2001-498-Minutes for Meeting June 04,2001 Recorded 6/21/2001VOL: CJ2001
PAGE: 498
RECORDED DOCUMENT
STATE OF OREGON
COUNTY OF DESCHUTES
*CJ2001-498 * Vol -Page Printed: 06/29/2001 16:06:58
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. 21, 2001; 9:23 a.m.
Regular Meeting (CJ)
NUMBER OF PAGES: 50
MARY SUE PENHOLLOW
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK
K�pUNGHEO
SUN � 5 20
ES
dt
ol
,► , of Commissionera
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 PUBLIC HEARING
.,
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONER$11
r - .
MONDAY, JUNE 49 2001
P, . .......
This Hearing was held to address a de novo appeal of the Hearings Officer's denial
of an application (No. A-01-10, Applicants: Richard Mann, Alice Mann and
Matthew Lisignoli) pursuant to Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code.
Present at the public hearing were Commissioners Tom De Wolf, Dennis Luke and
Mike Daly. Also present were Laurie Craghead, Deschutes County Legal Counsel;
Paul Blikstad and Kevin Harrison, Community Development; and ten citizens.
Chair Tom DeWolf opened the hearing at 4:00 p.m., and read the opening
statement, procedure and order of presentation (copy attached as Exhibit A).
Chair DeWolf asked if any of the Board of Commissioners has had any pre -
hearing contacts.
MIKE DALY: Nothing more than the letters I have received, which are already
a part of the record.
DENNIS LUKE: The same.
TOM DEWOLF: The same for me, also.
Chair DeWolf asked if members of the Board needed to disclose any ex parte
contacts.
Minutes of Public Hearing Page 1 of 24 Pages
Odin Falls Ranch Land UsOlIServices Performed with Pride Monday, Jue 4, 2001
LUKE: I have not.
DALY: None.
DEWOLF: None.
Chair De Wolf then asked if anyone in the audience wished to rebut the substance
of any communication or observation. No audience response was offered.
Paul Blikstad gave an overview of the appeal (attached as Exhibit B). He referred
to an oversized map of the subject property and surrounding properties.
BLIKSTAD:
The original proposal that was submitted in 1979 was for a total of 102 lots on 510
acres. That subdivision was never completely finished, and only one phase was
platted; it was approximately 250 acres. Nothing else was platted as Odin Falls
Ranch.
Part of the Odin Falls Ranch property that was originally proposed is now a
different subdivision approved in 1991 or 1992, River Springs Estates. This was
left over land from land that wasn't platted for Odin Falls Ranch, although it had
been approved for Odin Falls Ranch. All of Odin Falls Ranch was never
developed, just the first phase.
DEWOLF:
How many acres are we talking about?
BLIKSTAD:
90.28 acres.
DALY:
Is the other part just one tax lot?
BLIKSTAD:
One lot within Odin Falls Ranch, Phase I. It wasn't specified as open space; it was
just a lot. This is kind of unique.
DALY:
Why not create that as its own subdivision?
Minutes of Public Hearing Page 2 of 24 Pages
Odin Falls Ranch Land Use Appeal Monday, Jue 4, 2001
BLIKSTAD:
Kevin (Harrison of Community Development) and I have discussed this with the
applicant, and it is our position that since it is part of Phase I, it has to be looked at
as a whole.
DALY:
The other part is one tax lot?
BLIKSTAD:
It's Lot 1, Block 2, about 98 acres. A total of 43 lots were platted. The resulting
density with a variance request would be one dwelling unit or one lot per 5.25
acres. Based upon the language in the OAR (Oregon Administrative Rule), it is
our opinion that the County cannot vary its density standard in the MUA-10 zone
without violating that Rule language.
DEWOLF:
Why not be able to get 10 acres out of this 98 -acre lot?
BLIKSTAD:
We treated it, in our discussions with the applicant, that it was part of the whole.
Our position is that you have to take an average of everything.
LUKE:
In your opinion, we can't change this from one unit to 5.98 to one unit per 5.25
acres?
BLIKSTAD:
We don't believe we can, based on the language in the OAR. We can vary our
standards, but we can't exceed what our ordinance already provides for.
LUKE:
In the application for appeal, page 4, the County undertook a series of actions that
lead to the result that the remaining land is no longer contiguous. What part is no
longer contiguous?
BLIKSTAD:
The only thing that separates it from the other part of the Ranch is a road, and it
was never determined that the road makes it non-contiguous. I feel bad in a way
that we weren't aware of this language at the very beginning.
Minutes of Public Hearing Page 3 of 24 Pages
Odin Falls Ranch Land Use Appeal Monday, Jue 4, 2001
LUKE:
Who would own the six new lots?
BLIKSTAD:
They would be individually sold, with the proceeds going to the owner or fee title
owner.
LUKE:
I thought the reason to sell is to help maintain the common area.
BOB LOVLIEN:
(Attorney representing the applicants.) I would like to reserve seven days to reply
to tonight's hearing. There are quite a few people here, and everyone wants to
testify. They feel it is important that you understand what they think about this
particular situation. I am prepared to give my opinion on how this can be
interpreted in order to accommodate what these people would like to think is a
reasonable result.
Matt Lisignoli and Mr. and Mrs. Mann will receive the proceeds from the sale of
these lots. However, please remember that this piece of property has been assessed
at a fair market value for a number of years, so they paid real market value. Not
only will they need to extend the water and power, and make sure they have septic
facilities; they've also put literally tens of thousands of dollars into bringing this
field back to where it is in some reasonable shape. With the development of these
six lots, there will be a mechanism for the perpetual maintenance of the field.
DEWOLF:
The thing you need to get us over is that our staff, both in Community Development
and in Legal, firmly believes that we can't do this, according to state law. The logic
of it is irrelevant. What people want to do is irrelevant. What we need to do is be
able to find a way to get past state law. That's the burden that you bear.
LOVLIEN:
I think there are three arguments. First of all, state law says that the overall density
of the development will not exceed one dwelling for each unit of acreage specified
in the local government's land use regulations on the effective date of this rule, as
the minimum lot size for the area. It doesn't say it shall be 5 acres, it shall be 7.5,
it shall be 10; it doesn't specify a number.
Minutes of Public Hearing Page 4 of 24 Pages
Odin Falls Ranch Land Use Appeal Monday, Jue 4, 2001
LOVLIEN:
Interestingly enough, other parts of the Rule say the parcel shall be no smaller than
two acres, and there shall be no more than ten. So they have specific limitations on
each one of those regarding the number of lots and how big they are going to be.
Those are not at issue here. I would maintain that the way this is drafted now does
not take away your inherent authority to grant a variance to the minimum lot sizes
that are specified in your particular ordinance. You do have the right to take a
variance to those particular standards.
DEWOLF:
You think that because they don't specific a specific number?
LOVLIEN:
Yes. We could have picked out three -acre density or five -acre density; those
densities could be all over the board. You're one of the few counties that doesn't
have a five -acre rural residential zone; that's not uncommon. You started out at ten
acres in the rural residential zone. I don't think that Rule as it is drafted takes away
the inherent power of this Commission to grant a variance to what they consider to
be the appropriate minimum lot size in the area.
You can also take the position that the 79 acres, with a total of seven lots, is well
within the ten -acre minimum lot size prescribed by the MUA-10 zone, without the
density bonus of the PUD (Planned Unit Development).
DEWOLF:
I thought it was six lots.
LOVLIEN:
There would be a total of seven; six with dwellings, and one with the balance of
the acreage. The six lots would be slightly over two acres each. There will only be
six dwelling sites on the entire 90 acres.
DEWOLF:
So that leaves 78 acres of open space. How is that a big change from where it is
now?
Minutes of Public Hearing Page 5 of 24 Pages
Odin Falls Ranch Land Use Appeal Monday, Jue 4, 2001
LOVLIEN:
We submit it isn't, especially if you look at this particular parcel. We exceed a lot
of your minimum lot size rules. We have been saddled with a 20 -year old
decision. I did an interesting calculation. There were originally 510 acres
proposed for Odin Falls Ranch PUD. If you take into account Phase I and River
Springs Estates, and five other tax lots that are within the 510 acres originally
proposed, the overall density would be one unit per 7.5 acres. I think this can be
approached from a number of different ways to justify the fact that this is meeting
the minimum lot size in your particular ordinance.
