2006-381-Minutes for Meeting April 05,2006 Recorded 4/6/2006DESC COUNTY OFFICIAL
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL
04/06/2006 04;01;30 PM
2006-38
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK
CERTIFICATE PAGE
-t' E S r,
D.
I~
This page must be included
if document is re-recorded.
Do Not remove from original document.
Chair Luke opened the hearing at this time.
Isa Taylor, attorney for the applicant; wanted to clarify the order and confirm
that in Section 2, the regulations include both EFU zoning and landscape
management zone regulations.
Tom Anderson said the order just waives the review date; whatever has
occurred since that date would not impact the land use application unless they
involve public safety or environmental concerns.
Ms. Taylor said that in the last sentence of Section 2, current procedural
regulations are not clearly stated. Commissioner Luke replied that certain rules
have to be followed for public health and safety reasons. He added that he
cannot give his opinion on this issue now; that it needs to go through the normal
application process.
Mark Pilliod stated that the acquisition date is the most critical thing. Because
of the nature of the development proposed, it is impossible to judge what
regulations would be in play. The language in the order relates back to the
standard staff report provisions, and it is purely procedural on how one prepares
a plan. He explained that, for instance, setbacks could invite site distance issues
which would not be waivable for a Measure 37 claim.
No further testimony was offered, so Chair Luke closed the hearing.
CLARNO: Move approval.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
3. Before the Board was a Hearing on a Measure 37 Claim, Order No. 2006-
047 (Peterson).
Tom Anderson explained that this claim is for property located at 3848
Northwest Way, outside of Redmond. It is two lots consisting of twelve acres
zoned EFU, located outside the urban reserve area. The claimant wishes to
subdivide it into three parcels. The amount of the claim is $200,000.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 5, 2006
Page 2 of 7 Pages
A title insurance policy places the acquisition date in December 1972, although
the deed was not recorded until early 1973. The earlier date would apply in this
case for subsequent land use applications. The zoning was PL-2, and this could
affect the lot sizes.
Ed Fitch said his client has no objection to the order.
No further testimony was offered, so Chair Luke closed the hearing.
CLARNO: Move approval.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
4. Before the Board was a Hearing on a Measure 37 Claim, Order No. 2006-
048 (DeGaetano).
Tom Anderson stated that this property is located at 67180 Highway 20, across
from Harrington Loop. It consists of 52 acres zoned EFU, and the claimant
would like to subdivide it into four or five residential properties. The claim is
for $1 million. The claimant acquired the property outright in 1963, and
ownership has continued since then.
Ed Fitch said his client has no objection to the order.
No further testimony was offered, so Chair Luke closed the hearing.
CLARNO: Move approval.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
5. Before the Board was a Hearing a Measure 37 Claim, Order No. 2006-044
(Claimant: Hopp).
Mark Pilliod stated that he reviewed the documents from the acquisition of the
property, and it appears the earnest money agreement and other documents
indicate the claimant had obtained an interest in the property at that time. The
acquisition date should therefore be the earlier date as presented by the
claimant.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 5, 2006
Page 3 of 7 Pages
Chair Luke opened the hearing for comments.
Ed Fitch, attorney for the claimant, said they have no objection to the revised
report and order.
Paul Dewey, representing the Sisters Forest Planning Committee, said he
previously submitted testimony in writing. Mark Pilliod advised the Board that
this group is not entitled to testify in person since they are not in the notice area.
Mr. Dewey stated he feels the dates are been decided too broadly and only the
recording date should be considered.
No further testimony was offered, so Chair Luke closed the hearing.
CLARNO: Move approval, subject to review.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
6. Before the Board was a Hearing a Measure 37 Claim, Order No. 2006-045
(Claimant: Ward).
Mark Pilliod said this was continued from the April 3 meeting. In executive
session on April 4, alternate dates to address this issue were discussed. May 10,
2006 will be the date for the continuation.
7. Before the Board were Deliberations and a Possible Decision on Appeals of
the Hearings Officer's Denial of a Proposal to Establish an Outdoor
Amphitheater off Highway 20, East of Bend (Applicant: Christian Life
Center).
