Loading...
2018-333-Minutes for Meeting June 25,2018 Recorded 8/10/2018�wTES COG -A BOARD OF Recorded in Deschutes County Nano Blankenshi County Clerk CJ2018-333 COMMISSIONERS y p �omrriissioners, Journal 08/10/2018 10:57:11 AM (5410 NW Wall 3 8-65 70 treat, Bend, Oregon `:4 ;' 2018-333 3 8 9:00 AM MONDAY, June 25, 2018 FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY BARNES & SAWYER ROOMS Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Phil Henderson and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel; and Mattie Corya-Svvanson, Administrative Assistant. No identified representatives of the media were in attendance. CALL TO ORDER: In the absence of Chair DeBone, Vice -Chair Henderson called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. Chair DeBone joined the meeting at 10:12 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: None was offered. CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. BAN EY: Move approval. HENDERSON: Second. VOTE: BAN EY: Yes. HENDERSON: DEBONE: Yes. Chair not present. Motion Carried BOCC BUSINESS MEETING JUNE 25, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 5 Consent Agenda Items: 1. Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2018-046, Transferring and Distributing Certain Monies from the Deschutes County Land Sales Fund 2. Consideration of Board Signature of Letter Appointing Dave Edwards to the Investment Advisory Committee 3. Consideration of Board Signature of Letter Thanking Scott Ferguson for service on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee ACTION ITEMS 4. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Annual Report and Award Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee members Cheryl Howard and Dave Thompson were present. Ms. Howard thanked the Board for its support and shared being part of Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) has been a deeply fulfilling and rewarding experience and the Committee is the hardest working volunteer committee she has seen. Commissioner Henderson thanked Ms. Howard on behalf of BOCC for her service and accomplishments in leading BPAC. Mr. Thompson, who will serve as interim Chairperson until elections in November, presented an update. Mr. Thompson advised the Board four other members (of the thirteen on BPAC) have left and three new members have been nominated; this transition is considered a normal part of the process of volunteer committees. Mr. Thompson summarized the accomplishments of BPAC and a detailed account is part of the agenda packet. Mr. Thompson asked the Board to help in presenting the awards: • Safe Sidewalks Award: Rock Solid Property Management, Mary Hill, Property Manager, accepted the award. • Big Chain ring Awards: o Individual Award: Pete Werner o Non-profit: Brian Potwin, Commute Options o Advocacy Group: Central Oregon LandWatch o Peter Hansen Memorial: Kevin English • Lifetime Achievement Award: Chery Howard BOCC BUSINESS MEETING JUNE 25, 2018 PAGE 2 OF 5 The Board thanked and congratulated everyone who participated as well as those in the audience for their hard work, dedication, and valuable input. 5. DELIBERATION: Snow Creek Ranch Partition Will Groves, Community Development Department, presented staff report. The subject property is a part of Lot 4 of the Snow Creek Ranch and was divided by a 2001 partition to create a nonfarm parcel and dwelling. The applicant seeks to divide Parcel 2 of the 2001 partition for a new nonfarm parcel and dwelling. Mr. Groves presented a matrix listing the areas of issue for the Boards consideration. Commissioner Henderson discussed issue is not about protecting farming but rural living; he sees desirability as separate from harm and does not feel approving the modification creates any harm - that people might feel harmed is a separate matter. Commissioner DeBone stated that intention was one dwelling per parcel and feels changing the clearly stated original intent at this time does not seem appropriate. Commissioner Baney clarified with Board their determination is on desirably and benefit not harm and Commissioners agreed. Commissioners Baney and DeBone expressed opposition and Commissioner Henderson expressed his support. Counsel David Doyle advised the Board that its stated 2-1 position was a sufficient basis to deny the appeal, and, procedurally the Board is not required to continue its analysis/discussion; on- going discussion is at Board's discretion. Mr. Groves stated Issue 1 was the primary question that Staff needed guidance yet proceeding to Item 6 might be helpful. Commissioner Baney asked if the Board could now impose a deadline on code violations though deed violations had not been imposed by the County. Mr. Groves said Staff is unclear on legal position; if the County did not enforce code at the time is it possible to do so now and/or when is it too late? Commissioner Baney felt that a condition of approval doesn't have deadline. The Hearings Officer had ruled the obligation was on-going. Commissioner Henderson concurred. Applicant position is that since the violation was not noted when Plat H> was recorded it is now too late. BOCC BUSINESS MEETING JUNE 25, 2018 PAGE 3 OF 5 At 11:12 a. m. the power in the building went out and meeting was halted. At 11:27 a.m. meeting resumed with Commissioner Baney and Deputy Administrator Erik Kropp recording the meeting on their phones. When discussion on this agenda item was completed Commissioner Baney stopped recording on her phone. Once she confirmed that Erik Kropp had also recorded the discussion she deleted the recording from her cell phone. Mr. Groves notified the Board that during power outage break Staff discussed issues with Legal and now feel that have needed clarification. Commissioner Henderson asked if matter is appealed would LUBA (State of Oregon Land Use Appeals) request anything from County should decision be appealed. Counsel Doyle responded that typically LUBA would focus on issue 1, as the Board had done, and if it disagreed with the Board then appeal would be remanded to County. Commissioner DeBone asked if Board would like to continue with additional discussion; Board agreed to end discussion and stated written decision will follow. 6. DELIBERATION: CDD Work Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 Nick Lelack, Community Development Director, presented the plan. After discussion and clarification Board approved CDD work plan as presented with minor amendments. BAN EY: HENDERSON: VOTE: BAN EY HENDERSON: DEBONE: Move approval with amendments. Second. Yes. Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion Carried. OTHER ITEMS: None were offered. BOCC BUSINESS MEETING DUNE 25, 2018 PAGE 4 OF 5 Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:22 p.m. DATED this LJ Day of LC4,_2018 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ACORATTEST' SECRETARY BOCC BUSINESS MEETING JUNE 25, 2018 PAGE 5 OF 5 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.org BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 AM, MONDAY, JUNE 25, 2018 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Center - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend This meeting is open to the public. To watch it online, visit www.deschutes.org/meetings. Business Meetings are usually streamed live online and video recorded. Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the main topics that are anticipated to be considered or discussed. This notice does not limit the Board's ability to address other topics. Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Please complete a sign-up card (provided), and give the card to the Recording Secretary. Use the microphone and clearly state your name when the Board Chair calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE. Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing not being conducted as a part of this meeting will NOT be included in the official record of that hearing. If you offer or display to the Board any written documents, photographs or other printed matter as part of your testimony during a public hearing, please be advised that staff is required to retain those documents as part of the permanent record of that hearing. CONSENT AGENDA Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2018-046, Transferring and Distributing Certain Monies from the Deschutes County Land Sales Fund. Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Monday, June 25, 2018 Page 1 of 2 2. Consideration of Board Signature of Letter Appointing Dave Edwards to the Investment Advisory Committee 3. Consideration of Board Signature of Letter Thanking Scott Ferguson for service on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee ACTION ITEMS 4. PRESENTATION Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Annual Report and Award - Zechariah Heck, Associate Planner 5. DELIBERATION: Snow Creek Ranch Partition - William Groves, Senior Planner 6. DELIBERATION: CDD Work Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 - Nick Lelack, Community Development Director OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. At any time during the 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), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations, ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues, or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public, however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. ADJOURN Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541) 617-4747. FUTURE MEETINGS: Additional meeting dates available at www. deschutes.or /g meetingcolendar Meeting dates and times are subject to change. If you have question, please call (541) 388-6572. Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Monday, June 25, 2018 Page 2 of 2 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Business Meeting of June 25, 2018 DATE: June 20, 2018 FROM: James Lewis, Property Management, 541-385-1414 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2018-046, Transferring and Distributing Certain Monies from the Deschutes County Land Sales Fund. RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve and sign Order 2018-046. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: On March 14, 2018, The Board of County Commissioners signed Order 2018-008, ordering the sale of certain County property acquired through tax foreclosure proceedings. On May 17, 2018, the Deschutes County Sheriff held the public auction as ordered. On June 6, 2018, the Board of County Commissioners signed Order 2018-044 approving and confirming the sale of properties at the auction. The gross proceeds of the auction were $1,115,060.00: $476,660 cash/cashier's check amount with $638,400 financed, as per the Sheriff's Return record. Pursuant to ORS 275.275, the proceeds of the sale of foreclosed property must be applied as follows: any state taxes; penalties and fees incurred in the foreclosure for delinquent taxes by a county; then, any costs in the maintenance and supervision of such property - the total transfer of funds for such purposes is $305,268.55. Once funds are applied in this manner, the remaining funds are returned to the applicable taxing districts - remaining funds from the gross sales are $809,791.45. The attached Order includes the specific amounts that will be applied to the County Budgetary funds - such amounts serve as reimbursement for actual dollar spent for the management and supervision of such properties during the 2017-18 fiscal year, and were factored into the appropriations for the fiscal year 2018-19 budget. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve and sign Document 2018-046. ATTENDANCE: James Lewis DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS: One fully signed original document returned to James Lewis for permanent records. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Business Meeting of June 25, 2018 DATE: June 20, 2018 FROM: Zechariah Heck, Community Development, 541-385-1704 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: PRESENTATION Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee Annual Report and Award BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee (BPAC) will provide an annual report on the work they have accomplished over the last year. BPAC members have also selected the recipients of the 2018 Big Chainring and Safe Sidewalk Awards. As done in previous years, the committee requests the Board to assist in the presentation of the awards. ATTENDANCE: BPAC Members - Dave Thomson, Cheryl Howard, et al. Wcyc�e and Pedestrian, Advisory Comkinittee MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) DATE: June 25, 2018 SUBJECT: BPAC Awards & Annual Report I. Overview The mission of Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee (BPAC) is to promote and encourage safe bicycling and walking as a significant means of transportation in Deschutes County. The goals of the committee include: • The development of a coordinated system of safe and convenient bikeways and walkways. • The stimulation of public awareness. • The examination of current and future financing options and budget strategies for bicycle and pedestrian projects. • Committee work presently includes the development of bicycle and pedestrian safety programs and reviewing bicycle and pedestrian project prioritization. The committee serves to advise Deschutes County, the cities of Bend, Redmond and Sisters, as well as the Oregon Department of Transportation in bicycle and pedestrian transportation. BPAC is a source of current information relating to the use of bicycle and walking as a means of transportation. The committee advocates for bicycle, pedestrian and public transit as viable means of transportation in Deschutes County. BPAC is comprised of 13 -voting members, with regional representation, and holds monthly meetings to discuss and provide input and advise local agencies concerning bicycling and walking interests and priorities. BPAC meetings are open to the public and include agency representatives as non-voting participants. Accomplishments Since our last report to the Board of County Commissioners BPAC has continued to leverage the expertise and enthusiasm of our members and our relationships with agencies and organizations across Deschutes County and Central Oregon to improve conditions for people who walk, ride bikes, and utilize transit. In May, BPAC organized the 7th annual Tri -County Bicycle and Pedestrian Summit. This year's summit, held in Prineville, brought together over 30 attendees from Prineville and Crook County, the rest of Central Oregon, Travel Oregon, and ODOT's Bicycle and Pedestrian Program. Speakers shared their recent successes and future plans along with strategies and resources for others to use. 11 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Be rid, OR 97708-6005 IQ% (541)388-6575 C7a bpac@deschutes .org @ vvwwv.desd-iutes.org/bpac After Jonathon Adams was killed while riding his bicycle in Bend last November BPAC formed a subcommittee to investigate the use of Vision Zero policies by other cities. Vision Zero policies are intended to focus attention and resources on reducing and eventually eliminating transportation -related deaths and serious injuries. The subcommittee researched Vision Zero and then discussed the concepts with the Deschutes County Road Department. As the Road Department was already moving forward with creating a Transportation Safety Action Plan (TSAP) BPAC decided to provide input to that plan as a first step and evaluate the future role of Vision Zero once the TSAP is adopted. III. BPAC Awards Since 1996, the Big Chainring Awards have been awarded annually to honor individuals, businesses, and public agencies that have made significant contributions in the support of better bicycling and walking in Central Oregon. In addition, the Peter Hanson Memorial Award specifically recognizes individuals in the community who have provided outstanding voluntary contributions. Since 2006, the Safe Sidewalks Awards have recognized those businesses and property owners who not only fulfill, but also often exceed, the legal requirements to remove snow, ice and debris from sidewalks. The Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) is pleased to announce its selections for the 2018 Big Chainring and Safe Sidewalk Awards. Staff and BPAC members request the Board to assist in the presentation of the awards. This year's winners include: Peter Werner— Individual: Peter currently serves on Bend's Citywide Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC), where he advocates for the interest of cyclists and pedestrians. He is also a regular bicycle commuter and member of Bend Bikes. Brian Potwin, Commute Options - Nonprofit Organization: Brian has brought dedication, enthusiasm and passion to his work on the Safe Routes to Schools program and Bend's Open Streets event. Central Oregon LanclWatch - Advocacy Group: Central Oregon Land Watch has successfully advocated for the creation of the Bend Central District. The plans for the district incorporate safer walking and biking routes, which will help encourage alternative forms of transportation. Cheryl Howard - Lifetime Achievement: Cheryl has served as a volunteer with the Deschutes County BPAC for 14 years. Under her leadership, BPAC has been more effective at promoting alternative modes of transportation. Cheryl helped create and organize the annual Tri -County Summit, which helps to increase public awareness of safe bicycling and walking throughout Central Oregon. BPAC has many subcommittees that Cheryl has either led or participated in. Kevin English - Peter Hanson Memorial Award: Kevin created the Dirty Freehub, a website that informs community members about safe and fun routes for cyclists. Kevin and his wife frequently lead group rides throughout the area, in addition to hosting workshops on route finding, bike selection, gear, etc. Because of Kevin's outstanding community volunteer efforts, he will receive the Peter Hanson Memorial Award. Rock Solid Property Management—Safe Sidewalk: Rock Solid Property Management continuously maintains sidewalks to ensure safe access for all. Attachments 1. BPAC 2017 Annual Report 2. BPAC 2018 Tri County Summit Agenda lei >u -� Sa{"effart O °�fnew U �; ; A Sisters= � two��Q tJ cel) G p N 0 System v) • •-+ funding cd (nu~ 3- n ^0 O state bA� bA BPAC- 1� 3 rc-t O.� Vision¢, O Road .discussed 1-' .0 r4 Cd Cd 04 transit OQDO c.�Veiitut�, y :�' P-+ also cU a bA �✓ u c u support J n v aro di O • ' ' w . r The cover page is a "word cloud". The report was scanned for word frequency - words appear in larger font in the graphic proportional to the times that they appear in the report. It is provided for entertainment purpose only and has no greater meaning in the report. BPAC Report January 2018 BPAC: Mission: The Deschutes County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)'s mission is to encourage, promote and advocate for safe and accessible biking and walking environments which enhance the quality of life for residents and visitors in Central Oregon and to advise the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on such matters. BPAC is comprised of 13 -voting members, with regional representation, and holds monthly meetings to discuss and provide input and advise local agencies concerning bicycling and walking interests and priorities. BPAC meetings are open to the public and include agency representatives as non-voting participants. Most meetings are held in Bend although effort is made to also schedule yearly joint BPAC meetings/"summits" around the tri -county area on a rotating basis to ensure wider countywide input and participation. 2017 Activities BPAC Subcommittees BPAC has several standing and ad hoc subcommittees to provide community recognition, or more focused support and input for local bike and pedestrian (B/P) issues and topics. This provides more dedicated time for thorough B/P discussion. There are also several other technical advisory committees (TACs not listed in this report) that have BPAC representation; i.e., COACT, CET, MPO and city. BPAC members have volunteered for duty on these committee, as well. • Safe Sidewalk Awards Subcommittee: BPAC identified recipients of the yearly Safe Sidewalk Awards that recognizes businesses that are to be recognized for their extraordinary efforts in winter snow removal. • Big Chain Ring Awards Subcommittee: Messaging (for April) to include irrigation system calibration and Big Chainring Nominations. Also, the city of Redmond Public Works (agency) and Matt Cromwell (individual) were nominated for Big Chain Awards. • BPAC Goals Subcommittee: Goals are intended to be proactive and reactive on relevant issues. One goal revision was to create opportunities to solicit input form the broader community including the Bend - La Pine School District and local park districts. The committee also aims to work more closely with Bend Bikes and Central OR Visitors Association. [See: Appendix -A 2018 BPAC Goals attached to this report.] • Vision Zero Subcommittee: BPAC discussed the bicyclist fatality on Olney and Wall Street that occurred (in November). An observation was made that Deschutes County and the city of Bend do not have Vision Zero policies in their Transportation System Plans (ODOT apparently does). A Vision Zero policy is a Page 1 of 7 traffic safety effort to achieve a transportation system with no fatalities or serious injuries. A statement was made that timing is unique because both the city of Bend and Deschutes County are gearing up to review their Transportation System Plans. The city of Bend will conduct community outreach in a couple of months and the group recognized the important of conveying a Vision Zero policy during outreach event. A Vision Zero policy will lead to actions that reduce fatalities and serious injuries. A subcommittee will be created to address options to move forward. Ideally, the subcommittee can propose a strategy for BPAC to engage organizations regarding Vision Zero. Other BPAC: • BPAC annual presentation to the Board of County Commissioners was made on June 21, 2017. • BPAC coordination Summits held in Redmond (Feb.), Sisters (Apr.) and Sunriver (Oct.). • Tri -County Summit held in La Pine, in October. (2018: in Prineville) Agency Coordination: United States Forest Service (USFS): • The US Forest Service held a virtual open house related to a proposed pathway extending from Bend to the Lava Lands Visitor Center. ODOT: • ODOT constructed a new roundabout at Highway 20 and Barkley. • ODOT sought BPAC input on the 2018-21 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). • ODOT's US 97 refinement plan continues to be refined including B/P improvements. • ODOT invited BPAC to a one -day workshop on Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) new Small Towns & Rural Multimodal Networks Facility Design Guide assessment. • ODOT provided an overview of the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP), a look back at the grant application process, and a look forward to project completion and the next grant cycle. They mentioned coordination with COIC to explore a future FLAP grant to provide infrastructure to extend transit west of the city of Sisters along to destinations including Hoodoo, Suttle Lake, and Black Butte Ranch. • ODOT provided an update on the active transportation needs inventory including mapping of a variety of data sets. • ODOT has a paving project on US 20 from Powell Butte Hwy to Horse Ridge. The segment is approximately 2 -miles in length and begins east of Dodds Road. The project will include shoulder and centerline rumble strips with gaps for bicycles. • ODOT is working on a resurfacing project in the Tumalo vicinity with expanded shoulders to better accommodate bicycle use. • The section of the scenic bikeway between Innis Market Road and Tweed Road will have bike symbols added. Page 2 of 7 • The undercrossing, west of Bend, on Century Drive construction was delayed due to wildfires. [The Century Drive Trail was ultimately completed from the city limits of Bend to Cascade Lakes Welcome Center in 2017.] • The Crooked River Scenic Highway designation is moving forward and has had broad citizen support. • ODOT is hiring a Safe Routes to School Coordinator that will be focused on safety and education. ODOT is recruiting a statewide Safe Routes to School Coordinator. • The Three Sisters Scenic Bikeway chip seal: ODOT staff indicated that each state scenic bikeway has a committee to advocate for the bikeway. The state has provided statistics showing the scenic bikeway program has stimulated significant economic activity throughout the state. • Special ODOT committee: The Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation (COACT): BPAC was provided a COACT overview of the transportation funding bill going before the Oregon legislature. Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC)/Cascades East Transit (CET): • CET provided BPAC with an overview of the existing services of Cascade East Transit and details of the planned transit hub at Kalama and 6th near Fred Meyers, in Redmond. • Hardware is being tested for real time tracking of buses. • Summer Ride Bend shuttle program has concluded. There was an average of 100 -riders a day. A RFQ has been released for a consultant to assist with securing FLAP funding: • ODOT received a TDM grant to update regional transit plan. • Redmond transit hub development near Lowe's is moving forward with ribbon cutting planned. • Three new "kneeling buses", to aid disabled patrons, were purchased by CET — launch event held in November. • The district is also working on a Touchpass Efare. • An inclement weather program is also in the works that will help the transit district determine when routes need to change to a "snow routes." Bend Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO): • The Bend MPO discussed B/P funding options and 3rd street connectivity improvements. • The MPO indicated that ODOT is beginning to evaluate the future of the Bend Parkway including how to address bicycle facilities. The ODOT parkway project is in two phases; first evaluating existing facilities and conditions to be followed by planning for future improvements. • Federal safety performance measures have been adopted. The biggest mandate is to reduce fatalities. MPOs need to adopt their own safety performance measures. Deschutes County: • There is an ongoing effort to explore construction of a non -motorized bridge over the Deschutes River in southwest Bend in a section of the Deschutes River currently designated as wide and Page 3 of 7 scenic. This effort could include amendment to state law. A series of public meetings were scheduled. • Deschutes County received a FLAP grant to study Cascade Lakes Highway. • Chip Seals were completed, with smaller material for bike lanes/shoulder, along Skyline Ranch, Metolius Drive, OB Riley Road, Spring River Road, and a segment of Camp Polk Road. • All new paving projects will have included restriping that reduces the vehicle travel lanes to 11 - feet - providing more paved shoulder for bicycle use. • The Sunriver Business Park - Circulation Study is now under a consultant contract. The Sunriver Business Park representatives have asked the county to look at bike/pedestrian issues at the traffic signal on South Century and Venture Lane (entrance to the business park) and whether Venture Lane could be made a one-way facility (circulation would be counterclockwise) or if there are other ideas to make circulation around the large oval-shaped block defined by Venture Lane work better. There is a crosswalk on South Century linking the Sunriver bike path to the north side of Venture Lane; crossing Venture Lane to south isp—roblematic. Bend Parks & Recreation District: • HB 2027-1: BPAC discussed a proposed House Bill that would oppose any new trail bridges in the Oregon Wild and Scenic River for the Deschutes River southwest of Bend. The city of Bend Transportation System Plan (TSP) and the Bend Park and Recreation District's trail plans propose a new bridge at the southwest corner of the UGB. County staff noted that if BPAC would like to provide comments they must be submitted to the Board of County Commissions for consideration. The committee discussed the issues and asked members to prepare a letter of opposition to the bill for BOCC consideration. Many Park Bond Measure trail improvement projects have been completed, funds have been allocated for the south UGB Bridge. City of Bend: • "Safe passage NE" group is organizing to encourage a roundabout at Butler Market Road and Wells Acres Road along with additional bike and pedestrian facilities. • The city kicked off a mapping and planning exercise to map cyclist level of stress assessment. A crosswalk safety video was just completed. • The South 3rd Street Sidewalk Project has been completed. • A yellow curb project is planned near OSU Cascades campus. • New street sweeper to be purchased. • A traffic engineer has been added to city staff. • The city is updating the Transportation System Plan. A few of the goals for the update include a focus on safety and a total revamp on bike routes (design standards, maps, guidelines, etc.). The process will be guided through a large citizen advisory committee. • Bicycling Network Development Project: the goal is for standards to connect to policies. New route maps will become available, as well as guidelines. An important concept is that the project is for everyone in the community. To increase bicycle use, the city of Bend is developing a methodology of "Level of Traffic Stress" (LTS), which has measurable criteria. An analysis was done that showed Bend's network overall is Level 4 – High Stress - although lower stress areas have also been identified. The respective areas have been mapped. Page 4 of 7 • The new Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) expansion has high potential for raising the number of alternative vehicle trips through use of zone implementation, e.g., mixed use. Trend potential can highlight importance of land use in promoting non -auto trips. City of Redmond: • Redmond staff updated BPAC on the various B/P activities in the city, including a demonstration of their mapping program that incorporates existing conditions, analysis, and improvement project options. They provided an overview of the Redmond B/P network plan, pathway development alternative to sidewalks, and the Homestead Trail. Planned system updates will happen in three to six months and will occur with updates to their Transportation System Plan. • There is a plan for a bike boulevard demonstration project along Deschutes Street. • The volume of development proposals is high; resulting in many potential bike/ped improvements. • City Council accepted a Homestead Trail grant. • City Council accepted an ADA Transition Plan including additional funding for improvement. • The bike network plan is going to City Council for review. • Staff noted the success of the highway bypass (reroute) in Redmond and its positive impact it has had on downtown Redmond. • The Streets Alive event is planned to showcase a demonstration bike boulevard using the Bend Open Streets as a model. • Improvements to Centennial Park are being discussed including a bike aid station. • A Safe Routes to School meeting was held and was well attended and received. • Lots of planning has been done that will lead to various projects, e.g., bike lanes on Obsidian to SW Canal. This improvement will be important for providing access to Ridgeview High School. City of Sisters: • Have a consultant working on a refinement of the Sisters Transportation System Plan (TSP). • Sisters provided BPAC with a presentation of recent projects including Hood Avenue revitalization, new Cascades East Transit bus stops, Clemens Park, Creekside Campground, and the Highway 20/13arclay Roundabout. • The city is pursuing grant funding for projects including US 20 Multi -Use Path, Locust Diverse Use Path, and Creekside Park. • Sisters Trail Alliance: Is working to expand the trail system and build new trail head at Elm Street to accommodate need for user amenities. They are looking into funding options. • The city is working with the Forest Service on Sisters to Black Butte Ranch trail. Federal budget reductions may impact the project. The US Forest Service is responsible for conducting an Environmental Impact Assessment before the project can begin. The portion of the Pacific Crest Trail near Sisters was destroyed by the Mili Fire but is now open. Significant work was needed to clear the area and make it safe for passage. The McKenzie Highway was also impacted by fire, which may delay opening to the spring. There is a desire to improve the signage on a bridge crossing over Deschutes River (from Hwy. 97 to Smith Rock). The crossing from Lower Bridge to Page 5 of 7 Terrebonne toward Smith Rock is dangerous and the Sisters community would like to discuss possible safety improvements with ODOT. • Wild fires have destroyed many trails in the Sisters area, but trail restoration is planned. Peterson Ridge Scenic Bikeway was in development but were suspended due to wildfires. • Multi -use path considered for east side of Highway 20 in town; Multi -family development is planned, and multi -modal improvements are being discussed. • The new roundabout on Highway 20/126 has proven challenging to many because people are unfamiliar with such a traffic control device. The roundabout is particularly challenging for bikes and pedestrians because car drivers are not necessarily looking for them. • New roundabouts are proposed on Locust and Highway 20. Barclay will be used by lots of various transportation and will need bike lanes. There is concern about travel width and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. The Trails Alliance asks for BPAC to provide input on bike lanes. City of La Pine: • La Pine Parks and Recreation is first Bike Friendly Business' in the city of La Pine. • ODOT is working on refining the planning/public outreach process for transit hub. • The La Pine City Manager provided comments related to transportation planning and improvements including planned development code updates and incentive programs to address multimodal transportation improvements. The city is pursuing participating in the Sustainable Cities program at Oregon State University for analysis of bicycle infrastructure opportunities. The city is also working with ODOT to develop a transit center at 4th Street and Highway 97. Tumalo: • The Bite Food Cart pod in Tumalo was approved for a Bike Friendly Business' designation. South County: Sunriver: • All 32 -miles of Sunriver paths have been open all winter. • A planned Roundabout at Abbott Drive/Beaver Drive intersection will go to the voters for funding. The preliminary design includes multi -modal pathway integration. • The Sunriver Bike Cop Program Officer provided BPAC an overview of their program services, training and technology used. Eight seasonal, non -sworn officers have been hired and are supported by additional volunteers. He noted that he personally was a participant in the program at the beginning of his career as have many other officers in the department • Sunriver Mobile App: The Sunriver IT Specialist, provided an overview of the phone app detailing usage data, various functions, and user interface for the Sunriver trail system. • Sunriver Pathway: Sunriver staff provided BPAC with a presentation on their Trail Rebuilding Program; The pathway reconstruction included woven fiberglass, within the paving, to maintain 1 Bike FriendlyAmerica provides national recognition to communities, educational institutions and businesses that meet certain requirements for designation. Page 6 of 7 the integrity and longevity of the surface to limit future thermal cracking. Also, future improvements planned include replacement of the tunnels to address drainage. The South Bend to Lava Butte Pathway Project: Three project alternatives have been identified. Construction may take a period of 5 -years. Commute Options (CO): • Bend Open Streets Event (on Sept. 17, 2017): The annual event is an initiative of Commute Options, city of Bend, and the Bend Park and Recreation District. There were food, beverage and music stations throughout the 2.5 -mile event. An estimated 1,800 community members participated in the event this year. The next event will occur on May 13, 2018 and will be in the northwest part of Bend, including a portion of downtown and the box factory. A second event, in 2018, is slated for September. • The Walking School program is expanding in collaboration with Bend La Pine School District. • The city of Bend, G5, Deschutes Brewery, and OSU-Cascades are supporting a bike share program in the greater downtown Bend area. • CO attended the transit advocacy day at the state capital to promote safe routes to school. Safe Routes to School funding has evolved. A coalition has been formed to support proposed legislation. Details of legislation were outlined noting approximately $15M is proposed to support infrastructure and non -infrastructure elements. • International Walk/Bike School Day was held on October 4th; School bike safety programs were coordinated with the OSU Bike Share. • Bike Share: The program started in September of last year (2016). There is a strong college student utilization of the program. The college hopes to expand to four new stations, add 75 — 100 bikes, Bluetooth technology, and sponsor advertisements on the bikes to help with funding. The program is run by Zagster, a national bike share company. • Friendly Driver Program: In collaboration with the cities of Eugene and Portland, will kick off soon. The first step is to establish a curriculum for program, which will be implemented in 2018. The initial audience will be companies with commercial drivers. Move Bend: • Move Bend: Bend 2030 distributed a flyer and provided an overview of the representatives, target partners, goals, and platform of Bend 2030. A steering committee is meeting monthly and coalition partners are meeting quarterly. BPAC members will attend the coalition meeting. Roundabouts Tour. • Roundabouts Tour, Kenna Sneed, provided BPAC an overview of her mission to provide education and other resources related to roundabout safety. She asked BPAC to be a supporter in the effort. There is no charge to be a supporter whereas partners provide financial support for the effort. The chair noted that BPAC is an advisory body to the Board of County Commissioners and cannot take an independent position. Kenna was encouraged to contact County administration and the Board of County Commissioners. BPAC discussed the lawful use of roundabouts and use of bicycles on the sidewalk. Page 7 of 7 Q I x d Q CL Q N Y m Y 3 N N U U m -0 r - m O N m i - V p 0ci N 'O U d O 70< m Q a c as � O m o E EL o 0 d y O c iii 0 N ` U _p C N � N w E c O QU rn , _N C E o NU m „- �7 O E mo O CO ca �, O Q7 N_ N > > a� Q m C O m a N c d Co d 0 @0 U C m c mO U _n N > N O � C U m y a� c ❑ N L N O U c U p E E U `0 - UU)Y c a >+ v m O O J N N a cn c a C, CL E, m �� j U LLJF- w A- a c O �.m0 o. N d 'U ¢�mao0 U J J U U w m� N co m N v d "' � W mU co 'o cw0 m (n O UJ r m 0 m 3 O U C o T T �� E (n �'Z U J :.