DEWOLF:
How many lots in the original 510 acres?
LOVLIEN:
There were 102 proposed. Only one phase ever got developed.
DEWOLF:
Then that would be about five acres each.
LUKE:
Has everyone in the subdivision signed off on this?
LOVLIEN:
Interestingly enough, one party hasn't, but this lot isn't part of Odin Falls Ranch,
legally, under the terms of their declaration. He does not pay any assessment, and
isn't subject to their architectural review committee or any of that. It's by itself,
except for the 1981 decision.
DEWOLF:
Let's go back. There would be six lots of about two acres each, with 78 acres left
open. Right now you've got ninety some acres of tumbleweeds and trouble. Then
you'd have 78 acres of tumbleweeds and trouble. How will this solve the problem?
LOVLIEN:
There would be a mechanism in place to perpetually maintain the property via new
ownership.
LUKE:
Will the six homeowners form a homeowners' association?
Minutes of Public Hearing Page 6 of 24 Pages
Odin Falls Ranch Land Use Appeal Monday, Jue 4, 2001
LOVLIEN:
As approved by ballot, this will be included in Odin Falls Ranch; they can impose
another burden on the new six lots for the maintenance responsibility.
DEWOLF:
Won't everyone pay?
LOVLIEN:
It will be basically self-sustaining at that time. It is all cleaned up; and will be put
into hay, which is sustainable.
DEWOLF:
Why must there be an additional six homesites to have this happen?
LOVLIEN:
If they don't get this, the deed is going to go back to the original owner. They
cannot afford to keep it as it is. They have put thousands of dollars into it to get it
to this point. That's what was overlooked by the hearings officer - the acquisition
costs and so on.
LUKE:
Who owns the property?
LOVLIEN:
The Manns and Matt Lisignoli. They are buying it on contract.
DALY:
Who owned it before they did?
LOVLIEN:
Mrs. Millican from Los Angeles. It was originally owned by the Mayfields. If you
go back and look at the written record, you'll find there is no provision for that lot. It
wasn't made part of the PUD, and was not specified as open space or common space.
It's just a lot. There's no mention of any use, just a 98 -acre lot zoned MUA-10.
LUKE:
If it was 100 acres, could they subdivide it into ten lots if they wanted?
Minutes of Public Hearing Page 7 of 24 Pages
Odin Falls Ranch Land Use Appeal Monday, Jue 4, 2001
LOVLIEN:
That would be a logical conclusion. Planning disagrees because of the original
decision.
This action would also provide for a park area and some improvements on it. A
pond would be built and maintained for fire protection. There's an implication that
there's a lot of money to be made, but a lot of money has already been spent and
much more will have to be to spent to get it where it needs to be.
DALY:
Are all the owners in Odin Falls Ranch to be responsible for its maintenance?
LOVLIEN:
We can't impose it on them. Once it's in a sustainable hay field, it won't be a
burden on the six new owners.
DALY:
What is the mechanism to insure that this will continue each year?
DEWOLF:
Or do we come back twenty years from now and hear that now there's 78 acres of
problems out there and it needs to be rezoned for more houses?
LOVLIEN:
We can lay out clearly how this would be handled by the six new owners. We can
even put covenants for enforcement on the existing Odin Falls Ranch owners, too.
We set these up all the time for the purpose of the common good. Much of the
value of these lots will be based on how that open space is maintained and looks.
They've got a real economic incentive to do that.
LUKE:
On page 4, when you talk about the County's actions that resulted in PUDs being
no longer contiguous, what do you mean?
LOVLIEN:
(He referred to the oversize map.) It is not part of the same association. That was
the intent, but the densities were different at that time.
Minutes of Public Hearing Page 8 of 24 Pages
Odin Falls Ranch Land Use Appeal Monday, Jue 4, 2001
LUKE:
If we change this to 5.25 acres from 5.85 by a vote, who would challenge it? What
is the process? Can the state do an enforcement process?
LAURIE CRAGHEAD:
I'm not sure, but it does set precedence. The state can do an enforcement process.
LOVLIEN:
This Rule has absolutely gutted the cluster development and PUD ordinances in
this area. The state is not helpful; although the County has been.
LUKE:
If we do this, what could happen?
LOVLIEN:
Until LUBA declared you to be wrong, that would be the rule in this case.
Someone would have to challenge it. I feel this would be a quantum leap.
LUKE:
Your position is that you disagree with staff s recommendation and our counsel's
interpretation.
LOVLIEN:
I don't disagree on her position that this rule applies to this application; I just I
think you can take advantage of a variance situation based on the way the Rule is
written.
DEWOLF:
The whole idea of a variance is to vary when there are reasonable circumstances.
We can't make a decision just on the basis that it's a good idea.
Chair De Wolf then invited audience members to speak.
DICK MANN:
(Mailing address P. O. Box 580, Redmond, 97756). I have no physical address, as
I just sold my home because of this project. There has been a real
misunderstanding on this application. The Hearings Officer misunderstood
completely.
Minutes of Public Hearing Page 9 of 24 Pages
Odin Falls Ranch Land Use Appeal Monday, Jue 4, 2001
MANN:
A few years ago when we had a severe tumbleweed problem, the homeowners'
board authorized me to contact Mrs. Millican to see if she would lease out her
property to grow hay. Matt Misignoli would not farm this lot unless it was
subsidized by the association. I told Mrs. Millican that we'd restore it, because it
was terribly impoverished land, but that we needed a two-year free lease. We
worked with her for over six months, trying to convince her that this would be best
for her. She said it would kill the sale, as it had been on the market for years; she
had owned it for at least fifteen years. I tried to tell her that if we cleaned the place
up, it would have a better chance of selling.
I convinced Matt that we should buy it. It was clearly zoned MUA 10. That told
us that we could have built a total of nine homes on 90 acres. With the plan that
we had, we figured someone would step up to the plate.
I refinanced my home to take this on. We bought it on a contract. It will end up
costing us $400,000 eventually, because Mrs. Millican won't accept early
payments, unless we pay penalties. She wants the interest, so we're locked into a
contract that's eventually going to cost us $400,000.
I heard Paul Blikstad say that the main reason that the Hearings Officer turned it
down was that she could see that these six lots would bring in excess of $50,000
each, and that it wasn't going to cost that much for the improvements we
anticipated making. She's dead right on both points, but her obvious conclusion
was wrong.
It appeared to her that the applicants would be in for a windfall; she overlooked the
$400,000 cost that we'd be stuck with. I've got a ten-year contract, I'm 76 years
old, and I don't want to leave my wife with this contract and no viable way of
paying it off. I did not get into this for my own purposes. I wanted to do
something for the community. I have volunteered hundreds of hours to the
homeowners' association, and have spent thousands of my own dollars to upgrade
the community and try to stop this fire hazard.
The Hearings Officer also overlooked the need for fire suppression. We have just
one road going in and out. We have the fire marshal from Redmond here tonight
to talk about this. Part of our plan is to develop and line a pond so it would stay
full. This would enhance wildlife habitat and would also act as a quick -connect for
fire trucks. This is critical.
Minutes of Public Hearing Page 10 of 24 Pages
Odin Falls Ranch Land Use Appeal Monday, Jue 4, 2001
MANN:
There's no way to convert that field without the sale of these lots. My partner and
I have put about $100,000 into this. It would be about a half -acre pond, and we
already have bid from Bend Pond & Liner for the work. We will develop this pond
immediately if this is approved.
LUKE:
Who will own the 77 acres when this is done?
MANN:
The applicants. They will also be responsible for finishing the development of the
field.
LUKE:
Are there restrictions in there that would require you to leave this as open space,
and will there clearly be a trail around it?
MANN:
We worked hard to develop the right paperwork and a set of covenants. (He
submitted these documents into the record at this time; attached as Exhibit C.)
I i Lei114
What assurance is there that it will stay established? Will there be a bond?
MANN:
That's exactly one of the concerns of the Hearings Officer. But there must be some
common sense and trust.
DEWOLF:
Trust and common sense don't get us past state law. What will be in the
conditions to assure that this is the intention and that's how it will be maintained?
MANN:
The covenants will be recorded, so anyone who buys that property will be bound.
I'm talking about just the meadow. Anyone who buys that 77 or 78 acre parcel will
be bound by these covenants, which restrict not just the farming to a meadow, it
also restricts fencing, buildings, and so on.