Commissioner Luke read his statement regarding this decision. (A copy is
attached as Exhibit B.)
Commissioner Clarno then read her statement regarding this issue. (A copy is
attached as Exhibit C.)
CLARNO: Move to affirm in part and reverse in part the decision of the
Hearings Officer, per the statements given today; with staff to draft
findings based on these statements.
LUKE: Second.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 5, 2006
Page 4 of 7 Pages
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Commissioner Luke thanked staff for the work done on this very complex
situation. Commissioner Clarno also thanked staff for recommending she listen
to the audio recordings from meetings concerning the issue, as it helped her to
develop her opinion.
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY
SERVICE DISTRICT
8. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Accounts Payable
Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of
$17,882.32.
CLARNO: Move approval, subject to review.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
9. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Approval of Weekly
Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District
in the Amount of $10.24.
CLARNO: Move approval, subject to review.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
10. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Approval of Weekly
Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of
$4599642.46.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 5, 2006
Page 5 of 7 Pages
CLARNO: Move approval, subject to review.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
11. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Before the Board were Deliberations and a Possible Decision on Appeals of
Hearings Officer's Denial of Home Occupation in Case #CU-05-71
(Applicant: Lundgren).
There were no questions of staff.
Commissioner Luke read his statement on this issue. (A copy is attached as
Exhibit D.) He pointed out that he believes Commissioner Daly also feels that
the limitation regarding whether it could be one or two lots was not the intent of
the home occupation ordinance as adopted, and was never discussed during
deliberations on the ordinance.
Commissioner Luke stated that the home occupation can't be a type 3 at this
time, but could possibly be a type 1 or 2 if there were no equipment parked
outside.
Commissioner Clarno then read her statement to the audience. (A copy is
attached as Exhibit E.)
CLARNO: Move to deny the appeal per the statements made today, and have
staff draft the appropriate findings.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: CLARNO: Aye.
LUKE: Chair votes yes.
Being no further items to come before the Board, Chair Luke adjourned
the meeting at 11: 00 a. m.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 5, 2006
Page 6 of 7 Pages
DATED this 5th Day of April 2006 for the schutes County Board of
Commissioners.
e is R. Luke, hair
Bev larno, Vice Chair
, ~ k, ox,// ~ ~ - 2,
ATTEST: Mi ael M. Daly, Com issioner
Recording Secretary
Attachments
Exhibit A: Opening statement for Measure 37 hearings (2 pages)
Exhibit B: Commissioner Luke's findings regarding the Christian Life Center
Amphitheater Appeal (5 pages)
Exhibit C: Commissioner Clarno's findings regarding the Christian Life
Center Amphitheater Appeal (5 pages)
Exhibit D: Commissioner Luke's findings regarding the Lundgren appeal (3
pages)
Exhibit E: Commissioner Clarno's findings regarding the Lundgren appeal
(2 pages)
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, April 5, 2006
Page 7 of 7 Pages
Board of County Commissioners
Measure 37 Hearing Process
The Board of County Commissioners is now ready to open the hearing on a Claim
brought against the County pursuant to Ballot Measure 37.
The hearing before the Board is quasi-judicial, but not a land use decision. This
proceeding is the only hearing provided by the County under the County code
provisions which implement Ballot Measure 37. The Board's decision will be based
upon the material submitted to county staff and furnished to the Board. The County
code provides that the claimant and those persons who have previously submitted
written material to the County on this matter will be given an opportunity to offer
testimony bearing on the claim. This hearing is not open for comments from
members of the general public.
The decision by the County on this matter will be memorialized in a Final Order.
The Final Order will be mailed to all those participating in this proceeding. The
Final Order will also be recorded in the Clerk's Office.
The criteria for this decision involving a claim under Ballot Measure 37 is contained
within Chapter 14.10 of the Code.
The applicable criteria are as follows:
1. The Claimant is the owner of the subject property; and
2. The Claimant or a family member has owned the subject
property continuously since before adoption or the effective date of a
county land use regulation;
3. The County's land use regulation is not exempt from challenge
under Ballot Measure 37; and
4. The County's land use regulation has caused a reduction in the
value of Claimant's property.
