting Wednesday, May 23, 2001 M'ch el M. Daly, ommissioner Page 30 of 30 Pages I 4 • 2 Community Development Department Planning Division - Building Safety Division - Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue - Bend, Oregon - 97701-1925 (541) 388-6575 - FAX (541) 385-1764 MEMORANDUM http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/odd/ DATE: May 16, 2001 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Dennis Perkins, Building Official /�','p Kevin Harrison, Principal Plann SUBJECT: Wildfire Hazard Zones On Wednesday, May 23, 2001, the Board will conduct a public hearing to consider adoption of Wildfire Hazard Zones via Ordinance No. 2001-024. Wildfire Hazard Zones are the result of state legislation adopted in 1993 and administrative rules promulgated by the State Board of Forestry in 1996. These changes to state law, and to Oregon's Building Code, encourage local governments to voluntarily designate those portions of their jurisdictions subject to catastrophic fire as "Wildfire Hazard Zones." If the county chooses to adopt the map of the hazard zone, then Section 326 of the 1998 International One -and Two -Family Dwelling Code, and provisions of Oregon Revised Statutes 93.270(4), will be put into effect. Section 326 deals with appropriate roofing materials in the hazard zone; ORS 93.270(4) says that legal action cannot be brought against a property owner for using fire resistant material, even if a flammable material, such as cedar shakes, is specifically required by covenants which run with the land. Adoption of the Wildfire Hazard Zone map does not constitute a land use action. There are no land use consequences that will result from adoption of the map. However, adoption of the map will require a building permit in order to re -roof a structure whereas now this activity is exempt from the permit process. The county used a consultant, John Schaeffer, to prepare a map based on the criteria contained in Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 629, Division 44. The map shows all of Deschutes County, except for lava flows, lakes and concentrations of irrigated land, as being in a hazard zone. As a practical matter, and to ease administration of the building code, staff recommends that the entire county be mapped as a Wildfire Hazard Zone. The map has been reviewed by all of the local fire protection districts; notice of the hearing has been sent to all Homeowners Associations, roofing contractors and suppliers and Central Oregon Builders Association. A copy of the ordinance and exhibits are attached for your review. Please note that the ordinance does not contain an emergency clause. And, please feel free to contact Dennis or me if you have any questions or comments. E_Y_1Lbt,t A iCA Quality Services Performed with Pride . it Adopting Wildfire Hazard Zones has been along time endeavor of Bend Fire Department. With the adoption of Wildfire Hazard Zones, the Building Department will be able to restrict new wood shake and shingle roofs within these vulnerable wildfire areas. A house can be threatened by a wildfire in three ways: direct exposure from flames, radiated heat, and airborne firebrands. Of these, firebrands account for the majority of homes burned by wildfire. The most vulnerable part of the house to firebrands is the roof. Because of its angle, the roof can catch and trap firebrands. If the roof is constructed of combustible materials such as untreated wood shakes and shingles, the house is in jeopardy of igniting and burning. Not only are combustible roofing materials a hazard to the structure on which they are installed, but also to other houses in the vicinity. Burning wood shakes, for example, can become firebrands; be lifted from the burning roof, carried blocks away, and land in receptive fuel beds such as other combustible roofs. Unfortunately for homeowners with existing combustible roofs, there are no long-term reliable measures available to reduce roof vulnerability to wildfire other than re -roofing with fire resistant materials. Bend Fire Department urges the Commissioners to adopt these Wildfire Hazard Zones to ensure the safety and welfare of our residents. E -K .. 0G � L 2� Community Development Department 0 A A AAd 4 Planning Division - Building Safety Division - Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue - Bend, Oregon - 97701-1925 Memorandum (541) 388-6575 - FAX (541) 385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ To: Deschutes County Board of Commis ioners From: Damian Symyk, Senior plann6c��P Cc: George Read, Director, Kevin Harrison, Principal Planner, Laurie Craghead, County Counsel Date: May 16, 2001 Re: Ordinance 2001-025 (Text Amendment File No. TA -01-3) for Lance Miller, Sunriver Storage Systems This memorandum is the Staff Report on the above -referenced amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. You will find attached to this report a copy of Ordinance 2001-025, Exhibit A to this ordinance, and a copy of the applicant's submittal, including his arguments in support of the proposed amendment. Staff will not be able to attend your work session scheduled for May 21, 2001. Staff proposes the. Board open the hearing on May 23, 2001 and if you prefer, continue it to May 30, 2001 if you wish to discuss this matter further with Staff before making a final decision. Lance Miller (applicant) submitted an application for an ordinance text amendment to amend Deschutes County Code (DCC) Section 18.128.300 to amend the size limitations for individual storage units proposed as part of a mini -storage facility. This same section of the zoning ordinance includes the specific use standards that are applied to applications for conditional use permits to establish a mini -storage facility. DCC Code Section 18.128.300(A) of this section limits the size of individual storage units to 500 square feet. Units in mini -storage facilities cannot exceed this size. The applicant proposed to increase this size limitation to 2,000 square feet. After a work session on April 26, 2001, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to you to approve an amendment that would allow an increase in size of an individual storage unit to 1,000 square feet. You will notice with the attached narrative that one of the reasons the applicant provides in support of the proposed amendment is to allow the storage of larger items of personal property such as boats and automobiles in a mini -storage facility. You will also notice that the proposed. ordinance includes an emergency clause. Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance in this manner because the applicant has proposed to develop a mini - storage facility and to develop units that would exceed the current standard of 500 square feet. The applicant has informed staff that he is attempting to begin construction and complete some or all of it during this building season. I will be out of the office Thursday May 17 through Tuesday May 22, 2001. Please feel free to leave me a voice mail message at extension 1709 or an email message at damians _co.deschutes.or.us if you have any questions I can address when I return May 23, 2001 for your meeting. /DPS Attachments (3) Quality Services Performed with Pride BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Title 18, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, of the Deschutes County Code, to Amend the Standards for Mini -Storage Facilities, and Declaring an Emergency. ORDINANCE NO. 2001-025 WHEREAS, Lance Miller, Sunriver Storage Systems, submitted an application for a legislative amendment to the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment, and has now forwarded the proposed amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, after notice was given and hearing conducted on May 23, 2001 before the Board of County Commissioners in accordance with applicable law, the Board of County Commissioners has considered the proposed amendment; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. Section 18.128.300, Mini -storage facility, of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance is amended to read as set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and deleted language shown in stFikethreugh. Section 2. 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 ATTEST: Recording Secretary day of May, 2001. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON Tom DeWolf, Chair Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner Michael M. Daly, Commissioner PAGE 1 OF I - ORDINANCE NO. 2001-025 (5/23/01) 0 16 • Exhibit "A" 18.128.300. Mini -storage facility. A. Each individual space for rent or sale shall be less than 3991,000 square feet. B. Mini -storage shall be limited to dead storage. Outside storage shall be limited to boats, recreational vehicles and similar vehicles placed within designated spaces on an all-weather surfaced area which is surrounded by a sight -obscuring fence at least six feet in height. C. Yards shall be permanently landscaped. D. Yard dimensions adjacent to residential zones shall be the same as required yards within the residential zone. E. One parking space for each 25 storage spaces shall be located at the project office for use by customers. F. All structures shall be fenced and visually screened. G. Traffic lanes shall be 12 feet wide with an additional 10 -foot parking lane, except where the traffic lane does not serve the storage units. All areas provided for vehicle access, parking and movement shall be improved to minimum public road standards. H. A residence for a caretaker or 24-hour on-site manager is permitted. 1. There shall be only one access from each adjacent street. J. Outside lighting, including shading to prevent glare on adjacent properties, may be required for safety and security purposes. (Ord. 2001-025 § 1, 2001; Ord. 2001-016 § 2, 2001; Ord. 95-075 § 1, 1995; Ord. 91-038 § 3, 1991) PAGE 1 OF I — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2001-025 (5/23/01) 3o�S- Deschutes County Planning Division 117 NW Layfayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97701 Dear Deschutes County Planning Division, We are requesting a TEXT AMENDMENT to the County Code, Page 22, Chapter 18.128.040.2, Specific use standards for a Mini -storage facility, specifically Item 1: "each individual space for rent or sale shall be less than 500 square feet." And Item 2: "Mini -storage shall be limited to dead storage. Outside storage shall be limited to boats, recreational vehicles and similar vehicles placed within designated spaces on all-weather surfaced area which is surrounded by a sight -obscuring fence at least six feet in height." For the following reasons: 1) Most subdivisions in Deschutes County do NOT allow property owners to park Motorhomes, Travel -trailers, Boats, Snowmobiles, or any other type of recreational vehicles in their driveways or anywhere outside on their property for storage purposes. 2) Over the past 20 years or so, CC&R's in residential areas have eliminated what was previously acceptable for outside, safe and secure R.V., boat storage, etc. Most of these vehicles WILL NOT fit into our residential garages. In a time when the ownership of these types of vehicles has increased, there have been greater restrictions of viable parking facilities without offering alternative solutions. 3) These vehicles, as well as being large, are also expensive and their owners would like to have them in an enclosed, individual, secure, storage facility that will not only protect them from the destructive elements of snow and sun but also from vandalism and theft, However, the present restriction of 500 sq.ft. is an impractical rule that serves no real purpose, handicapping many of the R.V. and mini -storage users. 4) Present storage facilities address many of these needs with the EXCEPTION of most Travel -trailers, Motorcoaches, and many large boats in the area, because their lengths and widths, require an enclosed storage space greater than 500 sq.ft. 5) Large Motorcoaches, Travel trailers, and some boats require at least 50 ft. of length and 15 ft. of width inside an enclosed storage facility in order to walk around them and be able to open their access doors, service and storage compartments as well as a minimuml2 ft. garage door for access and egress due to their overall widths with their rearview mirrors. 6) Storage and Transfer Companies which also store household goods, equipment, etc. by virtue of their NAME "ONLY" do not fit under this ruling. They are large warehouses without size or space restrictions, yet they perform the same FUNCTION as a mini -storage or R.V. storage facility. Only their name, storage and transfer, is different yet they are unrestricted to as to size. 7) Out of necessity we are proposing that the codes be changed and updated to the SAME requirements as the county has for a detached garage of 2000 sq.ft. so that renters can also store with their Motor coaches their tow dollies and car trailers that they often tow behind their coaches along with their personal belongings. CL 8) The general public will also benefit from these changes because inside storage facilities will allow for fewer of these vehicles to be seen parked outside in older areas beside homes or in compounds covered with tarps. 9) We believe that these proposed code changes will go a long way towards helping to clean up our visual environment and also provide for safe, secure and clean storage facilities that are greatly needed .by our county residents. 10) The current codes were not practical at the time of their origin and are now even more impractical, outdated, and overdue for a revision. It should also be noted that the city of Bend does not apply these outdated restrictions. We respectfully request that these codes be revised to a range and scope that are workable as they are a much needed item in Deschutes County. Thank you in advance f4r-yo consideration on this solution to a current county problem. Sre Zarice Sunriver Storage Systems 18160 Cottonwood Rd. #201 Sunriver, Oregon 97707 S 6-C S'—