2010-73-Minutes for Meeting January 20,2010 Recorded 2/16/2010COUNTY
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,F000NTY CLERKS
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 02/16/2010 11;43;45 AM
18-73
Do not remove this page from original document.
Deschutes County Clerk
Certificate Page
If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following
statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244:
Re-recorded at the request of
[give reason]
previously recorded in Book _
or as Fee Number
to correct
and Page
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2010
Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney.
Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy
County Administrator; Paul Blikstad, Kevin Harrison, Teri Payne, George Read,
Will Groves, Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack and Peter Gutowsky, Community
Development; Tom Blust, Road Department; Laurie Craghead and Steve Griffin,
County Counsel; a representative of KOHD TV; and approximately twenty other
citizens.
Chair Luke opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m.
1. Update and Discussion of Highway 97 World War II Veterans Memorial
Highway Designation.
Dick Tobiason and Robert Maxwell came before the Board, and Mr. Tobiason
said that after a couple of years of work, a law has been adopted that supports
the designation. (He gave a PowerPoint presentation at this time.)
All Representatives and Senators on the east side of the mountains supported
the Bill, which was meant to designate Highway 97 as the memorial highway.
There are 150,000 Oregonians who were veterans in World War II. At the
Governor's request, the Bill will now honor all Oregon WWII veterans, not just
those from central and eastern Oregon.
The veterans and the Oregon Department of Transportation are working on
placement of the signs. The veterans will need to cover the cost of installing
the signs and future maintenance. The options are aluminum signs, at $190,
plus an additional fee to stabilize them. The high-density overlay signs would
cost about $275. The best possible signs are aluminum with vinyl text, at $576
per sign. They are forming a nonprofit so people can donate and receive a tax
deduction. ODOT will not charge them a permit fee. There will be seven signs
in Deschutes County.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Page 1 of 7 Pages
He asked if there is a way for the County to support them in this regard.
Commissioner Baney suggested that Mr. Tobiason see how their fundraising
efforts progress and perhaps the County can help once that is known.
2. Comprehensive Plan Update.
Terri Payne gave an update on the work to date. (A "next steps " document was
distributed.) As much information will be gathered as possible for the Planning
Commission's next meeting on January 28. Nick Lelack added that they were
in a holding pattern for a while when information was being gathered. The
checklist will help define the goals and how to get there. No decisions will be
made until they all have a chance to review the material.
Ms. Payne said the matrix and details would be available on line. Peter
Gutowsky said that a memo was provided to the Board that provided more
details. Some items had broad support but there are questions about action
items. They are looking to the Planning Commission to provide guidance.
The public input has been almost overwhelming, so attempts are being made to
categorize and consolidate, and look for common concerns.
Commissioner Unger asked if any State input is being sought. Mr. Lelack said
they don't want to review draft documents, just the final, so no formal
comments have been shared at this time.
Commissioner Baney wants the Board to be informed if anything significant
changes.
3. Discussion of Commercial Uses on EFU Land.
Nick Lelack said it really deals with non-farm uses on EFU land. The farm use
zone was created in 1961 by the legislature.
There has not yet been a land use application. There might be an appeal on the
ball fields, which would go to a Hearings Officer. A soccer facility is a clear
recreational use, but he has no idea if it will be approved. It is eligible,
however. The governed uses were noted.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Page 2 of 7 Pages
Laurie Craghead said that it is an obvious recreational use, but parameters need
to be established as what is to be a private park. They may be cases out there
showing this. Main considerations are lighting, noise, and traffic. It is basically
a commercial use within a park. Commissioner Unger asked what the
difference is between commercial and recreational. Ms. Craghead said the
parameters are not yet known. The trap club and similar uses have already been
approved.
Mr. Lelack stated that they have contacted other counties to find out how this
kind of situation might have been handled there.
Commissioner Unger asked about home occupations and whether the State has
guidelines in place. Ms. Craghead stated that DLCD admitted they did not
think it was clear. Some areas have wineries that fit into this situation.
Commissioner Luke noted that the Department of Agriculture and DLCD have
raised questions; he asked if there is any legislation on this. Ms. Craghead said
that they are not sure if it is appropriate to decide where and how event venues
should be allowed. This is generally associated with wineries.
Mr. Gutowsky said that for the most part it relates to significant events.
Multnomah County does not have a plan for this type of thing under a mass
gathering ordinance. Ms. Craghead said there is debate about the provisions
regarding fewer than 3,000 people, and whether the time frame allowed is
appropriate. The interpretations are not established.
Mr. Blikstad said that the only history is the 1999 case. Under the private parks
part of the Code, it is essentially the same as almost 20 years ago.