If the Board determines that the criteria for compensation payment pursuant to
Ballot Measure 37 has been established, and the claim is eligible, it may by written
order decide that the county's land use regulation be modified, not applied to the
claimant's property, or it may elect to pay compensation based upon the reduction
in value attributed to the subject regulation.
Pagel of 2
Exhibit
Page of 2.
The County's decision will not result in the issuance of a building permit, but will
only allow the Claimant to apply for a permit without first complying with the
challenged land use regulation. A Claimant must also comply with County
regulations which were not challenged under Measure 37. Furthermore, the
County's decision is not intended as having any effect on land use or other
regulations adopted by other government entities, such as the State of Oregon or
LCDC.
Testimony, arguments and evidence must be directed toward the criteria described
above, or other criteria, which the person believes to apply to the decision. Failure
to raise an issue accompanied by statements or evidence sufficient to afford the
Board and the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue, may preclude judicial
review based on that issue.
The order of presentation is as follows:
1. The County Administrator's report and recommendation.
2. Claimant's presentation.
3. Witnesses who oppose the Claimant's position.
4. Rebuttal by the Claimant.
5. If new information is presented by the Claimant, then rebuttal by the
witness in opposition.
Any person that is interested in this matter may challenge the qualification of any
Commissioner to participate in the hearing and decision. Such challenge must state
facts relied upon by the party to a Commissioner's bias, prejudgment, personal
interest, or other facts from which the party has concluded that the Commissioner
should not participate as they are not impartial. Such challenge must be made prior
to the commencement of the public hearing, and will be incorporated into the record
of this hearing.
Does anyone wish to challenge any commissioner's ability to hear this matter? If so,
please say so now?
Hearing no challenges, I will proceed.
Page 1 of 2
Exhibit A
Page of 2.,
CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTER AMPHITHEATER
DENNIS LUKE'S FINDINGS
This is an extremely complicated case with many legal
ramifications whichever way the Board decides the issues. With that
being said, I agree with the Hearings Officer that the storage building
is an expansion of the church's facilities as allowed by Deschutes
County Code 18.16.025(E). I also find that the amphitheater retaining
wall and stage do constitute "structures" under the County code and
are expansions of the church under the same code provision just
cited. Furthermore, I find that the Christian Life Center's use of the
retaining wall and stage for the normal church events such as church
services, weddings, funerals and so forth, where the attendance will
not exceed the current reported attendance of 832, is also an
expansion of the church and, thus, allowed under the County Code.
In that respect, I affirm the Hearings Officer's decision.
I cannot, however, find that the outdoor concerts to be an
expansion of the Church. I based this on the fact that, although the
Church already holds such concerts within the building, the concerts
are more commercial or park use in nature because they charge
admission for these concerts. It does not matter that the Church is not
making a profit from the concerts. While some churches may engage
in these types of concerts, I do not find that they are activities
"customarily associated with the practices of the religious activity" as
stated in ORS 215.441. These concerts differ from the regular
church uses listed previously because those uses do not demand
payment for attendance. Also, the increased number of people
Page 1 of 1 - Christian Life Center- Dennis Luke's Findings
Exhibit
Page _L of
outdoors will create a larger impact on the surrounding area than if
the Church were to expand its existing building and hold the concerts
indoors.
The large volume of people that attend these concerts is also
more akin to the volumes of people that use or attend events at the
nearby Big Sky Park and the J Bar J Ranch for which Conditional Use
permits were obtained, albeit, each was a different kind of Conditional
Use. Events at the Park or the Ranch are in keeping with a park as
would be the concerts in the amphitheater. Furthermore, the large
attendance at events at the Park or the Ranch is not at regular events
throughout the good weather months. In fact, the Ranch has only one
event a year.
The Board can look at impacts on the surrounding area
because I interpret the site plan code in DCC 18.124.060(A) to
require such an analysis in order to assure that the site plan "relates
harmoniously to . . . existing development." I do not believe that
regulating uses to meet this criterion violates the restriction in ORS
215.441(2)(a), which limits a county to site or design review
"concerning the physical characteristics of the uses authorized." This
is because I agree
with the Hearings
Officer's findings
regarding
18.124.060(B), (C)
and (D), found on
pages 14 through
21 of the
Hearings Officer's
decision. Contrary
to the Hearinas'
Officer's
findings regarding paragraph A of that code provision, however, I do
find that noise impacts are also physical characteristics.