Minutes of Public Hearing Page 11 of 24 Pages
Odin Falls Ranch Land Use Appeal Monday, Jue 4, 2001
DEWOLF:
Would your proposal also include the possibility of a residential dwelling on the 77
acres?
MANN:
No, that is covered with the six. There would be no homesite there. We have
delegated one of the six lots as the homestead lot for that property.
DALY:
Whoever buys that lot would own the larger property?
MANN:
No. I think Matt Lisignoli plans to take over the farmstead, and the lot that fits that
farmstead. He may want to merge them in the future.
DALY:
If the six lots are sold, where does the money go?
MANN:
The purpose of selling the lots is to pay for the $400,000 contract and the
improvements. We've been working on it for two years. The problem is the cost
of doing this to get it established.
DEWOLF:
Why wouldn't you go for a total of six lots, and have one that's about 80 acres with
a residence?
MANN:
That would be quite acceptable.
DEWOLF:
If he buys one lot, designated as the farmstead lot, there's nothing really connecting
it to the meadow. He moves away; you move away, years from now, who will take
care of it then?
MANN:
We would prefer one lot contiguous with this property. So there would only be
five lots.
Minutes of Public Hearing Page 12 of 24 Pages
Odin Falls Ranch Land Use Appeal Monday, Jue 4, 2001
LUKE:
Where does the money go for the lot?
I�
It goes to applicants to recover the amount that has been put in. It takes $25,000 to
do the first improvements. We're willing to front this expense without waiting for
the lots to sell.
LUKE:
How much for the lots?
MANN:
We hope to get $75,000 per lot.
LUKE:
There's nothing set aside to make sure it stays a meadow; it's up to the applicants to
maintain. The only enforcement would be a court action.
MANN:
The covenants would give the homeowners' association the right to file a lawsuit.
DALY:
I can't imagine anyone would buy it.
MANN:
It could be a very nice park area or a nice hobby farm.
DALY:
I did most of the work developing that project twenty years ago. The question is
how to sustain that acreage. The owners of the six lots won't have any
responsibility to do that.
DEWOLF:
That's what we just said. You change it to make one of the lots part of the 78
acres, so you only have six total lots. You'll have a caretaker on an 83 -acre lot.
DALY:
How does that caretaker sustain this farming operation?
Minutes of Public Hearing Page 13 of 24 Pages
Odin Falls Ranch Land Use Appeal Monday, Jue 4, 2001
MANN:
In Deschutes County there is only one viable farm, and that is 1,800 acres under
pivots. The only reliable thing in this area is hay each year. There will always be
someone who will want to farm it for the hay. That meadow will sustain itself
once it has been given a chance.
LUKE:
You have to rotate the crop occasionally. The question is, why not turn it into a
common area and sell it to the homeowners' association, making it their
responsibility to maintain it, no matter what happens?
DALY:
That's my question as well.
MANN:
We explored that. We have 43 property owners out there. We started to figure out
the economics of it. If ten owners would contribute, it would cost each one $2,400
per year just to keep up the interest. You can't get ten people to do that.
LUKE: I meant after the six lots are sold. That's a little different. After the sale,
how do you make sure that land does not go to tumbleweeds?
MANN:
There is no absolute guarantee. It's highly unlikely that a meadow will be allowed
to dry up, no more than a golf course would. We've allowed for animals, with
fencing specs and a list of the types of animals allowed.
(A general discussion then occurred regarding hobby farms and lot sizes.)
MANN:
We want this to be retained as a meadow.
DALY:
I feel it would be more viable to dedicate the balance of the 78 acres to all of the
homeowners in the subdivision, and let them deal with it as a group.
MANN:
We thought about that, too, but they feel it is an additional burden. They worry
about who will do the watering and maintenance.
Minutes of Public Hearing Page 14 of 24 Pages
Odin Falls Ranch Land Use Appeal Monday, Jue 4, 2001
DEWOLF:
They can hire that out. We're not just caught between state law and logic, but also
how to keep this sustainable in a very real way. If your homeowners really don't
want this to be tumbleweeds, then those homeowners need to take some
responsibility for this property.
Like you said, fifteen years from now there's no automatic guarantee that this is
going to be taken care of. How do we build into this a way to make sure we don't
have conflicts, because you'll have one owner who will be taking care of this?
Maybe he does his farming work at 2 a.m., and the neighbors are upset. How do
you overcome that?
MANN:
There are probably just two or three days in the whole year that this could be a
problem.
DEWOLF:
What kind and how many animals would be allowed?
MANN:
We would allow cattle and horses. There's no limit on the number.
DEWOLF:
What if someone puts on 200 head of cattle? The people who live nearby are
going to deal with that kind of smell? If the homeowners own this, they don't have
to deal with that type of issue.
MANN:
We could put those restrictions in there, too. To maintain it, the answer is two -fold.
If it is converted to a permanent meadow, it is very remote that it would be left dry.
LUKE:
You see our problem. We're asking about the long-term; are the residents going to
be coming in to complain?
Minutes of Public Hearing Page 15 of 24 Pages
Odin Falls Ranch Land Use Appeal Monday, Jue 4, 2001
MANN:
It would be terribly remote that it would be left to just dry up. Historically that
does not happen. In that possible eventuality, which I feel is remote, it will likely
stay a viable farmstead. There has to be some confidence in this. An ironclad
guarantee can't be given. We propose that the homeowners would have the right to
hire a farmer to do the work, and to file a lien for whatever costs they incur.
DEWOLF:
They would be much more likely to do so if they were in common ownership of it.
An ironclad guarantee is needed; good intentions now may not mean much in
twenty years. Logic dictates that you are right, but we need to make sure of the
future. We have to deal with state law and the kinds of conditions that remain after
we are gone.
LOVLIEN:
(Off the microphone.) We'd like to come back with a proposal to address your
concerns.
MANN:
I fail to see how an LCDC ruling can apply to an existing development. I can't
imagine why they would want you to demolish a community.
DALY:
I whole-heartedly agree with letters I have received. However, there are some
legal questions we have to deal with. I think all three of us would like to just go
ahead with this, but we need to be satisfied with the long-term ramifications. If
you're on a well, it costs a lot to pump that water.
MANN:
I have prepared a packet of updated information; it includes letters of support from
six residents of the area. (This is a portion of Exhibit C.)
RANDY DAVIS:
(Redmond Fire Marshal.) I am here in support of the proposal basically for the
water source portion. This area is approximately nine miles from the Redmond
fire station, and is the farthest northeast point of the fire district, with one way in
and one way out. The closest water source at this time is at Tetherow Crossing.
There are some fire hydrants in that subdivision, but they are hard to find, and they
may not be well maintained.
Minutes of Public Hearing Page 16 of 24 Pages
Odin Falls Ranch Land Use Appeal Monday, Jue 4, 2001
DAVIS:
To have a water source in this area would be very good; there is no reliable source
at this time. If we have to use the hydrant system that is in there, it could deplete
all of community's drinking water. In getting this green space, in a worse case
scenario it could be a safety zone for people to get into during a firestorm. We
may also be able to use this water elsewhere in the area during a severe emergency.
LUKE:
Any guarantee that the pond will stay full?
DAVIS:
No, but it's better than what we've got, which is not much. I have seen this area
when it was all tumbleweeds. I have never seen such a massive fire hazard in my
life. When the wind broke the tumbleweeds loose, they were piled two stories high
against houses and trees; it was a nightmare.
ELAYNE ANGUS:
I have lived there for seventeen years, and put in the second home in the project.
My husband and I lived there almost by ourselves for ten years. We have burned
thousands of tumbleweeds to keep them off our house. The wind blows dust and
tumbleweeds, making a severe fire hazard. Sometimes we couldn't even get out the
front door.
Regarding water, we had a lightning storm one time, and if I hadn't seen it happen,
we would not have known there was a fire. It was toward the river, and we called
the fire department; they responded and had to keep a watch on it for a long time.
We hope something can be done about this. If it weren't for Dick Mann, we'd
really be in a mess. He put his own money and a lot of work into it. It's not easy
for my husband and I to handle the tumbleweeds ourselves.
JERRY WOELKE:
(President, Odin Falls Ranch Homeowners' Association.) I want to argue for the
residents in favor of this variance. I am prepared to give logical answers. (He
referred to the oversized map.)