Commissioner Unger noted that the home occupation rules do not really seem
to fit when figuring out events. Mr. Blikstad replied that County Counsel is
looking at those in Clackamas and Hood River. State law seems to indicate it
has to be substantially indoors, which excludes most wedding events.
Ms. Craghead explained that in regard to an accessory building, they could not
build one for the purpose of a home occupation. The permit is supposed to be
for other than this.
Mr. Blikstad said that some are putting in vineyards. They have commercial
standards in place.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Page 3 of 7 Pages
Commissioner Unger stated that he is not sure how to get to the next steps.
There does not seem to be any clear way. This encourages more permanent
structures on the property.
Commissioner Baney said that the major criticisms have been the number of
days and overuse of the land for venues.
Commissioner Luke asked when something has to be done or when more time
must be spent on the application. Mr. Lelack replied that it is not in the plan to
draft an ordinance at this time. However, it is time to figure out guidelines.
The Planning Commission has the same concerns. A new proposal will not do
a bit of good.
Mr. Kanner stated that they would have to not only submit a land use
application, but also have to show it is an allowable use on EFU land.
Essentially, they are proposing an activity that is has the same impacts of a
commercial event, plus permanent structures such as light poles. He suggested
that they work this through the pipeline themselves and then see how that might
apply to existing code. The Board may ultimately have to decide just how
broad this will be.
Commissioner Luke noted that there might be some State decisions before it
gets to the Board.
Mr. Lelack stated that Oregon Rush has not submitted an application. This
would be on a quasi-judicial schedule. They hope to have a Hearings Officer's
decision within 60 to 90 days of that. They will continue to ask staff in other
places as to what they do and how they do it.
4. Discussion of Appeals of the Hearings Officer's Decision Reversing the
Planning Division's Decision to Issue a Land Use Compatibility Statement
and Building Permit for the Remodel of an Existing Dwelling
(Dowell/Kuhn).
Chair Luke said that this is a work session item and testimony is not allowed.
Will Groves gave a brief overview of the item. The appeals will be heard
limited de novo. The questions are: Is the County bound by the case? Is the
residence lawfully established? Is it lawful because of the lack of a
homeowners' agreement?
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Page 4 of 7 Pages
Commissioner Luke asked if a survey was done, and is it part of the record.
Mr. Groves stated that there are questions about how to measure the dwelling
from the road, but a survey was done. Staff compared a composite using other
maps in the record, and there are different ways to measure the distances.
Originally, there was to be more frontage on Sisemore Road. Both dwellings
fall beyond the original plat line. They were originally to be no more than 300
feet from the road. It depends on from where on the road it is measured.
The Board can uphold the decision, or reverse or amend it. (He referred to a
matrix at this time.) For each one, there is a lengthy legal argument with some
history, and a summary of relevant documents.
Commissioner Luke asked if the home is illegal, whether a permit can be
issued. The question is, would this apply to all permits or a major remodel, or
additions? If there was a problem with electrical, then what?
Ms. Craghead said she is not sure; but LUBA case findings indicate our own
Code says you cannot build unless the structure is lawfully established.
Commissioner Baney asked if this might make it impossible to sell the home.
Ms. Craghead said that it could.
Mr. Groves stated that certain conditions have to be met. This question is not
before the Board. It has to do with the homeowners' agreement being in place,
so neither home is in conformance at this time. The Hearings Officer found that
it was required prior to sale, but this is no longer an issue as the horse is already
out of the barn, prior to the first sale.
Commissioner Luke asked how CC&Rs are to be enforced. The County cannot
force someone to give up property rights. Ms. Craghead said that by finding
this requirement, it requires them to work harder on the agreement.
Commissioner Unger indicated he would like to add more clarity for future
litigation.
Mr. Groves said to assume this would be appealed to LUBA. They will give
deference to the County if there is a reasonable interpretation and unless it is
clearly wrong. The remand from LUBA questioned whether the Kuhns even
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Page 5 of 7 Pages
had a right to file an appeal. Karen Green's decision has not been reviewed by
anyone yet.
Ms. Craghead stated that there is a remand on the issue of letting this be
handled like a land use decision. The process treated it as such.
Mr. Groves said there are three issues. Development actions are intended to be
simple and not a land use action. Because this was complicated, it elevated it to
land use. The Director then indicated it should follow this process. It is
assumed that Code requires it be lawfully established.
Commissioner Luke said that the Board could not base a decision on anything
that is not in the record.
Commissioner Unger noted that he made a site visit, but that is in the record.
Ms. Craghead asked if he submitted a narrative; Commissioner Unger replied
that he just declared the visit, without written observations.
5. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules.