- mm aU E d O1 c EQU'0mo m o ❑-F- U U� mcn0 00 (n l -u r m o v E— O _T c �O O U U 0 E c N y O 'E m a -c .� U m Q U w CW.J vi c > c U - _ ¢ L U U U t= U E m U M .o. mU �acUOCn U via T mQ aZi otS cnOa -c vi d Otn E �ti .. c a c U E U U U U o v U 0 m 0 0 0 Q U U U m U T o c Q U w° Q g E doa�mawU¢aom— m0 E� m0 to KmOU¢ a���g� m... ... .�.., ._. aaa� mmmU ava m O¢..�cn �c)au�ao= ..., .�...m �¢ N U a C m y T C N y y Um m`o N a E to v" v Om m U p o m> 'C C ¢ E L v U C p O C T U T N a d 'oO m .16 U N 2 m N m C N m O O c v Wv`a, m vaci = =0 c= 000 w o. E v m V C N U ¢ V 0) a N U (n ATO ma p p L N a N C E N N IL p a... C v c c N > O _ m O L .n m m v d m m m m c N .. a m `p F- N U o ac 2 0 m N o m U m ._ 2 > C o y LA v y ai Qj ¢ O� N m U c g ° E moa o av v0Nm U v a m m .E o m T C as ACCO C L Q m� E m E EN U m a mfL m j C C 'o N w m U c N o auo EJ m ma �Ew� o 'uy v a M L O E U ~ W T w v m w a m ah v m yLUc C 3 aa'S T 0 aci C Na d N N U C .O m N C N p m H N y a .O N O C O m E ¢ a v Eco v m a E E-0 m a o m a m « 3 aEi o Oic p- y w v OdL my?.cEo%U y m`o a U N U Q+ 3 N K a U 3c0- O C o""am O t0 C m _ y O ¢ O m C> C C m > C N C C :d m N O O U m U U yCj E C m3 T m N U a1 a m .0 m C N (0 a O C "' C T 0 0 C y p-cpi ° c c'c m E m v T m w v� a s w p U y E Ewo w Eos �cC) 'v O m a c U m o m gra E EE o x E E E o v'`w `c_ rn-°� m.,,, o m «� �� m 'c E m a " 5 m U o c O a - m - 3 m m c a3 0 d= o > O a> o '0-a a > > N V O N 4'j v U a m ¢ c vi m N O p E - a s a o c c .y a- m C N mL N O m Y v 0 o c U� m v >, C L v '3 y U a m L 0 j C m m m O m C J m = V O C« m ._ a C m L l0 a 0 V ..- a T `p v N U y a m W O U O N N a U N 3 C C N C a m N o E- -m m O m m N cn U o,E va mts amy�o5d U v �LT3 ¢2c m 5 c o U m u=i m -o a0 v E Qy� 0L ,�0m v O� a0-p:�ymo v o 0 >�v c N m rn a p� E 0 m Oci�3U ¢ wE a=— y man+ U v c m a c c s m 0 v 0 0 c a p 0 0 0 a = m_ m a d a c o m 'G 9)'„ cmc n. o acim ac --o=�cc2'coim"v m e m E 2 m a E 3 a m m L 3 :a m. mm 3 y v m my o« v'c m U> 'v m m J +J U N v a v E c c o m m E c o m E c a- m:-. ` a v :.' a> d a c C O N= m o O m p m w N C o U a p m p p y C L N L C C L C .y 3 a N a s U N C m m t0 G m a «« E N y N m (0 a v N a L U C E a "' `p C y o U o o c a Y O m v o y m 0 a 0 0 a� a .: a .•- a c C O m y U/ p- O O y m K U O N C m N co tri m N m u.2 a m U 0 (n E U C m y oE N m a O a Lam. C- > m O N -o U O o L C ` m N... m) U 2 3 y O L a U m U a a m¢ a m C () o E m 3 ,' m m m L N' V v v v� m EU�myv O O U cv=c O o N m m¢ a m a v0'e 3 m 0 ._o .ate ^ N N �0000U' aU = E vc m O m�«. «.- O E S� .n N T C C a w d uim:-mo-pw N a_ c L 0 0 v' 0) 0] m w.J:�« m N m m- O j m m0ao`m m y a 0 3 mo. > N c 0 v y m v m y j G p o.? v O C Y y m O C C m m U W W W E E E y E v C U O C W '�cn W O UJ cJ�ymU�m wo �`m `p¢ 'OO�a mU d in UQ in mygog ma a� C m C U O a N 0 O N a C L C .T N `p > O U C O U N m umi T o a O y a C m N O L y O C > E O C c m N w.O .vT. m Q v E O. O y N C a N mMo'o U m m m y N - C m C m m u 'gym 3:o m 3o G N O m 00m m E U a S-1 C d 'O m wl y a O >,M. o --0 « C m C m 0 0 U> o o. = O N c avi O C N m M '.E O U m m C t0 a N j .O CN N m N C C N C d p m C m .'-T' m lo 3 N N > U oE uo �mm ca oma 0 0 O C y a 2 w^, L w U N O y N G U N T hC N C O L'C«. > N C m a O� U >_ O N a N d "pO N m 0 O N L m m a U °o �= m'E m E o v v m N w « m Ul N m= m > U `m_ C m O tmn (0 N U) >i N E N y N amN M« m a m 0 ' C N0 O0 p= o U tii y'yC .0 `a c U0c p Ov� Cw N E WU 0 d 0 > MN m EcOv w m EWv coo 'v H O¢0 E m U m a m v c LLi o o h0> o a 0 � o c C m y c m m U 0) y. Of G I O V a i0 S Q C ''> C c� r E C Q U C U c Q 0 c m w`42 � en L- =oU •ai- 0 o p�� U 0 C: •- o � � a.(Y m� m T w YaZaw Q U C mc.i—=0) O. �¢� O E m C o o a) O T+ U mflL a) cc «C� a m o of E a) = Y maU _ O CL 0 C o Eoou p m o a) m ca o- p OQ Q n v �� >'T U L m o m �. cn o �° o.o c V) �= L) a)cm CO oma -+ Un 2.9_ c C •>Y m L C "O p ?� .O m m❑ V -n to a) 7 ma) C i cn N N o O C - 7 fn m> . W a) E aQ nc . cE a)o oE•o C ma m - ❑ m� �� a)5 N cn a) U > a) N0.-0 a) m O � -a 0 — m m O a) •3 C Y N _ a) a a) m N o 6)a) n`� o o 73 E U O U m U cu N C CO 0 iaU � o a� eco' 0 Y m U Q a a) a cn Ccc C 0 c @a) C 7 C d m p 0 00m aEm 330�� mE po UW cam 3 m m Co a)mm N (n ��mUU CC O Mcn L) mco 0 EiaN E� Y cc c m m �•� m a $0U cn mm 0 a) C Z N N co O E 3 m m @ o mU-0 N .Q cn > o N '� E Q N L a) 3 o o �_ C UQ N L) p. m a •E y rn -a N a c C I -- a- <Q CO) a) o C ,0 cn a) O O Oa., 3 m O L �'N ,� .m U) m c) 0 U "6 C m e -a 'c "O C U >� Q � J O A U) C E O in a A O EC C 0,2 a� oa)>Q > p O C A oom om Cmo•Z6� me a)� a�i> �a�'Um0 0Co m O F' 00 U O rn m 0- ECa) j off$ � a, uj a) E in 0 > c: 0 4 c o E C cn o m C v`ni o) C p Lu o = m o o � is a) oaCi �-0aa)0� 2 o) a)mQaa) 0c� C N p m in a) m U O — a) E C m O a) Q. a) a) �, m a Q a_ � a O O p m 0 .� O U) �m m 6 a) a E .E L <0 C pj Q� p N .S m Q U C U) �- a) ,O > > E •C > t` C to a) C - 'F •C m � ca 'C C •� N > � a)� a) a) 0 m a) C/) -r m❑❑m2❑ �_0 m m w -0 - Ca �-0Q m 07.E m cn ?: a ci p E m E � 3 z � a o � c m m Q a w YaZaw °pay mc.i—=0) �¢� a) o T a) N O U 0 0U .� Ei m F;C U C .- "C _ O "a cc j m 0 O m U) m -O E cn a) Can- (n O N a cn ?y cn m Cm 0 a V O E C a� E`_ m m a) -0a) a) a) @Q>a) cn -o n a) a) =3 E Q cno u) ma) ) Q C 0d 0o O C- E -C aQ nc . cE a)o oE•o C mmE C O) O a) .a - ov-� -0 y N (Q N m M Ocn N L a) ECo 0C C a) C 0 0 .- CD- 0 a) > C m C < `n m cn 0 a) M C w a C .0 _O E m in a) a) m a) m La)o a� Co a)mm UE a o NCM cn CC O Mcn E a) . aoao w'>�aa'i > Qv�maocu o n >�EN caEi�o Q�Oo ooQnQ0)m UE 00 � a o � o y w YaZaw °pay mc.i—=0) �¢� N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C C C C C C C C C G C C C C C G C G G C E E E g 2 E E E E 22 O O N N `O a O m N C N a o @ c o❑ c m = W o F- o c N= o« U m d> N a a OQ ❑ 0) o v ~ a m a c l- o m x v `o N d x BO U c m = 0yeN O �� Dr«UYJo«oa woo Lu m a❑v.d�aQCNNmdody mLyaNaCOONc�EECi a OaCN `ocOEEox oo E Z x@aOmN Q U dM 0O Da«mm W, m aimrNmmUQENmocCoNNJ m w❑m U CL > U O co E Om o Q 2 m N W w O Z W U o - DUCYV°dmOc' �OmyNy ammO° �3'�wOYJC_UUc�NpcmN amd 4YdU�CO°i 'aNN ❑�UC j1 O > pCUj �U�CCp �aC .VN�Co UOE O U.o_ W m�❑U iI2U IE o U D o ❑CON ` ODaUma U U U O o«0.0.°m mJ�nn❑y�mOEm: S mfid�m.". m V o n 00 vy7 E d N O m5 O 7 j v m E cEm ~ m " U r m a E a E O m cm ' o m a E ° m M t- m m r N d W N V a 7'm' Y V E M Or U` o N ,�pj� C O1 a N o T Y m O M Y m Z 'o C 7 Y m 0 7 Y m O « o; 00Y d m m� a3 UU < Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Business Meeting of June 25, 2018 DATE: June 21, 2018 FROM: William Groves, Community Development, 541-388-6518 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: DELIBERATION: Snow Creek Ranch Partition RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Review the staff memorandum and conduct deliberations. ATTENDANCE: Will Groves, Legal SUMMARY: Board Deliberation on Applicant's appeal of a Hearings Officer's decision. File Nos. 247 -17 -000863 -MC, 864 -MP, 865 -CU (247-18-000123A) are presently scheduled fortune 25, 2018. Staff has prepared a memorandum to help the Board to prepare for these deliberations. h�w frf Snow Creek Ranch Partition and Dwelling Land Use File Nos. 247 -17 -000863 -MC, 864 -MP, 865 -CU (247-18-000123A) Issue Area Applicable Approval Criterion Applicant Response Hearings Officer Staff Comment B. Unless otherwise specified in a This criterion sets a high bar for the particular zoning ordinance provision, The applicants have always said that applicants. I find that this provision the grounds for filing a modification the interpretation should be requires something more than being The overwhelming opposition to the shall be that a change of circumstances determined based on a countywide financially desirable for the applicant. It owners subject to this decision, Does a change of since the issuance of the approval policy. That policy should be one of must be desirable considering the together with fact the modification circumstances makes it desirable to make changes to allowing property owners to follow purpose of the applicable zoning and undermines the one -dwelling -per - makes change the proposal, as approved. A state statutes and county code that other regulations. subdivision -lot goal of the original desirable? modification shall not be filed as a change from time to time in light of the The prior modification was desirable in decision (as modified), makes the substitute for an appeal or to apply for fact that the changed condition does no that it furthered the objectives of the proposed modification undesirable. a substantially new proposal or one harm to the area in which the property original approval. that would have significant additional in which it is located. impacts on surrounding properties. C. An application to modify an approval shall be directed to one or more The application constitutes a discrete aspects of the approval, the modification of which would not Allowing the Steinfelds' proposed substantially new proposal. The Staff recommends that the Board amount to approval of a substantially condition of approval modification is applicants propose to modify a concur with the Hearings Officer's new proposal or one that would have not a radical departure from what was condition that applies throughout the findings on this issue. Alternatively, the significant additional impacts on allowed by the 1997 conditions subdivision. The provision sought to be Board could conclude adding a non - Is this a substantially surrounding properties. Any proposed modification. Subdivision Lots 3 through 5 will be allowed two dwellings modified goes to the heart of the subdivision approval and subsequent farm dwelling lot to a subdivision (and g 2 new proposal? modification, as defined in DCC like Subdivision lots 1, 2, 6, and 7 would modification. The applicants concede the potential for more), as would currently be allowed under state and 22.36.040, shall be reviewed only under the criteria applicable to that particular be allowed. The difference is that the that at least two other owners could local law, would not be a substantially aspect of the proposal. Proposals that second dwellings on Lots 3 through 5 would solely result from .nonfarm take advantage of this restriction, allowing even more properties could proposal for the reasons outline in new ro p p would modify an approval in a scope partitions. develop. the Applicant's final arguments. greater than allowable as a modification shall be treated as an application for a new proposal. 3 Same as #2. The issue is whether removing the prior condition, (as modified) and opening the subdivision to whatever development the Code allows now or in the future constitutes a significant impact. I find that it does. It opens the door to a fundamental change in the nature of the subdivision and removes the protections that formed the central basis for approving the lots in the first place. This criterion should have been addressed more fully and, therefore, has not been met based on this record. 