As for the traffic impacts, I believe the applicant has provided
sufficient evidence that the traffic impacts of the large concerts can
be mitigated by the traffic plan for such concerts submitted to the
Page 2 of 2 - Christian Life Center- Dennis Luke's Findings
Exhibit
Page
Oregon Department of Transportation. I also believe that the
applicant provided evidence to the Board of the applicant providing
for the Public Health and Safety issues upon which the Hearings
Officer based her denial on page 20 of her decision.
As for the noise level of the concerts, the applicant submitted
expert testimony that the decibel levels are not likely to exceed those
levels allowed by the County code and State law. Because of the
testimony given as to how far the sound travels from the Les
Schwabe Amphitheater in Bend, however, I do not find the applicant's
expert testimony credible and believe the sound will be much louder
and travel much further, especially at night, than the expert surmised.
While a regular church service may also have rock or other energetic
music, the volume for an attendance of 832 people is not likely to be
as great as for an attendance of 2000 people. Thus, such concerts
will not "relate harmoniously" to either the natural environment or the
existing development because the concerts will create too much
audible disturbance too often during the good weather months than
either of the park or ranch conditional uses do.
Therefore, I find that the outdoor concerts must be restricted to
the parameters outlined in the County's Outdoor Mass Gathering
code provisions in Chapter 8.16. The other option for the applicant is
to apply for a conditional use permit in order that the County could
engage in a more in-depth analysis of the impacts.
Such a requirement for the concerts is not a substantial burden
on the church because the concerts can still be held inside the
current facilities. Additionally, the County has a compelling interest in
requiring uses to relate harmoniously with the natural environment
Page 3 of 3 - Christian Life Center- Dennis Luke's Findings
Exhibit
Page 0 of 5
and the existing development because the church is located on land
in a resource zone and is surrounded by rural uses for which loud
concerts would be extreme disturbance. Furthermore, requiring a
condition use permit for a private park or requiring adherence to the
Outdoor Mass Gathering code is the least restrictive means of
assuring that compelling interest because other similar uses have
been required to apply and receive approval for conditional use
permits. Thus, the Church is not being singled out or discriminated
against.
In regards to the issue of floor area and that code requirement's
relationship to the amphitheater, I find that the Hearings Officer's
decision should be affirmed. The applicant, however, has
demonstrated that it has the correct number of spaces by providing
information correcting the Hearings Officer's findings. Neither the
parking spaces for the regular church activities nor for the large
concert, however, need to be paved because the applicant provided
sufficient evidence that it can construct the parking area with an
alternative surface that will control dust and storm water run-off.
As for the bicycle parking, I disagree with the Hearings Officer's
findings that the Dolan case is applicable. The Dolan takings analysis
applies to off-site improvement requirements or on-site exactions for
public use or conservation. The bicycle parking is an on-site
requirement for those who are to use the facility itself and not for
general members of the public to use. Thus, the applicant should be
required to provide the 93 bicycle parking with 47 of them should be
covered unless the applicant applies for a variance.
Page 4 of 4 - Christian Life Center- Dennis Luke's Findings
Exhibit
Page of
To
summarize, I vote to
affirm in
part and reverse in part the
Hearings
Officer's decision in
this case.
I believe that the structures
being placed in the area that will be the amphitheater are an
expansion of the church and, as such, I believe their use by the
church for regular church services, weddings, funerals and so forth is
allowed outright. I do not believe that the large concert events are
customary activities of the church such that their prohibition will
infringe on any freedom of religious exercise. I also find that the site
plan review criteria does not conflict with ORS 215.441(2)(a) and,
thus, the County is allowed to regulate characteristics such as traffic,
noise, sanitation, security, food handling. I also believe the applicant
has shown the appropriate number of parking spaces for both the
regular church activities and the large concerts and none of the
spaces need to be paved but should be constructed with the surface
proposed
by the
applicant. Finally, the bicycle
parking
requirements
as stated
in the
original staff report do apply
unless
a variance is
obtained.