Richard Whitman, the Director of DLCD, is meeting with staff and two
Commissioners on Friday, January 22.
6. Other Items.
Dave Kanner said that there was a request from KIND for an interview from
8:20 to 9:00 a.m. on each second Wednesday. He suggested a point person be
designated; someone who will be available for this on an ongoing basis unless
otherwise decided. The Commissioners felt that Mr. Kanner should be the
designee and he can decide if someone else should handle the interview on a
specific date.
Commissioner Baney spoke about the integration program, which is now being
called Links for Help, which was named after a former volunteer with a last
name of Link. The County and mental health directors would have one
representative. It will be a seven person board, one from each county's board,
and a mental health director plus Jim Diegel from the hospital, Dr. Goldberg
from the State, and one person representing the FQHC's, and Health Matters, a
nonprofit working on health insurance issues.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Page 6 of 7 Pages
Commissioner Luke said that there are continuing discussions about the
interchange in Tumalo. The bicycle people suggested something for under the
existing ridge, near the Hap Taylor property.
It was suggested that signs be put up on both sides of Tumalo reminding people
about their speed.
The previously scheduled Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2) (e),
Real Property Negotiations, did not take place at this time.
Being no further items addressed, the meeting adjourned at 4: 00 p. m.
DATED this 20th Day of January 2010 for the Deschutes County Board
of Commissioners.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
De nis R. Lu e, Chair
aa,,, g
Alan Unger, Vice Chair
Tammy Baney, Co missioner
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session
Page 7 of 7 Pages
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2010
1. Discussion of Highway 97 World War II Veterans Memorial Highway
Designation - Dick Tobiason
2. Comprehensive Plan Update - Nick Lelack; Terri Payne, others
3. Discussion of Commercial Uses on EFU Land - Nick Lelack
4. Discussion of Appeals of the Hearings Officer's Decision Reversing the
Planning Division's Decision to Issue a Land Use Compatibility Statement and
Building Permit for the Remodel of an Existing Dwelling (Dowell/Kuhn) -
William Groves
5. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules
6. Other Items
Executive Session, called under ORS 192.660(2)(e), Real Property Negotations
PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real
property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues
Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. A11 meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated.
Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.
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.
w
FACT SHEET
WORLD WAR II VETERANS HISTORIC HIGHWAY
(US HIGHWAY 97 & SR 126 IN OREGON)
A new law resulting from Senate Bill 449 requires Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) to install WORLD WAR II VETERANS HISTORIC
HIGHWAY signs near eight former WWII training sites on US Highway 97
and SR 126. Funding will be provided entirely by veterans and the public. The
Bend based WORLD WAR II VETERANS HISTORIC HIGHWAY
COMMITTEE requested the legislation.
The objectives of the sign program are to honor WWII veterans and inform the
traveling public about vital WWII training sites served by two major highways
east of the Cascades: US 97 from the Columbia River to the
Oregon/California border and State Route 126 from Redmond to Prineville.
Quoting from Governor Kulongoski's press release - "it (the highway) will be
a living symbol of our state and our values and honor the service,
sacrifice and dedication of Oregon World War H veterans...... This
designation honors the Band of Brothers - the trainers, the troops, and
all the men and women involved in helping our nation prepare for battle
during World War H.... And it honors the vital role of central Oregon and
communities along U.S. 97 where during WW H military training sites
were established, ensuring our soldiers were adequately prepared."
We plan to dedicate 18 signs on Sunday afternoon, June 6, 2010 the 66th
anniversary of D Day. We estimate 4,500 of the 30,100 veterans now residing
in the six (6) counties served by US 97 and SR 126 are WWII veterans. The
signs will be unveiled by WWII veterans and elected officials from each area.
Details of the multiple dedications will be announced in late April.
Below is a list of the eight WWII sites and general locations where signs will
be dedicated. Attached is an image of a typical sign near WWII training
sites. Signs at ends of highways will display the upper sign only.
Attached is a form for making tax deductible donations to the Committee for
buying and installing the signs over the next four months.