The large center section was a just a ruse to be able to provide the required density
at the time; however, in the meantime it has become a white elephant. It is no
longer possible or practical to farm it, and that is why we like this proposal. I
understood the covenants for the center section, as written, that one of the six lots
is going to be attached to the lot as a farmstead.
Minutes of Public Hearing Page 17 of 24 Pages
Odin Falls Ranch Land Use Appeal Monday, Jue 4, 2001
WOELKE:
In those covenants there would be a guarantee. This is not the long-term viability
that we are looking for, and it's not the ironclad guarantee, but it's the best that we
can see right now. That's the proposal in the covenants to insure that this center
area is maintained through perpetuity. The neighborhood does enforce its
covenants, and has in the past used legal means to do so; we're not afraid to do that
in the future. We expect that we would able to do that successfully in the future.
Again, we see no other viable option.
DALY:
Are these the covenants that Dick (Mann) referred to?
WOELKE:
Dick has put together a set of covenants for the one area. They would be in
addition to the Odin Falls Ranch covenants now in effect.
DALY:
Your Odin Falls Ranch covenants do not apply to this property.
WOELKE:
Currently they do not. They would be attached to this property.
LUKE:
I think that's the wrong word. These would have to be deed restrictions.
LOVLIEN:
(Off the microphone.) Deed restrictions and covenants are for the most part
interchangeable terms.
WOELKE:
The Association is not interested in taking over the maintenance of that big lot.
DALY:
If one lot owner is responsible for all of the larger property and does not maintain
it, you're saying that the Association would take the owner to court to keep it
maintained.
WOELKE:
Going to court is more effective than attaching a lien.
Minutes of Public Hearing Page 18 of 24 Pages
Odin Falls Ranch Land Use Appeal Monday, Jue 4, 2001
DALY:
Why would anyone want to do that?
WOELKE:
The belief is that there are people who would like to have a lot like this and farm it
as a hobby, as long as they could at least break even. I have personal knowledge of
people who farm all year and get a little money and a lot of enjoyment out of it.
It's a white elephant now, and the community would like some relief.
MATTHEW LISIGNOLI:
I live in Crook County now. I derive most of my income from farming, but I also
drive a truck part time to make a living. Farming is not profitable here, but I am
trying to do this full time. I enjoy it, and would like to come up with an investment
for the future. I now have a bare parcel with a house on it in Crook County. I need
to sell, as I'm not breaking even. I would like to have a homesite for my family
and make money on rented ground. I could buy just a small lot for this amount of
money, but I am willing to lose a little each year to have quality of life.
I don't understand why everyone is trying to isolate this lot from the entire parcel.
I understand there is no designated homesite on this; I'm looking at five lots plus
this lot. There are lots of houses on acreage in Deschutes County, and people
usually want to maintain the area where they live. Dick and I want to improve this
land and make it respectable, and it's a good investment for someone.
LUKE:
I've seen more than one developer come in and not realize their dream. If
someone is not able to maintain or sell it, it could go downhill. The question we
are asking is, what will keep people from coming back here in future years,
wanting to subdivide the smaller parcel?
LISIGNOLI:
I would farm it as a homesite and residence for my family, but not just as rented
land. The Association doesn't want to front the expense of it or do the work
themselves. I would like to build a home and make it a farmstead; this works well
in other parts of Central Oregon.
DALY:
It won't pay now, but it would with a house on it?
Minutes of Public Hearing Page 19 of 24 Pages
Odin Falls Ranch Land Use Appeal Monday, Jue 4, 2001
LISIGNOLI:
I'm not breaking even on what I have now. I want to move out of Powell Butte, as
most of my farming jobs are in Culver. It won't work for farming just as apiece of
land, but I am willing to spend money if I live there. You need an on-site owner,
not an absentee owner who doesn't care.
JIM HAYES:
I'm a new owner, and my property backs to the field. My concern was to look at
long-term viability. I will certainly donate my time to Dick Mann and the attorney
to make this happen. It is becoming an albatross for the subdivision, and I perceive
the value of the properties there being negatively affected by this. However, I feel
it's not viable as outright purchase by the Homeowners' Association. We just need
to figure out how to get through the legalities of it.
RANDY SMITH:
I am a resident, and have been involved in the Association extensively since 1993.
I have worked a lot with the CC & R's. Other than just the emotional part - as I
intend to live there the rest of my life - this is a long-term problem, and I want to
see it made a positive part of the community, instead of a negative. We want to
make it work as a community. The proposal you have is the best we've been able
to come up with to this point.
When interpreting the ruling and determining how to apply it, a couple of times it
was brought up that within an area, specific densities and ranges of densities apply.
Each time to me it appeared that the focus was looking at Odin Falls Ranch. Yet,
because of the road system and geography, it isn't just Odin Falls Ranch; it's also
River Springs Estates and Tetherow Crossing. When considering density issues,
perhaps you can justify looking at the bigger picture, as an area and not just as a
part of Odin Falls Ranch, due to one specific access point.
We worked hard to get some preliminary information down on paper, which is a
work in progress, to come up with something that will work. We need to have this
parcel included in the CC & R's so we have some kind of control over its use.
This would give the Association an avenue to pursue if they have to.
DALY:
It's my understanding that if all this goes through, the whole thing will fall on one
property owner's shoulders to take care of the property. Are there enough
restrictions to be able to enforce this?
Minutes of Public Hearing Page 20 of 24 Pages
Odin Falls Ranch Land Use Appeal Monday, Jue 4, 2001
SMITH:
That's my understanding. That's the plan.
BOB ROMANCIER:
(He indicated he had previously submitted a letter for the file.) I'm a concerned
resident and a previous president of the Association, and currently I'm on the
architectural control committee. I also helped to revise the CC & R's. I've also
been asked by the Board of Directors to work with Mr. Mann and Mr. Lisignoli in
the development of acceptable CC & R's. That's why the Association so strongly
supports what they want to do.
The association will give up a lot of freedoms to have this occur. The Board of
Directors and the membership as a whole accept this. It's a win-win situation. The
parcel is the centerpiece of the development, and it could be a jewel. I am forest
ecologist and I know about fire. You installed the six-inch mains; we have 42 psi
at my house. We need bigger mains for emergencies.
The homesites would go in one portion of the parcel. The undeveloped parts of the
lot pose the greatest fire problem. Fire in the tumbleweeds would prevent people
from evacuating. (He referred to the oversized map.) If you could avoid asking,
"Where does it say we can do this"; instead perhaps you could ask, "Where does it
not say we can do this". The only person who opposes the proposal lives in an
area where the tumbleweeds build up the worst.
RANDY LUNSFORD:
I am the opposition. I live in River Springs Estates on a 4.78 -acre lot. The lots
range from 4.5 to 16 acres. I have heard a lot of hearsay. There are other people
who oppose this. It's a political thing. When the developer lives in an area, you
don't want to stick your neck out. Maybe I shouldn't.
DEWOLF:
We can't guess at this.
LUNSFORD:
I've heard of all this overwhelming support, but I hear of negative support for it.
There wasn't a survey done as far as I know. If so, I never received a copy. I
haven't seen a list of people who support it. I can't imagine why anyone would
want to view rooftops instead of mountains. I want to ask about State Goal 14. I
understand that it was enforceable prior to Dick making his application. Has it
been presented or discussed?
Minutes of Public Hearing Page 21 of 24 Pages
Odin Falls Ranch Land Use Appeal Monday, Jue 4, 2001
LUNSFORD:
I sent in a letter sent regarding the previous hearing. Some of these issues were
addressed in the Hearings Officer's findings, but some weren't. I would like you
to review this information before deciding to overturn this.
LUKE:
Could staff please make sure we have a copy of his letter?
LUNSFORD:
These things should not be personal attacks on anybody. I don't mean this to be an
affront on anyone. We do have a big problem, but I feel that it will still exist even
if this is done. We can chip away at the lot gradually, but it leaves us with an area
that is even harder to farm. You can't even get a piece of heavy equipment
through the gate due to a phone booth. I have heard that it isn't worth farming. I
don't know if this is actually a financial windfall for Dick. I realize it's a financial
burden.
DEWOLF:
This does not go to what we're dealing with regarding state law. Whether he
makes or loses money is irrelevant to our decision here.