Page 5 of 5 - Christian Life Center- Dennis Luke's Findings
Exhibit 5
Page _ of
Christian Life Center Amphitheater
Bev Clarno
Findings
I agree with the Hearings Officer regarding the storage facility. It
is also my opinion that the wall and. stage- structures do consitute
"structures" under the county code. I cannot find that
Concerts are an expansion of the Church. Concerts cannot
be considered the same as regular Church uses, when payment is
expected to attend these concerts.
I believe the applicants have provided evidence that the traffic
impacts of such a large group can be mitagated by their traffic
plan. My concern is for the safety of those attending the concerts
and for traffic users on the public highway. I feel safety must be
the highest priority and it is our responsibility to provide the
utmost safety possible.
It is my opinion and finding that the concerts must be restricted to
the County's Mass Gathering code.
I
Exhibit G
Page of
LUNDGREN
DENNIS LUKE'S FINDINGS
The opponents in this case asked the Board to find that the
Lundrens' have a commercial use rather than a home occupation
because the Lundrens' excavation business is not conducted
primarily in a residence. They base the argument on the excavation
equipment being the primary home
occupation
and that is
parked
outside rather than primarily within
the dwelling
as required
by the
County Code and State statute for properties within the Exclusive
Farm Use zone.
I disagree with this argument and find that the Lundrens'
excavation business that is located on the Lundgren's property is
primarily within the dwelling in that the home occupation is the
bookkeeping, invoicing, coordinating activities that occur within the
office within the dwelling. The parking of the vehicles outside is the
storage of equipment as
permitted
by the Deschutes
County
Code
18.116.280(B)(3)(1). That
is not the
principle activities
of the
home
occupation.
Therefore, I also disagree with the Hearings Officer's findings
that the area occupied by the vehicles must be calculated to be
included in the 35% limitation on the use of the dwelling and
accessory structures for the home occupation. During the discussions
at the time of the revisions to the home occupation code, I recall the
Board and public discussions centered on the very the type of
equipment the Lundgrens' have. Thus, it was this type of home
occupation the Board had in mind when establishing the Type 3 tier.
Page 1 of 1 - Lundgren - Dennis Luke's Findings
Exhibit
Page of
To find that the vehicle parking was included in the 35% limitation
defeats the purpose of having a Type 3 home occupation with the
ability to have outside storage of equipment.
The main problem with this application, however, is that the
equipment is not being stored on the same legal lot as the home
occupation. Although the term "subject property," as it is used in DCC
18.116.280, could be interpreted to mean a tract of adjacent legal lots
under the same ownership, that issue was never discussed when we
were revising the Home Occupation code two years ago. This is
partly because the County regulations allowing the partition for non-
farm dwellings allowed by the 2001 House Bill 3326 were fairly new
then. Therefore, we did not discuss how many lots the home
occupation regulations might affect where the smaller lot and the
adjacent larger lots were in the same ownership.
Because that was not discussed, I cannot interpret the term
"subject property," as it is used in County's Home Occupation
regulations, to mean that the home occupation can be in the dwelling
on one parcel with the outside equipment storage on the adjacent
parcel. As the County Code is written now, I find that the term
"subject property" means that the outside storage of equipment must
be on the same parcel as the structure in which the home occupation
is being conducted.
The County needs to undertake a public process to hear
testimony on the impact of such a provision and its compatibility with
State law. Only then can the Board know how many parcels could be
affected by a provision allowing adjacent parcels to have equipment
Page 2 of 2 - Lundgren - Dennis Luke's Findings
Exhibit
Page of
storage, know the parameters of the term "adjacent," and clarify with
language in the code.
I realize this presents a problem for the Lundgrens because the
parcel which contains the dwelling where the home occupation code
is not the 10 acres size required by DCC 18.116.280(6)(3)(1). As a
result, I find that this application must be denied because the outside
parking of the vehicles used in the Lundgrens' excavation business is
the "storage of equipment and materials" under the County code and
that storage is not and cannot be on the same legal lot as the
structure in which the home occupation is located.