Dick Tobiason
Chair, WORLD WAR II VETERANS HISTORIC HIGHWAY Committee
541 388-5591, Cell 5451 390-9932, dtobiason@bendcable.com
Bob Maxwell, Vice Chair Lee Flegel, Secretary Erik Tobiason, Treasurer
S-
WORLD WAR II VETERANS HISTORIC HIGHWAY
EIGHT WWII TRAINING SITES SIGN LOCATION
CAMP RUFUS
MADRAS ARMY AIRFIELD
REDMOND ARMY AIRFIELD
CIVILIAN PILOT TRAINING
CIVILIAN PILOT TRAINING
CAMP ABBOT
MARINE BARRACKS
NAVAL AIR STATION
US 97, BIGGS
US 97 & US 26, MADRAS
US 97, REDMOND
SR 126, REDMOND/PRINEVILLE
US 97, BEND
US 97, SUNRIVER
SR 39, KLAMATH FALLS
US 97, KLAMATH FALLS
Prepared by Dick Tobiason
1-18-2010
Press Release
ins
Governor signs bill designating U.S. 97 -World War II Veterans Historic Highway"
Designation honors WW II Veterans and communities along US 97 where eight military training sites
were located during the war
(Bend) - Today Governor Ted Kulongoski was joined by Oregon's only surviving Congressional Medal
of Honor recipient in Bend, Oregon to sign Senate Bill 449, which establishes an honorary designation
of U.S. Highway 97 and portions of State Highway 126 in Oregon be known as "World War II Veterans
Historic Highway".
"We are here to celebrate the dedication of a highway that served as a vital link for the men and
women of World War II," said Governor Ted Kulongoski. "It will be a living symbol of our state and
our values and honor the service, sacrifice and dedication of Oregon World War II veterans."
During World War II (WWII), U.S. Highway 97, which runs north-south from Biggs on the Columbia
River to the Oregon-California line along the east side of the Cascade Mountains, was used by the U.S.
military to strategically position eight military training sites. These sites included U.S. Army Camp
Rufus, U.S. Army Air Field Madras, Prineville Civilian Pilot Training, U.S. Army Air Feld Redmond, Bend
Civilian Pilot Training, U.S. Army Camp Abbot, U.S. Marine Corps Barracks & Hospital Klamath Falls,
and Naval Air Station Klamath Falls.
"This designation honors the Band of Brothers - the trainers, the troops, and all the men and women
involved in helping our nation prepare for battle during World War II," continued the Governor. "And it
honors the vital role of central Oregon and communities along U.S. 97 where during WW II military
training sites were established, ensuring our soldiers were adequately prepared."
The largest military training exercise in the Pacific Northwest during WWII, known as "Oregon
Maneuver," involved more than 100,000 citizen-soldiers directly impacting six counties along U.S. 97.
Approximately sixteen million Americans served in WWII, including 10,400 Oregonians from the six
rural counties along the route.
The measure prohibits the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) from using public funds for
the installation and maintenance of the markers; however, it allows ODOT to accept moneys and to
enter into agreements with veterans and other groups to create, install and maintain the markers. The
measure does not change the existing official name, maps, addresses or other designations of U.S.
97.
Eleven other states have implemented similar legislation memorializing WWII and Pearl Harbor:
California, Colorado, Georgia, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Texas, Virginia
and Wisconsin.
Contacts:
Anna Richter Taylor, 503-378-6169
Jillian Schoene, 503-378-5040
Rem Nivens, 503-378-6496
Department of Administrative Services
Dave Kanner - County Administrator
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202
www.deschutes.org
January 14, 2010
TO: Board of Commissioners
FROM: Dave Kanner
RE: Request for highway signage
At your work session of January 20, Dick Tobiason and possibly other local veterans will
present to the Board a proposal to erect new signage along Highway 97, commemorating
the "World War 11 Veterans Historic Highway."
You will recall that the 2009 Legislature passed SB 449 (signed into law July 15 by
Governor Kulongoski at a ceremony here in Bend), which designates Highway 97 and
portions of Highway 126 as World War II
Veterans Historic Highways, and directs
ODOT to install and maintain
commemorative markers along those
highways. However, the legislation
specifically prohibits ODOT from
spending state funds on such markers. Mr.
~jllli Tobiason and other local veterans have
been seeking funding for the signs and
have requested that the County consider
funding six of them. The various sign
designs are attached.
The County sign shop cannot fabricate these signs, but we have obtained a quote from
Lyle Signs for $1,215 for six of the 72" x 48 "signs, or $1,124 for six of the dual signs
shown on the attached spec sheet.
World War I I Veterans H istoric H ighway
U.S. Highway 97 -Oregon
a n c S U i- • J River
P lRTUANQ - The Dalles
d Greshamn.. ; l~mbi Gorge Nat Scenic Aroma
Lake +~sireg~.►:
hNi sj Day R
eiaer F.
_ em
■ Vhtrn S tings Ind' -eset ati
Sta;rton
ny John D,
e non
f~ •and Trine=~illE . . .
.
v e .
B■nd
n ~ ~3tt Vlo is NIQ'
° .
in
2so
ate
Sun ~~nK x l
9 G':
L. Ab P-
dF0!'~ . ° ' _ 14 v
Klamath°~►Us:
~'5: _
co
O
O
N
0)
cz
N
L
^L'
W
L
O
U
T l0
N ~
~ A
X C
00
't N
O
N
N
c cz
E 0 1!