LUNSFORD:
I see state law that says you can't do this.
DEWOLF:
The attorney says we can.
LUNSFORD:
I worked for a fire department for years. With all of the other areas around this
area with trees, there is still a fire hazard. The pond is not that beneficial. When a
fire goes, it won't help. The fire department would be bombing outside the entire
area. It could be a safety point, maybe; but a fire may roll right over it. This is not
an issue that can be resolved just by putting a pond out there.
DEWOLF:
You can't dispute the fact that it could help.
Minutes of Public Hearing Page 22 of 24 Pages
Odin Falls Ranch Land Use Appeal Monday, Jue 4, 2001
LUNSFORD:
If the ground is moist and there's no wind, it could help. Beyond that, no. This
change in the development will devastate the land. Yet we want to increase the
population in the neighborhood by 10%, putting them in harm's way as well.
Potatoes work. Or the lot could be turned into turf farming, but only if you can get
equipment to it and keep it watered. If the intent is to keep it green, why is it
currently being under -watered? I was a farmer for ten years, and this is my
opinion. I urge you to look at what we want for Central Oregon. I'll admit it is an
albatross. It will still be an albatross even if it's smaller.
Rules can be put into place to protect it, but as I think of this process, I can't
believe it can happen. You can see why there are County and state laws against it.
We need to keep designated open space as mandated by the state.
I hear the argument regarding money. There is nothing presented here that will
solve the problem, unless the intent is to eventually subdivide the entire parcel.
They'll keep chipping away. They'll say it's not farmable, so why not subdivide
it. I doubt the demand in the area is there; there are other homesites available.
There are enough houses and homesites out there now. We don't need to take
away from the beauty that we have. This results in financial benefits for one
gentleman.
CRAGHEAD:
(Difficult to hear; off the microphone.) We're not just discussing state OAR's. The
Hearings Officer found they did not meet four findings, and there are other criteria
to make findings on as well.
LOVLIEN:
We need a bit more time to address the issues you have brought up. We would like
to present this in a brief form, and would like to have until a week from Friday to
address these. We will address the OAR's and come back with a cohesive plan per
your suggestions and concerns.
CRAGHEAD:
I suggest you just keep the record open, or have the hearing left open so that
everyone can come back in an open manner so this can be further discussed with
the Board.
Minutes of Public Hearing Page 23 of 24 Pages
Odin Falls Ranch Land Use Appeal Monday, Jue 4, 2001
(A general discussion regarding meeting dates occurred.)
DEWOLF:
The record will be left open until Friday, June 15, 2001 at 12:00 noon for further
information from the applicant. We will continue this hearing until Wednesday,
June 27, at 10:00 a.m. This may be continued again until the Board meeting
scheduled for Wednesday, July 11, 2001 if last minute information comes in that
needs to be addressed.
Chair Tom De Wolf then recessed the meeting, at 5: 45 p.m.
DATED this 4t" of June 2001 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Public Hearing
Odin Falls Ranch Land Use Appeal
Tom DeWolf, Chair
ennis R. Luke, C issioner
Mi hael M. Daly, C missioner
Page 24 of 24 Pages
Monday, Jue 4, 2001
a f ,,y � •4*.. 1. !!.
f M
PS
if � .-► . f r;...... T
y
IL
ti� fit: • S �•i
gg �y
w
y
r
V
VAA
44
A.Y..
ff
mll
� ' K
�`'�+f,<Y r ,L`-.M �''-- '•� _
J' A -------.. .. `Cr"tiny`.. `�'" '�.:..•dd ^• -1 ?
'^ i� �T . dj 7Lf .'�'>w.`� iia' • �v +.r1
qt
�ii� �� ,. �'�. _� .�.. is � xr� 1 �:� «3. AR �' ��•
gF� �ij �� � � ���-!•.•yie ' may' F �� • . f� 'i�.•`�`. r•,.
"1T y.P'°• �:l'�.
•`4f: '•a , +lie rI „y 4 ��Y,�i�
} a as F' - y, � ��y►I � �i � � m ,
n y .
AII
i
iz; • ,� t-yr�.'°��.�--.-...
NL
�}� r�i � `� . _ +� � r `• fir'-�c; , s�M�u.: , `�'�� + �v:,.w���'�'��.
+ ,� � + v � -.. ',« 1 ,,A s ;ice .' -a. t'+"'�. ` �,,.�.' ♦. ., °
�ka. E s ' ' �9^ x +y r ��< � ._'.. "y.e�7 ��'s'i�~" er.yA� '� �G ,3�' .•,ix
In
Wt ♦ .,. J
x S , , ,, . �... fir• "Q.�= i7.
In
12,
' h r f ti �.t '1 s 3 �w'�!`xa •Y :..,,�+ 3 "f.;; w� r.•: �;'y ,.,,�
k, � � •fit,,,. vs r, x ... �" s,, _ .,, _ �.�.�.�.•..��
.i t4
1 .'jqq � a >. �x2 i,ge 3 �'x'v♦ s., t- ,r+T-"
�' rr�,6` �4�� }.4� w�� `` �•�w+��� ��..rrtflq :�lrt.�i.� �k.. -'~•�. '
"r,1h_tti•�•7�''ii,M"h'u'r
TIIIS ENTRANCL ISA FAR C'IZY ERONI 'I'llF CATTLE' GATE, AND MENAGERIE
OF MAII. BOXES SIIOW'N NN'III?N AjNIORTIZFD ON'l:R I?.'FN A SIIORT
PERIOD 011 UNVENTN I LABS, B1 41 iNiE�iNIBI,:IZS IT :k GRFAT INV EST�MENT.
BEHIND THIS ENTRANCE THAT WAS DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED
BY APPLICANT WITH MATERIALS AND PAVING BY ODIN FALLS RANCII
LIES THE POTENTIAL FOR ONE OF THE MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY
ATTRACTIVE DEVELOPMENTS OF ITS KIND IN CENTRAL OREGON
IMPORTANT EVIDENTIARY LETTERS
The following letters are particularly important because of their content and the
importance of the author's position in the community.
Randy Smith -Long time property owner, repeat board member, past vice-
president, treasurer, and current chairman of the Architectural Control
Committee. This is the last of his three letters to the County supporting this
application.
Ken Martin - Past association president who mailed and recorded
ballots received in the mail regarding this application. This is the last
of his four letters to the county in support of this application.
Jerry Woelke - Current president who has served several terms in the
past as president. This is the last of his two letters to the county in
support of this application.
Bob Romancier - Past president and co -drafter of the proposed field
covenants. This is the last of his three letters to the county in support
of this application.
Elayne Angus - Pioneer resident who has first-hand knowledge for
over 14 years of the havoc reeked on this community from this
impoverished field. This is the last of her two letters to the county in
support of this application.
Randy Davis - Redmond Fire Marshal who witnessed the. last
tumbleweed onslaught and knows the value of this application in terms
of vital fire protection for these two communities. This is the last of
his two letters to the county in support of this application.
Richard Mann - Co -applicant and board of directors for several terms.
This is the last of his four letters to the county in support of this
application.
RANDY L. SMITH
May 29, 2001
Community Development Department
County Commissioners
1] 7 NW Lafayette Ave.
Bend, OR 97701
File # V-00-14, MC -00-11, RP -00-2 (A -0I-10)
Dear Commissioners,
In regards to the above file number I have previously written to express my support of the
application and am writing yet again to reaffirm my support. It is my understanding that the
application was denied by the Community Development Department and that decision has been
appealed to you for your consideration. I sincerely hope that common sense will prevail, the
previous decision reversed, and the application be approved.
I am a property owner and resident of Odin Falls Ranch. My property and home is located
adjacent to the property covered by the application you are reviewing. I have owned the property
since 1993 and during that time a source of constant concern and dissapointment has been the
condition of lot 1, block 2, of the development. This is the parcel represented by the application.