5 R 5. Further division of the Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision lots shall only be allowed pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.16.055 (B) pertaining to the creation of one new parcel for a nonfarm dwelling, and then only if the recording of a deed restriction against any additional dwellings is made a condition of final plat approval for any nonfarm partition approved for the subdivision lot under Section 18.16.055(8). Such deed restriction shall state that no dwelling shall be allowed on the remainder farm parcel. The prior 2000 nonfarm dwelling partition, final plat and building permit approvals, which did not include a condition for recording the deed restriction, determined the legal lot status of the subject property. Those decisions, could not have been issued without at least an implicit determination that the applications complied with the prior land use approvals. By arguing the need for a deed restriction now, the opponents are attacking the "correctness" of those decisions. That is a collateral attack on those decisions. DCC 22.20.015 D permits issuance of a permit or approval if "it results in the property coming into full compliance".The more common use of similar provisions is to obtain whatever approval was not obtained, a variance to legalize a defect in a development or similar approval. In other words, bring the property into conformance with the standard at issue. The applicants easily could conform by recording the restriction. Rather than do so, they seek to remove the standard (i.e. deed restriction) itself. Although it may be a somewhat expansive reading of DCC 22.20.015D, I conclude that the application may be considered on the merits. Approval would, in fact, cure the violation. I find that the condition as modified has not been waived or deleted by the County's failure to address it in prior approvals. The property is in violation of the condition of approval imposed under MC -97-2. MEMORANDUM DATE: June 12, 2018 TO: Board of County Commissioners (Board) FROM: Will Groves, Senior Planner RE: Board Deliberation on Applicant's appeal of a Hearings Officer's decision. File Nos. 247 -17 -000863 -MC, 864 -MP, 865 -CU (247-18-000123A) I. BACKGROUND The subject property is part of Lot 4 of the Snow Creek Ranch. This lot was divided by a 2001 partition to create a nonfarm parcel and dwelling. The applicant seeks to divide Parcel 2 of the 2001 partition for a new nonfarm parcel and dwelling. This subdivision, on farm -zoned land, is unusual in that prior approvals included specific restrictions preventing the subsequent division of the subdivision lots. It appears that the intent was to create large lot (39-102 acres) farm parcels with a homesite per lot. Unfortunately, the standards for the originally contemplated farm dwellings became significantly more onerous, and MC -97-2 was approved to authorize creation of non-farm parcels to permit non-farm dwellings. The restrictions on additional land divisions in the subdivision were implemented as follows: The 1991 approval (TP -91-760) included the following condition of approval: 5. No further division of this land would be allowed since this appears to be the minimum size in this area for farm use. Also, any further division would necessarily split up productive farm land and make it difficult to site residences on lands that did not encompass productive agricultural lands. Quality Set -vices Petyin-ined with Pi'ide This condition was modified in 1997 (MC -97-2) to read: 5. Further division of the Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision lots shall only be allowed pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.16.055(B) pertaining to the creation of one new parcel for a nonfarm dwelling, and then only if the recording of a deed restriction against any additional dwellings is made a condition of final plat approval for any nonfarm partition approved for the subdivision lot under Section 18.16.055(B) Such deed restriction shall state that no dwelling shall be allowed on the remainder farm parcel. The applicant partitioned a non-farm parcel and constructed a non-farm dwelling (CU -00-74 and MP -00-18) under this modified condition. The required deed restriction was never recorded. II. PROPOSAL The applicant has now requested to amend Condition 5 in MC -97-2, to allow another non- farm parcel and dwelling, as follows: 5. Further division of the Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision lots shall only be allowed pursuant to the provisions of Deschutes County Code and state law. The proposal also includes a new partition of the 69.37 -acre parcel zoned EFU to create a 64.73 -acre farm parcel, and a 4.64 -acre nonfarm parcel with a nonfarm dwelling. III. ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED This deliberation summary of party positions is largely composed of direct quotes. Some quotes have been edited for brevity, clarity, or issue focus. Section 22 36 040 Modification of Approval. B. Unless otherwise specified in a particular zoning ordinance provision, the grounds for filing a modification shall be that a change of circumstances since the issuance of the approval makes it desirable to make changes to the proposal, as approved. A modification shall not be filed as a substitute for an appeal or to apply for a substantially new proposal or one that would have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. 1) Does a change of circumstances makes change desirable? Staff Recommendation: It is unclear in the code to whom a modification should be desirable. This case is unusual in that the decision to be modified impacts the entire subdivision and that only the applicant, among owners in the subdivision responding in the record, desires this modification. Staff recommends the Board find that the desirability of a modification, at minimum, includes consideration of both the interests of the applicant and the interests of other owners that are subject to the modification. Other considerations, including the evaluation of the modification in the context of the original decision and of the County's goals and polices should also be weighed and considered. Given this approach, the Board could concur with the Hearing's Officer and Opponents that the overwhelming opposition to the owners subject to this decision, together with fact the modification undermines the one -dwelling -per -subdivision -lot goal of the original decision (as modified), makes the proposed modification undesirable. Alternatively, the Board could concur with the applicant that lawful development with no significant adverse impacts is desirable. Hearings Officer: This criterion sets a high bar for the applicants. Perhaps the opponent's concerns do not rise to a significant adverse impact, but it is hard to conclude that increased traffic, more dwellings and other identified concerns benefit them. ....none of those other owners have expressed support or argued that the change is desirable in this rather unique farm subdivision. I find that this provision requires something more than being financially desirable for the applicant. It must be desirable considering the purpose of the applicable zoning and other regulations. The prior modification was desirable in that it furthered the objectives of the original approval and, apparently, agricultural values by providing a work -around to get something like the originally envisioned farm dwellings. In contrast, as discussed previously, the proposed modification is inconsistent with the objectives of the original and modified approvals and encourages exactly the kind of rural residential development that those approvals explicitly sought to avoid. Applicant: Interpretation of the desirability of a condition modification must be broader than that argued by the opponents or the hearings officer. Contrary to the opponents' assertions, the applicants have not claimed that their ability to sell this potential new lot is only reason that a modification is desirable. The applicants have always said that the interpretation should be determined based on a countywide policy. That policy should be one of allowing property owners to follow state statutes and county code that change from time to time in light of the fact that the changed condition does no harm to the area in which the property in which it is located. To find otherwise interprets the desirability criterion in the same manner as the hearing officer and the opponents argue the Board should not. They ask that the Board not interpret the word by merely looking at the desire of the applicant. The applicants ask that the Board not interpret the word by merely looking at the desires of the neighbors. Both are too narrow of an interpretation. Opponents: The homeowners in the area have consistently and continuously voiced their concern and objection to this type of change. The Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision was found with the idea of creating a limited number of non-farm dwellings on large parcels in and around agriculture fields. There must be additional components to desirability other than financial windfall to the applicants. If this were the only criteria, then certainly every application and every applicant would meet this burden. In this circumstance, the applicants have provided no evidence and cannot provide evidence to support that this modification is desirable to anyone other than themselves. In fact, the only evidence submitted is quite to the opposite. As such, the Hearings Officer correctly decided that this condition was not met. 2) Is this a substantially new proposal? C. An application to modify an approval shall be directed to one or more discrete aspects of the approval, the modification of which would not amount to approval of a substantially new proposal or one that would have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. Any proposed modification, as defined in DCC 22.36.040, shall be reviewed only under the criteria applicable to that particular aspect of the proposal. Proposals that would modify an approval in a scope greater than allowable as a modification shall be treated as an application for a new proposal. Staff Recommendation: The Hearings Officer, in the original subdivision approval (TP -91- 760), was very concerned with the viability of each of the original 7 subdivision lots as a farms and expressly precluded further division of these properties. it is clear from the record materials in MC -97-2 that the 1997 modification was intended to allow the original 7 subdivision lots to obtain a first dwelling, where changes in state law precluded that first dwelling. MC -97-2 states: The purpose of these changes is to allow the approved subdivision lots to be developed with non-farm dwellings, to make clear the total number of dwellings in the subdivision would be seven, and to permit the subdivision lots to be further divided to segregate the homesites from the remainder of the parcels in order to preserve the remainder lots' qualification for farm tax deferral. The applicant argues that the structure of the 1991 subdivision decision and 1997 modification may have had the effect of allowing more than one dwelling per original subdivision lot. While it may be (or may have been possible) to establish more parcels and dwellings, such development was clearly unforeseen and was expressly to be precluded by the 1997 modification. As such, staff recommends that the Board concur with the Hearings Officer's findings on this issue. Alternatively, the Board could conclude adding a non-farm dwelling lot to a subdivision (and the potential for more), as would currently be allowed under state and local law, would not be a substantially new proposal for the reasons outline in the Applicant's May 16, 2018 final arguments and summarized below. Hearings Officer: The application constitutes a substantially new proposal. The applicants propose to modify a condition that applies throughout the subdivision. Further, as discussed above, the provision sought to be modified goes to the heart of the subdivision approval and subsequent modification. The applicants propose to remove something that at least some of the other lot owners assert they relied on in purchasing property. The applicants concede that at least two other owners could take advantage of this restriction, so it could have broader impacts on the subdivision. If the Code changes again, perhaps even more properties could develop. Applicant: Two or more dwellings have always been possible with either prior decision. Nothing in either TP -91-760 prevented a property owner from constructing a farm dwelling and seeking approval of a nonfarm dwelling. Thus, each property could have had two dwellings at that time. That decision merely prevented any further division of the property to carve off the nonfarm dwelling. Likewise, the condition as written in or MC -97-2 would not prevent those property owners from first seeking a farm dwelling then a nonfarm dwelling partition. Thus, each lot could have had two dwellings. Allowing the Steinfelds' proposed condition of approval modification is not a radical departure from what was allowed by the 1997 conditions modification. Subdivision Lots 3 through 5 will be allowed two dwellings like Subdivision lots 1, 2, 6, and 7 would be allowed. The difference is that the second dwellings on Lots 3 through 5 would solely result from nonfarm partitions. Opponents: The proposal submitted by the applicants is a substantially new proposal. The condition that is sought to be modified is a critical component to the entire subdivision and the basis for the unique nature of Snow Creek Ranch. Evidence was given at the hearing demonstrating owners' preference for the Snow Creek Ranch and the reliance by property owners on the unique nature of the Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision, specifically, the limited ability to further develop property in the area. The proposed modification is not a minor variance from an existing scheme. Rather, the proposed modification undermines the very nature for which Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision came into existence. Certainly, a fundamental change to an entire subdivision constitutes a substantially new proposal. 