CC CO
E od
:3 cn
=3 C
j 1= O
U U
N CO
70
cz V /Q~~ N
O
TCD v 0
V
C O
E cn
O
CD o
L
OT L Q
m = -1
O 0
70
O 2 C
0 cz
a) !z 0
cz U O
N cd
0) L- cz
C
o a
w O
m c
A ~ v
h N
~ V
~a
V
11 {~J
N N
o~ c a
v A
'N 3
y C
bA 'En
N 'W
W-0
h
O w
O Of
u ,C C
h O1-H
~ V! C•1
O N
Q
8
a
C
.y
k
0
N
Y
(0
V
d O
h 7 C44
L43 o
3 y
x o- ~o
II o
I...
I...
ao
o, -co
w C~v~ AA
m
N
cm
C cn
m.:
Y
Q v
d ~
Q
N
a2
w N
m
M aD
ri. M
{LJ
LL'9
o m
E
co
4-
O
^T
`
W
O)
cz
CL
U
O
cz
L
^L'
W
L
O
U
T lv
Q)
CV ~
X C
00
It N
V O
N
75 N
co `V
Q. ? O
~ O" Q
C co cz
_x
~ cn 'cD
co cA
=3 c
> O
+(~j ~ U
N M ?
~ U
cz 0
U 0
~ c 0
E " V/
161-- O
CD a
0/
Va_
J
00) U
O T c
70 cz
U Q 0
O
co U
N
0) cz
N
~ V O
Q G
Of p
H V
C h
Oy
N a
V
dQ • ~ V
W it
d
w ' o
or N
O d
ti • a.
or
N d
.O • y w
O h t,
O Of
U G C
N C1h
O O
~o
E
0
w
C
tr~
.y
ri
0
N
Y
R
y Qn
y O
N
L41 '30 ~M
N N
a~
Co Co
vi E N
II ~o
d
cm
Q' o
ai d tm
p
w U go i= ra
n N
CM C4
A .
OfC,
Y rl
Q ~
d rl.
m
'C
N
OC °D
N N
M
co
2
o-
•w
I F
Single faced 0.090" diamond grade reflective aluminum panel @ 36" x 72"
1.5" corner radius. White copy. High Performance non-reflective Gerber
3-M Russet Brown # 220-29 vinyl field.
Installation, including overall height & support with 6x6 ptp,
s/t MOT specifications & approval.
Includes 18" x 48" blade
for site designation
•
File: VeteransHwySigns
Client: Dick Tobiason
"
Scale: 1
=V
Approve
color, design, size, & spelling Date
1805 NE Forbes Bead, Bend, Ore o
Tel (541) 382.2182 Fax (541 ;3
n 97701
82.2198
Dwg By: Kevin Wells, kdwells@earlsonsign.com
Date: 09110/2009, 12/03/2009; 12/16/2009
This desi
Others u
in g the exclusive property of Carlson Sign Co.
ing this design will be subject to prosecution.
Next Steps Checklist
Decision Points for discussion on january 28, 2010
❑ What is the goal for the next steps in this process?
• Create a plan that is balanced or reflects a specific direction? What is the flavor of the Plan?
• Revise current draft Plan Update, which attempts to be consistent with state law, recommends some
changes to state law, emphasizes partnerships/collaboration on a range of issues, and is proactive on
current/upcoming issues.
• Rewrite so it:
a) Only addresses what is required by the State?
b) Rewrite it so it addresses what is required by the State in some areas, and conflicts with the law in
other areas
c) Rewrite it so it addresses what is required by the State in some areas, and recommends changes to state
law in areas to be determined?
• Policy statements - general or specific, or both, or it depends on the issue?
• Policy or action oriented document?
• Revert to current Plan and edit/remove/add goals and/or policies where needed?
❑ What is the timeline/schedule to get to public hearings?
• Target season/month/year?
• Staff resources allow two official Commission meetings/month; staff is available for meetings with less than a
quorum
Discuss Plan at one meeting per month
Discuss Plan at every meeting
❑ What should be the approach to review and revise the draft Plan?
• Review by chapter using matrix, scheduling panels when needed?
• Review by issues, chapters or sections from least controversial to most?
• Subcommittees for each issue or chapter - use experts/panels to assist and report back to larger
Commission?
• Revise overall Plan based on matrix vote and then begin discussion
• Revert to current Plan and edit/remove/add goals and/or policies where needed?
• Commission provides direction and delegates to staff to re-write; Commission actively re-writes with staff
at public meetings; or Commissioners propose revised text at meetings with other Commissioner and staff
input and review?