Due to actions taken by the developers of Odin Falls Ranch this key parcel was excluded from the
provisions and requirements of the CC&R's that govern the use of all other property within our
community. I think that was a serious mistake. The result has been that the subject parcel, literally
the center piece of our community, has been intermittently farmed haphazardly as a mint field
(producing more dust and weeds than mint) or left to nature to become an incredible display of
tumbleweeds. Many of those would at times stack up against the homes at the northwest corner of
the field. Bottom line is that this was not only an eyesore but an extreme fire hazard, Iteraly a fire
storm waiting to happen. Leaving the property and its allowed use unchanged will only perpetuate
this dangerous situation. I doubt that the property can be ecomically or productively farmed given
its location and surrounding community. Even if it could the presence of such activity at the center
of our community is incompatible. It would be virtually the same as if Eagle Crest or Sun River
were built around a garlic field instead of their beautiful golf courses.
The Odin Falls Ranch Property Owners Association has actively pursued ways of dealing with this
problem over the past several years. I have taken part in those efforts through my active
involvement in our associaiton as a repeat member of the Board of Directors, Vice President,
Treasurer, and Chairman of the Archetictural Control Committee. All efforts have left us
frustrated and dissapointed until Mr. Mann and his partner approached us with their plan.
The plan they present gives Odin Falls Ranch permanent control over a signifigant portion of the
subject parcel and provides for substantial, yet appropriate, restrictions over the remaining
property. By allowing them to partition off and sell a few new building sites, and by placing
reasonable restricions on the type of agricultural use allowed on the remaining land, we have the
opportunity to change the subject property from an ongoing problem to one that is a permanent
asset to the surrounding community.
I understand that the extensive land use laws and regulations are intended to benefit our society as
a whole by protecting our environment and ensuring reasonable and compatible land uses within
defined areas. My concern in this case is that by following the letter of the law the spirit of the
law might be violated and leave us with just the type of bad situation it actually tried to prevent in
the first place. In reviewing this matter I hope you will note the overwhelming support of those of
us who jive here (right next to the subject property and potential new home sites) and that you will
place common sense along side the letter of the law, so that the spirit of the law will prevail. In
other words please do what is truly right and not just what is technically right: please approve the
application.
Sincerely,
Richard Mann
P.O. Box 580
Redmond, OR 97756
(541) 548-2963
Date: May 23, 2001
Amended: June 2, 2001
Community Development Department
County Commissioners
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
Bend, OR 97701
Gentlemen: Re: File Numbers: V-00-14, MC -00-11, RP -00-2 (A-01-10)
The planning staff has drawn your attention to a new set of LCDC Rules, one in particular they
indicated might "hurt" this application. I believe those rules clearly apply to new developments,
not existing developments. To argue otherwise would defy common sense. Why would LCDC
draft such a comprehensive list of rules to apply to a development that had already been
completed?
The County Hearings Officer apparently didn't think these rules applied to this case either, since
they were not mentioned in the decision, and it is difficult to believe she was not aware of
something so basic. To argue the rules were intended to have dual applicability does not make
sense either. In the first place if the LCDC intended the rule to apply to existing developments it
would have said so. Indeed, the County Staff seemed to agree with this logic when Paul Blikstad
stated at the hearing, (transcript page 9 @15-20) "We do believe that the variance is in
conformance with the comprehensive plan. We believe that the policies listed under the
Residential Recreational Development section of the County Comprehensive Plan really is, is
directed at new subdivisions. This is just a replat of an existing one".
In the second place new developments have some flexibility to design around the new rules.
Existing developments that cry out for environmental improvements don't have that flexibility,
particularly in this case. To the contrary, there are 43 property owners whom have been stuck
with the nightmare the County handed them (unintentionally albeit), when their planners
mistakenly assumed this impoverished 59 acre farm stead would become a common area to be
maintained by the home owners who would not have the wherewithal to develop and maintain it
anyway. Instead, the whole 90 acre parcel was sold off to a California party who has never
shown any interest in funding the time consuming efforts and equipment it takes to establish the
proposed meadow. This improvement and many more benefits would flow to the property
owners upon approval of this application at no cost to them.
A perusal of the County historical records show the County was instrumental (through lack of
foresight and mistakes), in allowing this acute health and fire hazard to emerge from the field
that gave Odin Falls Ranch it's name.
The County has opened the door wide to this application when they co -acted to create Tax Lot 1,
Block 2 and then zoned it Multi Use Agriculture 10. This clearly conveyed the impression to
any buyer that this 90 acre tax lot would accommodate a home site for each 10 acres, ie. 9 home
sites. We should not, as the Hearings Officer indicated, have had to search voluminous old
County records for contradictory information.
It would be unconscionable for the County to compound the errors made in the past by reneging
on the cardinal MUA 10 zoning they put on this parcel after a buyer had committed several
hundred thousand dollars depending upon this zoning. This would be blatantly unfair.
The County now has the opportunity to rectify those serious mistakes of the past, by granting this
application. If ever there was a case that should be decided on it's own merits, this falls in that
category.
Nothing but good would flow from these additional home sites. Besides providing funds to
subsidize the land acquisition, the conversion to a meadow, the critical fire station and the
community park, these lots would mitigate urban sprawl by making use of sage brush areas
where roadways and utilities are already in place. In addition, these lots would provide an
additional $1,890, annual dues revenue to the association for maintenance and improvements,
not to mention putting nearly 18 acres on the tax rolls that are needlessly on tax deferral.
Indeed, this is a win, win situation for all. And that is why the current association president and
two past presidents spoke out so passionately at the previous hearing, and that is why 32 ballots
favoring this proposal were mailed in with no negative ballots. And that is why, prior to the
previous hearing, 11 supportive letters from Odin Falls property owners flowed to the County
with only one negative response from a party who is not even an Odin Falls Ranch property
owner. And, that is why prior to this hearing 25 additional support letters from 25 individuals
flowed to the County in support of this application, and why seven concerned people have
offered, without being asked, to testify in favor of this proposal.
It is apparent from the Hearings Officer's decision, in denying this application, that she ignored
or misunderstood pertinent testimony at the hearing. Paul Blikstad told the commission at the
preliminary hearing that the main reason she denied this application was because the lots would
sell for in excess of $50,000 each for a total of more than $300,000. She then pointed out that
the environmental improvements should not cost anywhere near this amount of money. And I
agree, she was absolutely correct on both points, however, her inferred conclusion that this
would leave the applicants with a unjustified windfall is absolutely erroneous. She completely
ignored my testimony that the purchase contract we signed for this ninety acre parcel would
ultimately cost us upwards to $400,000 including interest, that could not be amortized except
from the sale of the proposed lots.
The truth is that the proceeds from the sale of the proposed lots are intended to subsidize this
purchase as well as providing funds for the proposed environmental improvements. It should be
clearly obvious that most all the proceeds from these lots will be used for acquiring the land, so
that the Odin Falls Ranch Association will have permanent control, for the first time, over the
future development of this parcel, and funding the proposed environmental improvements.
The second major error the Hearings Officer made was when she concluded that there was no
assurance once the field was converted to a meadow, that it would stay a meadow. This is
tantamount to saying that once the sagebrush is converted to a golf course, there is no assurance
it will always stay a golf course.
The third major error the Hearings Officer made was focusing on the amount of open space
instead of the quality of open space. Indeed, the Hearings Officer overlooked the environmental
upgrading that is so critical to this community, and which is the main purpose of this
application,
This application cannot reasonably be construed as a new development, subject to the new
LCDC rules, because as Paul Blikstad pointed out, this is simply a replat of an existing
development, and as far as the lots are concerned, there is no developing to do. Indeed, any
State agency concerned with environmental quality would applaud this application. It certainly
wouldn't advocate construing its' rules so as to deny an application which would effectively
destroy the environmental upgrading of an entire community. Which would also deny the only
source of water for fire suppression.
As mentioned above this application should not be treated as a new development, because the
roadways and utilities are already in place. Moreover if this application is granted the density
will still be well within the original 5 acre requirement (257.48 acres divided by 48 buildable
lots =5.36 acres). This is a minor variation request which the community desperately needs, and
which I believe the County Commission has full authority to grant.
Respectfully submitted,
<Ric Mann
4.DMOA,
CITY OF REDMOND
Fire Department
May 30, 2001
Dick Mann
PO Box 580
Redmond, OR 97756
548-2963
FAX 548-5108
Dear Mr Mann,
341 NW Dogwood
Redmond, OR 97756-0100
(541) 504-5000
Fax: (541) 548-5512
E-mail: fire@redmond.or.us
Web site: www.redmond.or.us
This letter is to express the Redmond Fire Department's support of the Odin Falls homeowners
association with the construction of a water supply for firefighting efforts at Odin Falls Estate
subdivision and to preserve the area in the middle of the property as a meadow.