Page 3 of 3 - Lundgren - Dennis Luke's Findings
Exhibit
Page _ of
LUNDGREN
BEV CLARNO'S FINDINGS
I prepared this statement based upon the Board's discussion in
Monday's work session regarding this case.
Although I was not on the`,Board :of,County Commissioners two
years ago when the County's Home Occupation regulations were
being revised, I regretfully must agree with Commissioner Luke's
findings that the Lundgrens' application must be denied. This is
because I agree that the County's code -is not clear on the meaning of
the term "subject property" and, as it stands now, the code cannot be
interpreted to allow a home occupation on one parcel with the storage
of the equipment and materials on an adjacent property in the same
ownership.
I agree that a public process s~d be undertaken to clarify the
V
code because, at this point, I am not persuaded that the State
regulations relating to EFU lands prohibits a county from having a
provision that allows the subject property. to be defined as a tract of
adjacent properties under -the-=-same.:-ownership. As Commissioner
Luke stated, however, this definition should be clarified in a public
s
SQ-v/
Page 1 of 2 - Lundgren - de's Fmcins
Exhibit E,
Page of
process that can either be initiated by an individual submitting an
application with the appropriate fee for a text amendment or by the
Board adding this to the Community Development Department's work
plan for the next fiscal year.
Page 2 of 2 - Lundgren -Denftistakg's Findings Exhibit _
t:. Page of 2-
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MEETING AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
10:00 A.M., WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2006
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building
1300 NW Wall St.., Bend
1. CITIZEN INPUT
This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board regarding issues that
are not already on the agenda. Visitors who wish to speak should sign up prior to the
beginning of the meeting on the sign-up sheet provided. Please use the microphone and also
state your name and address at the time the Board calls on you to speak.
2. A HEARING on a Measure 37 Claim, Order No. 2006-046 (Stoltz) - Tom
Anderson, Community Development and Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel
3. A HEARING on a Measure 37 Claim, Order No. 2006-047 (Peterson) - Tom
Anderson, Community Development and Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel
4. A HEARING on a Measure 37 Claim, Order No. 2006-048 (DeGaetano) -
Tom Anderson, Community Development and Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel
5. A HEARING (continued from Wednesday, March 29) a Measure 37 Claim,
Order No. 2006-044 (Claimant: Hopp) - Tom Anderson, Community
Development and Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel
6. A HEARING (continued from Wednesday, March 29) a Measure 37 Claim,
Order No. 2006-045 (Claimant: Ward) - Tom Anderson, Community
Development and Mark Pilliod, Legal Counsel
Board of Commissioners' Meeting Agenda Wednesday, April 5, 2006
Page 1 of 7 Pages
7. DELIBERATIONS and a Possible Decision on Appeals of the Hearings
Officer's Denial of a Proposal to Establish an Outdoor Amphitheater off
Highway 20, East of Bend (Applicant: Christian Life Center) - Catharine
White, Community Development Department
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY
SERVICE DISTRICT
8. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1
County Service District in the Amount of $17,882.32.
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
9. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
the Extension/4-H County Service District in the Amount of $10.24.
RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
10. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
Deschutes County in the Amount of $459,642.46.
11. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY.
Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.
FUTURE MEETINGS:
(Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of
Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have
questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.)