❑ How/when should the public be involved during Plan revision (before hearings)?
• Upon determining the preferred approach to review and revise the draft Plan, clarify the timing for receiving
citizen input - before a specific topic/chapter is discussed? After a topic/chapter is discussed? After the
entire draft plan has been revised?
• Allow citizen input at the end of meetings only after the Commission discussions?
• Hold a series of meetings on revising the draft Plan without taking public testimony then seek public input
on revised draft?
• Use survey monkey as tool to gather input on an issue, or the draft or revised draft Plan?
❑ When/how to discuss format?
• One volume vs. two volumes; format/style - design
• Overall level of generality/specificity in Plan; actions yes/no - or anywhere in document
• Discuss first - give staff direction as we rewrite (provides clear direction to staff on how to re-write sections
of the plan immediately - general or specific, actions - yes/no)
• Discuss later - once it is more clear where the Plan is heading (allows time to focus on the big issues
without focusing on the specific text, but extends the process a little)
• Discuss last - after the hard decisions are made (allows time to focus on the big issues and the beginning of
the rewrite, delays questions regarding general or specific text, and the nuances of the text may take
significant time to iron out).
vTE C
Community Development Department
O - m A j4 A. tAA-< Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
4z'Y 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 20, 2010
TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
FROM Nick Lelack, Planning Director
Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Work Session: Commercial Uses in Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone
ISSUE
The purpose of this work session is to discuss commercial uses in the EFU zone, including potential
impacts of such uses that include large gatherings of people. Two projects, the Oregon Rush
Soccer Club proposal and event venues, could be considered by the Board early this year. This
memorandum discusses this issue generally as well as each potential project.
DISCUSSION
Private parks are an allowed use in the EFU zone on non-high value farmland via Conditional Use
Permit review and approval. Site Plan Review is also required for physical improvements to a
property.
What is a private park? According to a draft letter from the Department of Land Conservation and
Development in summer 2009, "A few LUBA cases have given counties the discretion to define
private parks to include paint-ball activities and motocross tracks, indicating a broader tolerance for
what can constitute a private park in EFU zones; such uses arguably require a rural location. More
importantly, the uses described in these cases were all clearly forms of recreation. For example, in
Spiering v. Yamhill County, 25 Or LUBA 695 (1993), the Court of Appeals concluded that a `park' is
a tract of land set aside for public recreational use."
Over the past couple of years, Deschutes County has approved applications for private parks for
the Bend Trap Club, a paintball facility, and Halligan Ranch (sporting clays shooting range), finding
that these are recreational uses. Site Plan Review for each application also allowed buildings
specifically for the above land uses.
In addition, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a privately-initiated text
amendment to expand the definition of private parks and conditional uses for such purposes;
however, it was withdrawn prior to the Board of Commissioner's public hearing.
TA-08-9, BOCC Memo
Page 1
Quality Services Performed With Pride
Oregon Rush Soccer Club is proposing to lease property from the City of Bend and Deschutes
County to locate a soccer and softball/baseball complex as a private park in the EFU zone at the
north end of Juniper Ridge. In addition, event venue operators have expressed interest in the
County allowing event venues in the EFU zone. The following section will discuss each issue.
Planning staff, in consultation with County legal counsel, believes a soccer facility is a clear
recreational use, and therefore eligible for consideration as a private park via a Conditional Use
Permit application.
General standards governing conditional uses in the County, per DCC 18.128.015, include the
following:
A. The site under consideration shall be determined to be suitable for the proposed use
based on the following factors:
1. Site, design and operating characteristics of the use;
2. Adequacy of transportation access to the site; and
3. The natural and physical features of the site, including, but not limited to, general
topography, natural hazards and natural resource values.
B. The proposed use shall be compatible with existing and projected uses on surrounding
properties based on the factors listed in DCC 18.128.015(A).
C. These standards and any other standards of DCC 18.128 may be met by the imposition
of conditions calculated to insure that the standard will be met.
In addition, site plan approval criteria in DCC 18.124.060 require the applicant to address a range of
issues, including screening and buffering areas and buildings to minimize adverse impacts on the
site and neighboring properties; shielding exterior light so it does not project off-site; transportation
access and circulation; landscaping, etc.
Planning staff believe the key issues to be addressed by the applicant for the proposed complex
include transportation, noise, and stadium lighting based on the projected large public attendance at
the soccer and softball/baseball games.
Commercial event venues may generate similar impacts with large gatherings of people. What is a
commercial event venue? It is generally an event in which involves a transaction in which an
individual, sponsor or attendee purchases the right to hold an event, such as weddings/receptions,
family and class reunions, and company picnics. However, staff is unclear whether commercial
event venues can also be considered recreational uses.