The present fire hydrant system is deficient in some areas such as water flow available, distance
between hydrants, and ability to find them. The proposed pond/lake would greatly enhance the
safety of the area by providing an adequate available water source for fire suppression. If the pond
had "dry hydrants" that our fire equipment could access and obtain water from, it would greatly
enhance the fire suppression efforts in this area. The pond you are proposing would give us a
more than adequate water supply. The closest river access now is about 2 miles away at
Tetherow Bridge.
In the past when the field was not planted the tumbleweeds grew prolifically and created a huge
fire safety issue when they piled up into the brush and houses. Every option should be considered
to eliminate this from happening again.
Sincerely,
Randy Davis, Fire Marshal
cc: Ron Oliver, Fire Chief
Deschutes County Rural Fire District #1
Rene and Elayne Angus
7415 Grubstake Way
P.O. Box 327
Redmond, OR 97756
May 23, 2001
Community Development Department
Planning Division
Board of Commissioners
117 NW Lafayette Ave.
Bend, OR 97701 File Numbers: V-00-14, MC -00-11, RP -00-2 (A -O1-10)
Dear Commissioners:
We are writing once again in support of the above application.
Our home is located on the very edge of the center field and since ours was the second home to
be built, we have first hand knowledge over a good many years of the devastation reeked upon
us, again and again by dust and tumble weeds from this field. This is a very pristine setting, and
we should be entitled to the environmental and esthetic transformation this application would
provide, without fear that some technicality might preclude this from happening.
Sincerely
Renfand E ayne Angus
ODIN FALLS RANCH PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION
P.O. SOX 2213 REDMOND, OREGON 97756 923-5221
May 25, 2001
From: Jerry Woelke, President, OFRPOA
To: Deschutes County Commissioners
1130 NW Harriman
Bend, OR 97701
Subj: COMMENT ON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE, FILE NUMBERS MC -00-11, RP -00-2
(A-01-10), and V-00-14, SUBMITTED BY RICHARD AND ALICE MANN
Ref: (a) Deschutes County Community Development Department "Notice of
PublicHearing", mailed May 11, 2001
1. The purpose of this letter is to respond to reference (a) and encourage your approval
of subject Application for Variance, despite the Hearing Officer's denial.
2. When this subdivision was originally developed, I imagine that factoring in the
undesirable large open area in the middle of our community looked good on paper
and ensured the desired overall residential density. Now, times have changed and
this methodology has become flawed. The center lot is a white elephant. It is no
longer farmable and only presents a maintenance nightmare not only for its owner
and our entire community, but also our neighbors in River Springs Estates. The dust
the untended land used to generate was a simple nuisance, but its current potential
output of tumbleweeds and other noxious weeds has created a wildfire threat to each
of our individual lots. In prior years, our association poured thousands of dollars
and hundreds of uncompensated manhours into its cleanup and management.
3. As such, this association has a tremendous stake in the approval of the Mann's
request for variance. At our association's April 7 annual meeting, unanimous
support was given to the Request for Variance before you. Our community requests
you give ample consideration to our support, and respect the view of the only people
in Deschutes County to be materially affected by the disposition of this request.
4. While you may feel inclined to support the Hearing Officer's decision, Dick Mann's
request is a simple solution to many problems we live which are far removed from the
CDD office. This variation ensures the permanent improvement and maintenance of
our community's most prominent (and problematic) geographical feature. It also
adds a number of lots to our community which will help us reach that critical mass
of households required to enable us to feel and function like a regular neighborhood.
5. I respectfully request the County Commissioners overturn the Hearing Officer's
denial and grant approval of subject Application for Variance.
Sincerely,
May 22, 2001
Mr. Tom De Wolf; Chair
Mr. Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner
Mr. Mike Daly, Commissioner
C/O Deschutes County Community Development Department
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
Bend, Oregon 97701-1925
File Numbers: V-00-14, MC -00-11, RP -00-2 (A-01-10
Applicant: Richard and Alice Mann, and Matthew Lisignoli
Gentlemen:
I am a resident of Odin Falls Ranch and have served on the board of
directors for two years. In that time I have experienced the negative and
positive impact of the 90 -acre parcel in question.
The negative: an abandoned agricultural blight that produced
tumbleweeds and a horrible fire danger.
The positive: the conversion to a meadow that truly is a beautiful open
space to the 43 residential lots in this development.
Who caused both? On the negative side was an absentee owner who saw
no chance of running a viable agricultural operation. On the positive
side is Dick Mann, Alice Mann, and Matt Lisignoli who purchased it and
want to convert it to a low maintenance meadow for the aesthetics of an
open space.
As Commissioners you have the authority to grant a variance on density
to allow six additional lots. If you do not grant this variance then the
present owners will probably sell this 90 acres to an operator that would
not have the aesthetics in mind. It concerns me that a future operator
could have fencing; farm animals and have trouble accessing this area
because of our security gate at the entrance.
I have heard the county planners describe this 90 acres as open space.
It will be truly open space if you allow the Manns and Lisignoli to have
six lots and then install CC&Rs to limit the use of the agricultural
portion.
If you decide against them it will be 60 acres of God knows what
bordered by a measly 30 acres of juniper and sage.
County Commissioners; page two
I am enclosing copies of three previous letters that my wife and I have
addressed to the county on this issue. The spirit of all of our
correspondence and of our community in general is optimism that this
partitioning will be allowed so that we can gain some degree of control
over the management and beauty of the cornerstone of our PUD.
We call our community Odin Falls Ranch. The Manns and Mr. Lisignoli
want to put the finishing touches on the "ranch" part of the idea.
Please grant this variance.
Sincerely,
Kenneth R. Martin
7820 NW Grubstake Way
Redmond, OR 97756
Robert M. Romancier
7850 NW Grubstake Way
Redmond, OR 97756
May 21, 2001
Community Development Department
Deschutes County
117 NW Lafayette Ave.
Bend, OR 97701
Re: File Numbers V-00-14, MC -00-11, RP -00-2, (A-01-10)
Dear County Commissioners:
In response to the Notice of Public Hearing dated May 9, 2001, 1 am an
"Interested Person", a resident of Odin Falls Ranch, and a member of the Odin
Falls Ranch Property Owners' Association. In 1997-98, 1 was President of the
Association. I am currently a member of the Association's Architectural
Control Committee. I also helped revise the Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) which restrict Odin Falls Ranch, and I represented the
Association in working with Messrs. Mann and Lisignoli on the proposed
restrictions for the agricultural portion of the Field Lot (Lot 1, Block 2).
I also testified at the January 16, 2001 Hearing conducted by Hearing
Officer Karen Green. I was greatly disappointed that Ms. Green ignored the
wishes of our community in her April 4 decision. I understand that the County,
for the good of the community, can waive or reinterpret various restrictions to a
proposed development. To explain our (the residents of the Odin Falls Ranch
community) situation: The Field Lot (Lot 1, Block 2) is specifically excluded
from all provisions of the CC&Rs (Article 4.12 of the current CC&Rs). This
means the Property Owners' Association has no control whatsoever over the
central and largest portion of the entire Planned Unit Development. We view
this lack of control as a great disadvantage and a distinct threat to our
individual home investments and to the character of the entire neighborhood.
However, Mann and Lisignoli have presented the Property Owners'
Association with an acceptable and attractive proposal for strictly limited
development of Lot 1, Block 2 (that is, no more than six additional lots). The
proposal includes a set of restrictions for the agricultural or non-residential
portion of Lot 1, Block 2, plus an agreement that lots in the residential portion
of Lot 1, Block 2 will forever be governed by the more restrictive CC&Rs of
Odin Falls Ranch.
I, and other owners, view this as a win-win situation, giving the
Property Owners' Association assurances and control over the usage of the
property while allowing Mann and Lisignoli to recoup some of their
expenditures for the land. Of the 58 land owners within the gated community, I
know of only one person opposed to this proposal - Randy Lunsford. He is
concerned that more than six lots will be approved, now or in the future. You
County Commissioners can address that concern by forbidding development
beyond the presently requested six lots.