3) Will there be significant additional impacts on surrounding properties? Staff Recommendation: Staff believes that "significant additional impacts" are limited to obvious harms to existing and potential surrounding uses. Impact examples include, but are not limited to: noise, visual impacts, odor, traffic, or changes that would impact the cost or viability of farming in the area. While it is clear that this proposal would increase the density of development in the subdivision in a way contrary to the neighbor's expectations at time of purchase, Staff is unaware of evidence in the record that the proposal would result in any obvious harm to the use and enjoyment of property for residential use or farming in the subdivision. Staff recommends that the Board find that "significant additional impacts" are limited to demonstrated adverse impacts to the use and enjoyment of property for existing and potential surrounding uses. This level of impact has not been demonstrated in this case. Alternatively, the Board could conclude that the proposal makes possible up to 3 total new dwellings and that cumulatively this would potentially cause visual impacts and/or cumulatively impact the cost or viability of farming in the area. In addition the Board could concur with the Hearings Officer's analysis, below. Hearings Officer: I concur with staff that the addition of single dwelling in the location proposed does not have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. But that is not the proposal at issue under this Code section. The issue is whether removing the prior condition, (as modified) and opening the subdivision to whatever development the Code allows now or in the future constitutes a significant impact. For the reasons discussed above, I find that it does. It opens the door to a fundamental change in the nature of the subdivision and removes the protections that formed the central basis for approving the lots in the first place. It may be that some other type of application constituting a new proposal could be approved that would meet the applicants' objective, but a modification of conditions is not the proper course in these circumstances. The applicants have not met their burden on this issue. Applicant: The Hearings Officer cannot find that proposal does not have significant impacts on the surrounding area for purposes of a nonfarm partition criteria but finds that it does have significant impacts for a modification of condition. The additional traffic from the additional partitioned lots is also not a radical departure from what is currently allowed in the subdivision. Snow Creek Lane is a dead-end street. The nonfarm application shows that the street can handle traffic from three additional dwellings. The number of potential additional dwellings is not so great as to totally mar the area for future farm use and opponents have provided no evidence that it would do so. Farming on the subject lot and all other lots within the subdivision will remain viable. Thus, the proposed modification of condition does not interfere with the original purpose of the original subdivision approval or the 1997 modification because it does not interfere with any of the subdivision parent parcels' ability to maintain farming activities. Opponents: The Hearings Officer correctly determined that the proposed modification would have significant impact on surrounding properties. Again, there was ample evidence presented at the hearing as well as in writing objecting based on the impact of the surrounding communities. As alluded to above, Snow Creek Ranch is a unique subdivision in Deschutes County. The proposed modification would not simply modify a slight use of the properties therein, but rather would change the fundamental nature of the subdivision. 4) Does the application comply with Section 17.36.260. Fire Hazards. Whenever possible, a minimum of two points of access to the subdivision or partition shall be provided to provide assured access for emergency vehicles and ease resident evacuation. This provision requires the applicant for a partition, wherever possible, to create a second point of emergency access. The Fire Department and ODOT have confirmed that such secondary access is feasible. The secondary access would be gated with locks that only the Fire Department could open in cases of emergency. The applicant argues that the requirement for an emergency is an unconstitutional land use exaction under Dolan (full citation below). Staff Recommendation: To the extent the Board has chosen to deny this application on other grounds, it is not necessary to resolve this issue. If the Board has otherwise approved this application or wishes to make findings on this issue staff provides the following analysis and recommendation. The requirement for two points of access is an obligation of the partition, regardless of the broader issues in the subdivision. Because this access is for the health and safety of the residents of the partition, Staff recommends that the Board find that a graveled, fire - department gated, emergency -only access is required under the code for the residents of the partition. There is a legitimate governmental purpose for the exaction: to provide emergency access and fire -department -assisted egress for the residents of the partition. There is a "reasonable nexus" to this project: the emergency access is for the health and safety of the residents of the partition. It is assumed that the exaction is also "roughly proportional" to the impacts of the specific project being reviewed as evidence by the requirement being long-standing provision in the Deschutes County Code. Contrary to the applicant's argument, the secondary access is not being required to cure a past access issue with the subdivisions as a whole. Instead, the secondary access requirement is triggered by the applicant's proposed partition regardless of the lack of a secondary access for the rest of the subdivision residents. The applicant's "rough proportionality" argument is factually undeveloped, and likely should fail because it is predicated on erroneous assumption that emergency access must be provide as a benefit for the entire subdivision. Staff recommends that the Board find that no easement to the emergency access for the benefit of other owners in the subdivision is required. As the emergency access will connect to a public road, the Fire Department will be able to use this access for emergency purposes in the subdivision generally. However, this is an incidental benefit and is not the reason for the requirement. As such, this requirement does not exact anything from the subject property owners for the benefit of the other owners in the subdivision. Staff notes that the applicant "shouldering the burden" of the emergency access road is a self-created difficulty, in that the applicants have proposed this development in the face of the general opposition from other owners in the subdivision. Were the replat application to have been filed cooperatively by the subdivision, the cost of developing a community second point of access could have been shared among the homeowners. Hearings Officer: The applicant has proposed a single point of access via Snow Creek Lane. Staff recommends the Hearings Officer require the applicant to demonstrate that the applicant has no ability to provide a second access to the subject property from the highway, prior to any finding of compliance with this criterion. Staff notes that ODOT has, in other subdivisions in Deschutes County, rejected general access to a Highway but has allowed gated emergency access. Staff recommends that Hearings Officer presumes that secondary access is possible until such access is clearly denied by ODOT. I am not comfortable with a condition leaving it to the applicant to apply to ODOT outside of the record. This criterion should have been addressed more fully and, therefore, has not been met based on this record. Applicant: Requiring the Steinfelds to provide an emergency road for the entire subdivision is an exaction because the county would be requiring the Steinfelds to give up full control of and access to their wholly-owned property. The United States Supreme Court said in Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 114 S.Ct. 2309, 129 L.Ed.2d 304 (1994) that the test for an unconstitutional taking is three -fold in the case of a land use exaction. The Steinfelds argue that requiring the Steinfelds to shoulder the burden of an emergency access road at all does not meet the Dolan tests. At the very least, the Steinfelds should not be required to shoulder the burden for the rest of the subdivision. Opponents: It appears that the opponents did not respond to this issue in the written record. 5) Does the unrecorded deed restriction prevent this application or approval? Staff Recommendation: Staff concurs with the Hearings Officer. Hearings Officer: DCC 22.20.015 D permits issuance of a permit or approval if "it results in the property coming into full compliance". In my experience the more common use of similar provisions is to obtain whatever approval was not obtained, a variance to legalize a defect in a development or similar approval. In other words, bring the property into conformance with the standard at issue. The applicants easily could conform by recording the restriction. Rather than do so, they seek to remove the standard (i.e. deed restriction) itself. Although it may be a somewhat expansive reading of DCC 22.20.015D, I conclude that the application may be considered on the merits. Approval would, in fact, cure the violation. This is a curative provision designed to encourage conformance rather than to penalize violators. Nothing in the modification of condition provisions requires that the party seeking a modification first come into compliance. In this case, the applicants could simply record the restriction and then reapply for a modification to negate the restriction if I reject this application. Opponents have not demonstrated that they would be prejudiced by me not requiring the applicants to follow that course. Accordingly, the applications are properly at issue. Applicant: In fact, if the requirement is ongoing and can be fulfilled at any time, no deadline was set for its recording when the county failed to include it as a condition of approval of the final plat approval in 2000. This is particularly so since the condition was for an affirmative action on the part of the county, not the property owner. If the condition had been in the final plat approval requirements, then it would have been a requirement of the property owner at that time. Thus, no violation of the condition for the deed restriction has occurred and these applications for the condition modification, partition and nonfarm dwelling can move forward. As a result, no recording of the deed restriction is necessary before the Board can approve a modification of the requirement for a deed restriction. The applicants still maintain that requiring the deed restriction at this point is a collateral attack on the final plat approval in 2001. They also maintain that, at this stage, not moving forward with these applications because of the lack of a recorded deed restrictions serves no purpose and results only in additional expense to the applicants. They could merely record the deed restriction and reapply with all the same arguments and materials, wasting time and money for them and the county. Opponents: The present application must be denied because the present parcel is not in conformance with prior land use decisions, i.e., recording of a deed restriction as a condition of approval as required by land use decisions by prior to 2001. The fact that the County did not require this as a condition of approval in 2001 does not excuse, supersede or otherwise dismiss the 1997 requirement for the applicants to impose this deed restriction as a condition of approval. Since 2001, the applicants have not recorded a deed restriction. As such, the County is not looking at the 2001 decision and whether it was valid, but rather the County must determine if the property is presently in violation of prior land use decisions. If it is, the land use action here must be denied. 