According to the same draft DLCD letter cited above, "If [event venues are] determined to be
permitted, we believe that carefully circumscribed provisions for such uses may be crafted if they:
1) Provide that the use is accessory to a commercial farm, winery, nursery or bed-and-breakfast
use;
2) Meet the minimum lot size standard of the EFU zone; and
3) Provide for consultation with nearby farmers, including mitigation of impacts."
Staff has researched how some other Oregon counties permit commercial event venues for
commercial, which is summarized in the table below.
Table: County Approaches to Allowing Commercial Event Venues in the EFU Zone
County
Code Provision or How
Type of Uses Allowed
Use is Accommodated
Hood River County
Article 73, Home
Allows the hosting of weddings and
Occupation to Host
private events as accessory to a
Weddings & Related
bed and breakfast, farm, or winery
Events - Effective July 22,
(through a conditional use permit for
2004
a home occupation).
Wasco County
Exclusive Farm Use Zone -
Allows the hosting of events
Home Occupation to Host
associated with a farm use, lawfully
Commercial Events - as a
approved winery, bed and breakfast
conditional use - Effective
or farm ranch recreation, and can
July 09
include weddings, receptions,
parties, bicycle races confined to
the parcel and other small-scale
gatherings hosted for a fee.
Benton County
No specific code
provision
Exclusive Farm Use Zone -
Allowed a commercial activity in
Commercial Activity in
conjunction with farm use which
Conjunction With Farm Use
included a wine tasting room, sales
(one specific land use
of wine and other items, and event
approval)
hosting, in conjunction with a
vineyard operation.
Allowed a private park which would
include weddings, private parties
Forest Zone - Conditional
and other functions in a Forest
Use for a private park (one
Zone.
specific land use
approval
Clackamas County
Exclusive Farm Use Zone -
Allows a home occupation to host
Home occupation to host
events in the EFU zone as a
events - but only in
conditional use, but only in
conjunction with an
conjunction with an existing winery.
existing winery, Effective
2006
Multnomah County
No specific code
provision
Exclusive Farm Use Zone -
A recent Multnomah County
Farm Stand
decision (7-22-09) denied an
applicant's request for weddings as
part of a farm stand operation, as it
was determined that weddings do
not promote the sale of farm crops
or livestock.
Lane County
No specific code
provision.
Use the State Language
My allow them as a conditional use,
(ORS) of commercial
as a commercial activity in
activities in conjunction with
conjunction with farm use or as a
farm use or as a home
home occupation.
occupation.
Washington County
No specific code
provision
Possibly allowed under the
An applicant would have to apply
private park listing in State
for an event venue as a private
Law.
ark.
Yamhill County
No specific code
provision
Possibly allowed as a
An applicant would have to apply
conditional use at a winery
for the event venues as part of a
or a bed and breakfast inn.
winery or bed and breakfast
proposal.
Marion County
No specific code
provision
Possibly allowed as part of
An applicant would need to apply
a winery. Does not believe
for the event venue as part of a
a home occupation is the
winery.
right avenue.
Jackson County
No specific code
provision
Possibly allowed as part of
An applicant would need to apply
a bed and breakfast inn.
for the event venue as part of a bed
and breakfast inn.
Polk County
No specific code
provision
Possibly allowed as a
An applicant would need to apply
conditional use permit as a
for a conditional use permit for a
home occupation or
home occupation or as a
commercial activity in
commercial activity in conjunction
conjunction with farm use.
with farm use.
Baker County
No specific code
provision
Possibly allowed as part of
An applicant would need to apply
a nursery.
for a conditional use permit for a
event venue as art of a nursery.
01/20/2010 13:11 5036396891 OREGONIANS IN ACTION PAGE 01/03
ARE
January 20, 2010
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St.
Suite 200
Bend, OR 97701=1960
VIA FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION (541) 5-3202
Re: Commercial Events in EFU Zones
Dear Commissioners:
I received notice that the Board will be holding a work session today to discuss
commercial events in EFU zones. The purpose of this letter is to thank you for taking up
this issue and to urge you to seek a resolution of the issue, rather than relying on the
courts or the state to provide the county with an answer.
As you know, the Oregonians In Action Legal Center represents Kelly Brown in
the code enforcement action brought by the County against Ms. Brown alleging that Ms.
Brown was conducting commercial events on her EFU zoned Deschutes County property.
The case centers on an interpretation of your County Codc. Depending on how the Code
is interpreted, the case raises issues of federal law (the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act - RLUIPA) and the state and federal constitutions.