Board of Commissioners' Meeting Agenda Wednesday, April 5, 2006
Page 2 of 7 Pages
Tuesday, April 4, 2006
7:00 a.m. Meeting of Home Rule Charter Committee
9:00 a.m. Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(1)(h), Pending or Threatened Litigation
regarding Measure 37 Claims (Hopp and Ward)
Wednesday, April 5, 2006
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
Thursday, April 6, 2006
8:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Sisters City Council, Sisters City Hall
1:30 p.m. Meeting with Consultant regarding County Administrator Position Applications
3:30 p.m. Possible continuation of deliberations/decision on Christian Life Center appeals
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
7:00 a.m. Meeting of Home Rule Charter Committee
9:00 a.m. Meeting with School Superintendents and County Representatives regarding County
Services in the Schools
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
3:00 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of Information Technology
Wednesday, April 12, 2006
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Forestry Specialist
1:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Road Department
2:15 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of Solid Waste
3:30 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Health Department
4:15 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Mental Health Department
Thursday, April 13, 2006
10:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of Community Development
12:00 noon Regular Meeting of the Audit Committee
3:00 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting of the Fair Board, at the Fair & Expo Office
Board of Commissioners' Meeting Agenda Wednesday, April 5, 2006
Page 3 of 7 Pages
Monday, April 17, 2006
12:00 noon Regularly Scheduled Update Meeting with Department Heads
1:00 P.M. Justice Court Update
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
7:00 a.m. Meeting of Home Rule Charter Committee
11:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting of Employee Benefits Advisory Committee
3:00 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Fair & Expo Center
4:15 p.m. Ribbon Cutting Ceremony at RSVP (Retired Seniors Volunteer Program) - 202 NW
Greenwood Avenue
Friday, April 21, 2006
8:00 - 5:00 Interviews - County Administrator Position Applicants (tentative date/time)
Saturday, April 22, 2006
8:00 - 5:00 Interviews - County Administrator Position Applicants (tentative date/time)
Monday, April 24, 2006
9:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the District Attorney
10:00 a.m. Board Meeting for the Week
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
3:00 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Commission on Children & Families
3:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with Juvenile Community Justice
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
7:00 a.m. Meeting of Home Rule Charter Committee
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
9:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the Director of Tax & Finance
12:00 noon Oregon Transportation Committee Conference
Board of Commissioners' Meeting Agenda Wednesday, April 5, 2006
Page 4 of 7 Pages
Monday, May 1, 2006
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Work Session
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
3:30 p.m. Local Public Safety Coordinating Council (LPSCC) Regular Meeting
Tuesday, May 2, 2006
7:00 a.m. Meeting of Home Rule Charter Committee
Wednesday, May 3, 2006
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
Monday 8, 2006
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Work Session
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
3:30 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of Community Development
Tuesday 9, 2006
7:00 a.m. Meeting of Home Rule Charter Committee
Wednesday 10, 2006
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
10:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of Community Development
1:30 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Forestry Specialist
1:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Road Department
2:15 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of Solid Waste
3:30 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Health Department
4:15 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Mental Health Department
Thursday 11, 2006
7:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Redmond City Council, Redmond Fire Hall
3:00 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting of the Fair Board, at the Fair & Expo Office
Board of Commissioners' Meeting Agenda Wednesday, April 5, 2006
Page 5 of 7 Pages
Monday, May 15, 2006
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
Monday, May 15 through Friday, May 19
1:00 - 5:00 Budget Meetings
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
7:00 a.m. Meeting of Home Rule Charter Committee
8:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Fair & Expo Center
Monday, May 22, 2006
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting for the Week
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
3:00 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Commission on Children & Families
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
7:00 a.m. Meeting of Home Rule Charter Committee
1:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with Parole & Probation
2:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with Juvenile Community Justice
3:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Sheriff
Wednesday, May 24 - Friday, May 26, 2006
Association of Oregon Counties Regional Conference - Ka-Nee-Tah
Monday, May 29, 2006
Most County offices will be closed to observe Memorial Day.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
7:00 a.m. Meeting of Home Rule Charter Committee
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
Board of Commissioners' Meeting Agenda Wednesday, April 5, 2006
Page 6 of 7 Pages
Wednesday 31, 2006
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting for the Week
Monday, June 5, 2006
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Work Session
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
Tuesday, June 6, 2006
7:00 a.m. Meeting of Home Rule Charter Committee
Wednesday, June 7, 2006
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
Thursday, June 8, 2006
12:00 noon Regular Meeting of the Audit Committee
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY.
Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.
Board of Commissioners' Meeting Agenda Wednesday, April 5, 2006
Page 7 of 7 Pages
0-T ES
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.or-g
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 2006
DELIBERATIONS and Possible Decision on Appeal of Hearings Officer's
Denial of Home Occupation in case #CU-05-71 (Applicant: Lundgren) - Paul
Blikstad, Community Development