6. Has there been a "collateral attack" on prior approvals for the subject property? A deed restriction was imposed in MC -97-2 as a condition of non-farm land divisions. 5. Further division of the Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision lots shall only be allowed pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.16.055 (B) pertaining to the creation of one new parcel for a nonfarm dwelling, and then only if the recording of a deed restriction against any additional dwellings is made a condition of final plat approval for any nonfarm partition approved for the subdivision lot under Section 18.16.055(8). Such deed restriction shall state that no dwelling shall be allowed on the remainder farm parcel. It appears when the subject property was divided and subsequently developed under CU - 00 -74 and MP -00-18, the required condition of final plat approval was not included as part of these decisions and the deed restriction was never recorded. It is unclear if Condition #5 represents an ongoing obligation for the property, or that the failure of the County to act in the past represents a decision that cannot be revisited or "collaterally attacked" in the current process. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Board vacate the Hearing Officer's findings on this issue and find that this issue need not be resolved in the current process. To the extent this application is approved, the condition will be modified to remove the deed restriction requirement. If the application is denied, the matter can be referred to code enforcement for resolution. Hearings Officer: The County bears some responsibility for this situation because it failed to enforce the condition when it approved CU -00-74 and MP -00-18. The applicants assert that the County similarly did not obtain or require deed restrictions in the other nonfarm parcel approvals. They argue that this is an impermissible collateral attack on the decision approving CU -00-74 and MP -00-18 and those decisions should have been appealed if anyone objected. It is not clear why the County has not addressed the deed restriction requirement. The decisions did not purport to modify or remove that requirement, so it is not clear if it has the practical effect of negating the prior condition. Second, the applicants note that they could cure the violation by recording the restriction. But they have neither recorded nor offered to record the restriction. I find that the condition as modified has not been waived or deleted by the County's failure to address it in prior approvals. The property is in violation of the condition of approval imposed under MC -97-2. Applicant: The case citation for the proposition that arguments in a later land use proceeding can be a collateral attack is Brodersen v. City of Ashland, 62 Or LUBA 329,339-43 (2010), aff'd2 41 Or App723, 250 P3d 992 (2011). In that case, LUBA found that, if the current proceeding requires a determination of the status of a lot, the local government can review whether a prior decision made that determination but cannot reevaluate the correctness of that decision. In this case, per Condition 5 of MC -97-2 the condition to record the deed restriction was supposed to be a condition of the final plat approval for any nonfarm dwelling partition. Thus, the prior 2000 nonfarm dwelling partition, final plat and building permit approvals, which did not include a condition for recording the deed restriction, determined the legal lot status of the subject property and Tax Lot 811. Those decisions, especially the building permits, could not have been issued without at least an implicit determination that the applications complied with the prior land use approvals. That is the "whether" determination of the status of the lots. By arguing the need for a deed restriction now, the opponents are attacking the "correctness" of those decisions. That is a collateral attack on those decisions. Opponents: It appears that the opponents did not respond to this issue in the written record. 150 -DAY LAND USE CLOCK At the time of the Hearing Officer's decision the 150th day for the County to take final action on this application was April 15, 2018. The applicant agreed to a 90 -day extension of this clock by an email dated February 13, 2018. Because the applicant agreed to the written open record period from April 16 through May 18, 2018, the land use clock was tolled for 32 days. Therefore, the 150th -day is August 15, 2018. EXHIBITS A. Hearings Officer's Decision B. Open Record Materials C. Decision Matrix - [To Be Presented at the work session\ LAURIE E. CRAGHEAD Attorney at Law PO Box 5833, Bend, OR 97708 Ph. 458.206.6884 / Fx +1.541.833.6426 atri_t.c_r�ie<id0)ouook.coil,�g l May 16, 2018 Board of County Commissioners Deschutes County VIA: tVilliai�l.tirc�vcriz.dcschutes,ci: RE: Steinfeld Nonfarm dwelling partition, File No. 247-17-000863MC, etc. Applicant final arguments. Thank you Tor• this opportunity to provide the applicants' final arguments to aid you in your decision. I. Deed restriction docs not prevent these applications or their approval. The opponents continue argue that the deed restriction required by the 1997 modification to be included in the final plat approval is an "ongoing" requirement. If so, no harm has occurred by the lack of the recording of the deed restriction until now. Had there been harm, surely the Nearys would have reviewed the county's online Official Record to make sure that deed restriction had been recorded. In fact, if the requirement is ongoing and can be fulfilled at any time, no deadline was set for its recording when the county Bailed to include it as a condition of approval ofthe final plat approval in 2000. "],his is particularly so since the condition was for an affirmative action on the part ofthe county, not the property owner. If the condition had been in the final plat approval requirements, then it would have been a requirement of the property owner at that time. Thus, no violation of the condition for the deed restriction has occurred and these applications fof• the condition modification, partition and nonfarm dwelling can move forward. As a result, no recording ofthe deed restriction is necessary before the Board can approve a modification ofthe requirement for a deed restriction. 'The applicants still maintain that f,equiring the deed restriction at this point is a collateral attack on the final plat approval in 2001. They also maintain that, at this stage, not moving forward with these applications because ofthe lack of a recorded deed resU•ictions serves no purpose and results only in additional expense to the applicants. They could merely record the deed restriction and reapply with all the same arguments and materials, wasting time and money for them and the county. Therefore, at the least_. the county should condition the approvals on being effective only when the deed restriction is recorded. The opponents misconstrue the applicants' statement in this Steinfeld Final Arguments File No. 247-17-000863MC, etc. Page 2 of 6 regard. The condition would still allow for the recording of the deed restriction before the modification and nonfarm dwelling and partition have effective approvals. 2. Number of additional homes are not a radical departure from the original approvals. As stated previously, staff pointed out prior to the end of the first open -record period that the intent of the original subdivision approval and the 1997 condition modification was not to allow two nonfarm dwellings on each lot. As I said before, i stand corrected. What all have been missing, however, is that the two or more dwellings have always been possible with either prior decision. Nothing in either TP -91-760 (Exhibit I) prevented a property owner from constructing a farm dwelling and seeking approval of a nonfarm dwelling. 'thus, each property could have had two dwellings at that time. That decision merely prevented any further division of the property to carve off the nonfarm dwelling. Likewise, the condition as written in or MC -97-2 (Exhibit J) would not prevent those property owners from first seeking a farm dwclling then a nonfarm dwelling partition. Thus, each lot could have had two dwellings. As said previously, Snow Crock Ranch Subdivision l.,ot 6, Tax Lot 1611090000100 and 161110000030 1 and Subdivision Lot 7, Tax Lot 1611100000300, tool: advantage of that and established farm dwellings with mobile homes in the 1990's. It is anyone's guess as to whether those, now, 6,000 and 8,000 square foot dwellings are actually used as farm dwellings. Although the applicant's Burden of Proof Statement ("BOP") accounted in the chart for the potential new nonfarm dwelling partitions of Subdivision Lots 6 and 7, the BOP made a general statement that it may be difficult for those property owners to find land that is generally unsuitable for Farming given the amount of farming that is currently occurring on those properties. Such an analysis is part of analyzing the potential for additional dwellings despite staffs statements in the Staff'Report. As for the remaining five Snow Creek Ranch subdivision lots, Subdivision Lots 1 and 2 could, Umdcr the current conditions of approval, also have two dwellings by establishing a farm dwelling and a nonfarm partition. Neither are large enough for two nonfarm partitions. With the current conditions of approval, Subdivision Lots 3 through 5, however, are the only ones prevented by the 1997 conditions of approval from having more than one dwelling derived from the parent parcel. That is because, as stated in the BOP, each of those lots are considered to have been created afer.luly 1, 1993, because ofeach having created a nonfarm partition in 2000 and 2001. Thus, none of those parent parcels are eligible for a second nonfarm dwelling without an additional partition, whereas the other four original subdivision lots can establish a farm dwelling on the parent parcel prior to creating a nonfarm partition since they have not created a partition thus far. Steinfeld Final Arguments File No. 247-17-000863N4C, etc. Page 3 of 6 None of Subdivision Lots 3 through 5 would be allowed a third nonfarm partition because they do not contain sufficient acreage. The only reason this condition of approval allows those lots a second nonfarm partition is because the first set of partitions were created prior to the July I, 2001 deadline in the statute and county code. As a result, allowing the Steinfelds' proposed condition of approval modification is not a radical departure fi-om what was allowed by the 1997 conditions modification. Subdivision Lots 3 through 5 will be allowed two dwellings like Subdivision lots 1, 2, 6, and 7 would be allowed. The difference is that the second dwellings on Dots 3 through 5 would solely result from nonfarm partitions. For the same reasons, the additional traffic from the additional partitioned lots is also not a radical departure from what is currently allowed in the subdivision. Snow Creek Lane is a dead- end street. The nonfarm application shows that the street can handle traffic fi-om three additional dwellings. The number of potential additional dwellings is not so great as to totally mar the area for future farm use and opponents have provided no evidence that it would do so. Furthermore, allowing Subdivision Lots 3 through 5 to have an additional nonfarm dwelling partition maintains the intent of the 1997 conditions modification. That intent was to allow the nonfarm dwelling to be on a separate parcel while the parent parcel maintains eligibility for the farm property tax delerral. Thus, the parent parcels will remain viable for farming. Since the parent parcels for tots 3 through 5 would not qualify for a nonfarm dwelling, they would not be taken out of the farm tax deferral and, therefore, would not lose the incentive to remain farming parcels. 