Right now, your counsel and I have urged the court to delay a trial on the case to
give you time to decide whether to pursue a text amendment to make the County
Comprehensive Plan and County Code more clear as to what commercial events are
allowed in the EFU zone. I hope you will undertake this task, and believe it is in the best
interest of both parties to the litigation, and to the residents of Deschutes County,
regardless of where they stand on the issue.
The interpretation of the County's Comp Plan and Code is a policy choice that
should be made by the County, not by a trial court judge. But should the County fail to
make that choice, and should the County choose to continue to pursue the code
enforcement action against my-client, the policy choice will be made by the Deschutes
County Circuit Court, and most likely the Oregon Court of Appeals or Oregon Supreme
Court. I doubt this is a position that the courts would like to find themselves in, and
leaving a land use decision in the hands of the judicial branch may result in a policy that
the Board disagrees with or feels is not in the best interest of the county.
Mailing Address: P. 0. Box 230637 • Tigard, OR 97281-0637
Street Address: 11735 S. W. Queen Elizabeth Street, Suite 101 • ,King City, OR 97224
(503) 620-0258 • FAX (503) 639-6891 • website: www.nin.oro
L e g a 1 C e n t e r
01/20/2010 13:11 5036396891 OREGONIANS IN ACTION PAGE 02/03
Should the Board decide to not address the issue, and should the Court interpret
the Code to find that the Code does not allow weddings and other religious uses in the
E FU zone, then the County will lose the ability to impose the criteria that would
otherwise apply to conditional uses allowed in the EFU zone. I believe this type of all-
or-nothing approach should be avoided by both parties to the litigation.
In the meantime, counties across the state have already confronted the issue you
will discuss today, and have come up with ways to allow commercial events in the EFU,
zone with limitations (imposed through the conditional use permit process) to. eztsure that
these events do not significantly impact the surrounding community. I hope you will
review the different ways that counties have addressed this issue, and will craft a,model
ordinance that can be used by other counties to address the issue.
In the many years that I've represented rural property owners in courts and at the
legislature, I have noticed that the frequency of these types of uses has risen
exponentially, and I feel confident in saying that they will continue to occur whether they
are regulated-or not. Regulations designed to allow these temporary events with
restrictions aimed at protecting surrounding property owners makes much sense for
everyone.
A resolution of this issue could be made by the state legislature or LCDC, but I do
not believe that that is likely to occur in the near future. Currently, I sit on LCDC's
R.LUIPA task force that has been asked to address LCDC's administrative rules for uses
in EFU zones. The Oregon Court of Appeals has found that those rules, as currently
drafted, violate RLUIFA and discriminate against religious laird uses, at least in some
circumstances. LCDC has asked our task force to make suggestions to LCDC on bow to
bring the rules in compliance with RLUIPA and the Free Exercise Clause of the United
States Constitution. Laurie Craghead also serves on the task force.
Our task force is near the end of the process, and is close to agreeing upon
language that we can recommend to LCDC. I am confident that LCDC will adopt the
language that the task force recoinmcnds. That language focuses on secular structures
allowed within three miles of an urban growth boundary, and does not address the issue
before you today. I do not believe that LCDC will be taking up the issue in the near
future.
Nor do I believe that the legislature will attempt to address commercial events in
EFU zones at anytime soon, as a state statute preempting local authority and regulating
what are essentially short term events that do not involve permanent alterations to
property and that involve potentially every type of rural land use make it difficult to
resolve at the legislature. From talking with the various interest groups on this issue, I
can assure you that opinions range the whole spectrum on this issue, and I believe it will
be very difficult to achieve a legislative solution.
Which brings us back to the county. Since counties already have experience with
this issue, you are in the best position to attempt to resolve it through the text armendment
01/20/2010 13:11 5036396891 OREGONIANS IN ACTION PAGE 03/03
process. I urge you to do so, and pledge my assistance and cooperation in your efforts.
You are in an ideal position to craft an ordinance that can serve as a model for every
county.
Commercial events provide many benefits to the county and rural property
owners, but also raise concerns for county enforcement and for neighboring property
owners. That mares this type of use ideal for the conditional use approval process, a
process that would allow the county to regulate the activities on an application by
application basis.
I hope that you will proceed forward with the text amendment process, refer this
matter to your Planning Conwxission, and work to find an acceptable compromise that
will benefit all Deschutes County residents. If Lean help in any way, please do not
hesitate to ask.
Ve ruly Yours,
Davi J. Hunnicutt
Executive Director and General Counsel
iz~
o
O
N
L
'
O
N
'O
c
E
vJ
~
Or
~
~
o
_
m
-
N
t
s-
~
1
ly
N
I ^
3
:Co
o
o
?
_
!
V
C
.Q
r
.x
Z
rd
`
°