My wife and I support the Mann-Lisignoli appeal and request for a
variance, and urge Deschutes County to approve the variance, while insuring
(1) that the requested six residential lots of Lot 1, Block 2 do indeed remain
permanently under the Odin Falls Ranch CC&Rs, even when ownership of the
properties changes; and (2) that no more future lots (beyond the requested
six) can be established in Lot 1, Block 2.
For the good of our community, we request and urge that Deschutes
County approve the requested variance.
g, f -'T W � � Re �
Robert M. Romancier, Ph.D.
Ecologist
Glenda F. Romancier
Lot 16-1, Odin Falls Ranch
Introduction
This is a public hearing on an appeal of the land use applications submitted by Richard
and Alice Mann and Matthew Lisignoli for six additional lots within the Odin Falls Ranch
subdivision.
Burden of proof and Applicable criteria
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 you
see.
Hearinas Procedure
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.
Testimony and evidence at this hearing must be directed toward the criteria set forth in
the notice of this hearing and 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
which any person believes apply to this decision.
Failure on the part of 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 to the Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue.
Order of Presentation
The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The Planning Division 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 and evidence.
Opponents will then be given a chance to make a presentation. 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. 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 may be entertained at any time at the Board's discretion.
Cross-examination of witnesses will not be allowed. However, if any person wishes a
question be asked of any person during that person's presentation, please direct such
question to the Chair after being recognized. The Chair is free to decide whether or not
to ask such questions of the witnesses.
Exhibit A, Page 1 of 2
Pre -hearing Contacts
I will now direct a question to the other members of the Board of County Commissioners.
If any member of the Board, including myself, 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?
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?
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.
Challenges for Bias, Preiudament, or Personal Interest
Any party prior to the commencement of the hearing may challenge the qualifications of
the Board of County Commissioners or any member thereof of bias, prejudgment or
personal interest. This challenge must be documented with specific reasons supported
by facts.
I will accept challenges now.
Should any Board member be challenged, the member may disqualify himself or herself,
withdraw from the hearing or make a statement on the record of their capacity to hear
the appeal.
Hearing no challenges, I shall proceed.
Exhibit A, Page 2 of 2
Before the Board today is an appeal of the Hearings Officer's decision on applications
for a Variance to the maximum density and minimum open space standards, a
modification of a previously approved planned unit development and a replat to add 6
lots within the Odin Falls Ranch PUD.
A public hearing on these applications was held on January 16, 2001 with the written
record closing on Feb. 6. The Hearings Officer issued a written decision dated April 5,
denying the variance application. Since the variance was denied by the hearings officer
she determined that no findings were necessary with respect to the other two
applications.
The applicant filed a timely appeal and the Board determined that it would hear the
appeal; order no. 2001-049 was signed by the Board authorizing a hearin on the appeal.
THe applicant by separate letter waived the 150 -day review period on these applications
and consequently the Board has no time constraints on issuing a decision on them.
Subsequent to the applicant filing the appeal, staff became aware of certain recent rule
changes to Oregon Administrative Rules 660-004-0040, Application of Goal 14
(Urbanization) to Rural Residential Areas. These rule changes became effective in
October of 2000. The applicant's three applications were submitted on November 6,
2000. It is staff's position that these rule changes are directly applicable to the subject
applications, in this case the variance request.
Under 660-004-0040 (7)(e) is the following: "A local government may authorize a
planned unit development (PUD), specify the size of lots or parcels by averaging density
across a parent parcel, or allow clustering of new dwellings in a rural residential area
only if all conditions set forth in paragraphs (7)(e)(A) through (7)(e)(H) are met:
Subsection F states: The overall density of the development will not exceed one
dwelling for each unit of acreage specified in the local government's land use
regulations on the effective date of this rule as the minimum lot size for the area.
The applicant is requesting a variance to the maximum density allowed in the MUA-10,
which for a planned unit development is one dwelling unit per 7.5 acres. The existing
density in Odin Falls Ranch, including the subject property is one dwelling unit (or lot)
per 5.98 acres. The resulting density with the variance request would be one lot per
5.25 acres. Based upon the language in the OAR previously mentioned, it is Staff's
opinion that the County cannot vary it's density standard in the MUA-10 zone without
violating state law.
Based on the above, staff has no choice but to recommend denial of the application
Exhibit B
• Y Introduction
The owners of the subject property have expressed a willingness to develop this hereto for
weed infested parcel into a unique, respectable farmstead that would harmonize with and
enhance our entire community. However, the cost consequences of committing the irrigable
portion of this 90 acre parcel to a permanent hayfield and burdening the development with
costly restrictions cannot be amortized from a hay crop. Therefore, the owners have
proposed to apply to the county for a serial partition of four additional house lots of three to
four acres each around the south end of the property to make it economically feasible.
The owners have solicited our association's support to reinforce their applications to the
county. In appreciation for the association's support, the owners have agreed (if successful)
to forever commit this property to the following covenants by registration in the Deschutes
County Courthouse. Your affirmative vote and return of the enclosed ballot is vital if we are
to finally gain some control over this parcel.
Prosed Covenants for the Development of Lot 1, Block 2, Odin Falls Ranch
Land Use:
(a) The 50 acres under the Center Pivot shall be permanently committed to a grass
meadow and actively irrigated, fertilized and maintained, so as to produce an
aesthetically pleasing setting to compliment the surrounding home sites.
(b) This parcel may be used to pasture livestock, provided they are unequivocally
contained, but hogs, sheep and goats are explicitly prohibited.
(c) No structures are to be constructed under the Center Pivot or on the highest
elevation of this property, ie the upper t2r4ft level indicated on the map as
ridge.
(d) The storage, transfer and use of chemicals (pesticides, fertilizers, etc.) and
petroleum products (oil, gasoline, diesel, etc.) and other potential contaminants
shall be conducted in such a manner as to not pollute the underlying ground
water. (Under- or above- ground storage of these products should be consistent
with Best Management Practices, EPA guidelines, etc.
Fencing:
(a) All fencing shall be substantially adequate to contain the animals within and
shall be limited to post and rail or five strands of barbed wire with posts no
more than 12 ft. o.c. with two stays. All posts and rail fences shall be an earthen
color to match buildings.
(b)All fencing to be maintained in an erect perpendicular fashion, and by promptly
tightening wires or replacing rails as required. Stained fencing shall be
refinished as needed.
Exhibit C (23 Pages)
Buildings:
Roads:
(a) No prefabricated, -manufactured, or mobile homes shall be permitted, except if
stored out of sight, within a structure.
(b) In order to maintain pleasant continuity, all buildings shall be stained or painted
earth tone matching colors, having no white, metallic, or bright colored trim.
(c) No metal siding or roofing shall be permitted, except factory -painted metal
roofing shall be allowed if an earth tone color, acceptable to the Architectural
Control Committee (ACC), is used on all buildings. All buildings shall have the
same roofing, except a different style of the same color tone if approved by the
ACC may be used on home construction.
(d) Outside lighting shall be screened or directed so as to not shine on adjacent properties.
All access routes to this property connecting to Grubstake shall be surfaced a minimum of
150 ft. from the pavement with a four inch course of crushed base rock.
Equipment Parking:
No vehicles or equipment shall be parked in view of Grubstake Way for more than
30 days in a year unless a specific parking agreement is worked out with the ACC.
The owners of this property and any future owner(s) agree to be bound by these covenants and to
defer to the ACC, requesting approval prior to doing any work relating to these covenants. The
owners further agree that the four additional sale lots, if approved by the County, will fall under and
comply with all conditions of the CC&R's of the Odin Falls Ranch Property Owners' Association.
vi �'QO�Oo
aw��3��zo
xwv�o?v�HH
vazWa'��,Wrr�
0o H� zw
E"v�Fx-w0��'x
ax- WOa"wW��
O a v a
C7OwU� W ¢�
aH�c�z�z3
o�¢aQ
wwz��WaW
Ho�x��3°�
�m
L z%W
Y1k. 1 0,
JI,
3 r�
kr 6Lh5
t s )*- &0 r Vy, yk, 1:M�it°• ' ,/i�\ IS�
14
141<"
' 1
re r'
1
�
W a
ILL"
t
L z%W
Y1k. 1 0,
JI,
3 r�
kr 6Lh5
t s )*- &0 r Vy, yk, 1:M�it°• ' ,/i�\ IS�
14
141<"
' 1
4
mail*