3. Purpose of the subdivision is maintained. The most vocal opponents to this condition modification are not even farmers. They merely do not want any additional neighbors. What both the opponents and the hearings officer appear to forget is that the purpose of the conditions in the original approval and in the 1997 conditions modification approval was protection of the farmland. It was not: to protect the residential uses from additional residential uses. The subdivision area did not contain residences in 1991 when the subdivision was originally approved. Exhibit I also shows that farming did not occur in this area until the subdivision. Exhibit I, page 6, Finding of Fact 1 says that what pasture area was cleared but had not been maintained for years. Also, page 11, paragraph number 5 says that the area had not been farmed for a decade or two. Additionally, page 12, paragraph 7.E. said the purpose of the "no division" rule was that the hearings officer at the time believed that the subdivision lot sizes were the minimum needed for the f<lrming and additional residences would interfere with that farming. "The opponents have provided no arguments or factual data as to how the protection of the farming in the area will be made impossible because of this additional nonfarm parcel. They have provided nothing that addresses any of the nonfarm dwelling or nonfarm dwelling partition criteria. While the conditions modification may make it possible for additional nonfarm parcels Steinfeld Final Arguments File No. 247-17-00086)MC, etc. Page 4 of 6 in this subdivision, each will have to be evaluated on its own merit. None of the property owners are guaranteed success with such an application. Each would have to demonstrate how the dwelling and/or partition does not affect the stability of farming in the area. Nonetheless, as the applicants' BOP shows, the addition of this lot would not interfere with the farming. Farming on the subject lot and all other lots within the subdivision will remain viable. "Thus, the proposed condition modification does not interfere with the original put -pose of the original subdivision approval or the 1997 condition modification because it does not interfere with any of the subdivision parent parcels' ability to maintain farming activities. 4. Desirability of a modification needs a broader interpretation. The applicants reiterate that interpretation of the desirability of a condition modification must be broader than that argued by the opponents or the hearings officer. Contrary to the opponents' assertions, the applicants have not claimed that their ability to sell this potential new lot is only reason that a modification is desirable. The applicants have always said that the interpretation should be determined based on a county- wide policy. That policy should be one of allowing property owners to follow state statutes and county code that change from time to time in light of the fact that the changed condition does no harm to the area in which the property in which it is located. To find otherwise interprets the desirability criterion in the same manner as the hearing officer and the opponents argue the Board should not. They ask that the Board not interpret the word by merely looking at the desire of the applicant. The applicants ask that the Board not interpret the word by merely looking at the desires of the neighbors. Both are too narrow of all interpretation. Given that this county generally desires allowing development within the confines of statutes and county code and the applicants have shown how the change will not result in a radical difference in the subdivision, the applicants ask that the Board approve the modification of condition as proposed in the application. 4. The opponents misrepresent the emergency road Dolan "rough proportionality" issue. The opponents ask the board to loot: at the Dolan rough proportionality issue considering the potential for additional nonfarm parcels in the subdivision if the deed restriction condition is modified to allow this partition. The applicants, however, are not asking the Board to apply a takings analysis to the conditions modification proposal. "file applicants ask that such an analysis be undertaken only for the emergency road. Also, as explained in the applicants' previous submittal, a review of other potential development is specifically prohibited in such a takings analysis. The Board must look only to what are the impacts of this proposed development. Steinfeld Final Arguments bile No. 247-17-000863MC. etc. Page 5 of 6 This development proposes only one additional lot and one additional dwelling. Requiring the addition of an emergency road is disproportional to the impacts of this one additional lot. The county had its opportunity to require this of the original developer, who owned all the land, but failed to do so and cannot do so now. This is particularly true since, to create such a road, the applicants must spend a great deal of money to construct an all-weather surface for a great distance from the proposed new lot to Highway 20, the only possible point of access for an emergency access. Absent this proposal, the subdivision would still be without a secondary emergency access. Thus, the impacts from this one additional lot do not justify requiring this emergency access. Even if the county still insists on requiring the emergency access road, the county cannot require the applicants to provide that emergency access for all the other lots in the subdivision. Again, the county should have made that a requirement when all the land was under one ownership at the time of the original subdivision approval. Such a requirement is not roughly proportional to the impacts of this one lot on the subdivision. The county cannot burden the applicants to this extent for the sake of the other property owners, especially since all the maps and subdivision plats in the record (Exhibit B, D, E, G, PowerPoint page 7) show that all lots but Subdivision Tot 5 have their own frontage on Highway 20 and could provide their own secondary emergency access and, as shown in the hearing, Lots 6 and 7 can egress to public land to the east. It makes no sense to have the other property owners or emergency vehicles traverse across these other properties to access the Steinfelds' road. Furthermore, as stated previously, ODOT will require a locked gate at the access point with T lighway 20. That means this road would serve only as an access for emergency vehicles in and out of tile subdivision. None of the other property owners could traverse the Steinfelds' property Tor emergency egress since they will not have a key to the gate. Creating an casement for the other property owners, thus, serves no purpose. Summary If the recording of a deed restriction was an ongoing requirement despite the county's failure to include it in the 2001 final plat approval, the applicants have not violated any condition of approval by not recording it to this date. Thus, the Board can approve the condition modification and the nonfarm dwelling partition applications without requiring the recording ofthe deed restriction. Requiring it now is a collateral attack on that 2001 approval. Even if it is not considered a collateral attack, the Board can easily include a condition of approval to move forward with these applications. The Board can approve the deed restriction condition modification by broadly defining the word "desirable." The condition modification is not a radical departure from prior approvals and will maintain the farming in the area, which was the purpose of the prior approvals for this subdivision. Steinfeld f=inal Arguments F'ilc No. 247-17-000863MC, etc. Page 6 of 6 Finally, requiring the Steinfelds to install an emergency road is not roughly proportional to the impacts of their proposed development. Allowing others in the subdivision to use 'this access road is also not roughly proportional to the development's impacts. Therefore, the Board should not require the emergency access road, or, at the very least, not require that the other properties be allowed access to the road. Thant: you again for this opportunity to provide these final comments. Sincerely, Laurie E. Craghead LAURIE E. CRArCHEA Attorney at Law PO Box 5833, Bend, OR 97708 Ph. 458.206.6884 / Fx +1.541.833.6426 lirlir_ie.c_r���4b.eitd.(�!)ot.i,tlool� _cc�x ). April 23, 2018 Board of County Commissioners Deschutes County VIA: �'illitit3__,(_i.rp;e,csrr?ciscl�ui.�s,orz. RI: Steinfeld Nonfarm dwelling partition, File No. 247-17-000863MC, etc. First open record period additional evidence. Thank you for this opportunity to provide additional evidence and argument to aid you in your decision. 1. Collateral Attack The applicants presented arguments to the hearings officer as to why the opposition's arguments regarding the deed restriction recording is a collateral attack on the previously approved and recorded final plat for the subject property and the previously issued building permits. Thus, the applicants direct [lie Board's attention to their January 9, 2018 submittal and incorporate that The case citation for the proposition that arguments in a later land use proceeding can be a collateral attack is Brroderseri v. City gfAs'hland, 62 Or LUBA 329, 339-43 (2010), afPd 241 Or App 723, 2.50 Pad 992 (2011). In that case, LUBA found that, if the current proceeding requires a determination of the status of a lot, the local government can review whether a prior decision made that determination but cannot reevaluate the correctness of that decision. In this case, per Condition 5 of MC -97-2, the condition to record the deed restriction was supposed to be a condition of the final plat approval for any nonfarm dwelling partition. 'thus. the prior 2000 nonfarm dwelling partition, final plat and building permit approvals, which did not include a condition for recording the deed restriction, determined the legal lot status of the subject property and Tax Lot 81 1. Those decisions, especially the building permits, could not have been issued without at least an implicit determination that the applications complied with the prior land use approvals. That is the "whether" determination of the status of the lots. By arguing the need for a deed restriction now, the opponents are attacking the "correctness" of those decisions. That is a collateral attack on those decisions. Declaring this a collateral attack on those prior decisions is not the same as allowing a property owner to record a release of a required deed restriction. In this case. it was an action required of the cot.mty to include the deed restriction requirerrrcnt and the county did not. The county has the Steinfeld Additional Evidence File No. 247-17-000863MC, etc. Page 2 of 4 responsibility for any mistake. This is not an action on the part as ifthe applicant to record unrecord the deed restriction. 2. Deed Restriction Recording As this point, even if the Board does not find the opposition arguments to be a collateral attack on the January 2001 nonfarm dwelling partition, the Steinfelds have not violated a prior condition. Since the county failed in its responsibility to include a condition in the final plat approval to record the deed restriction, no other deadline for the recording of the restriction exists. Until now, the Steinfelds did not seek to construct another dwelling on the parent parcel. Thus, nothing prevents the Steinfelds from seeking the condition modification without recording the deed restriction. Once the condition is modified, there will be no need to record the deed restriction. Additionally, nothing is gained in denying the application based on the lack of the recording the deed restriction because the applicants could merely record the restriction and reapply for the modification and partition. The only thing that is accomplished is the collection of more fees by the county and a delay in the process. if the Board still believes the deed restriction must be recorded, it could merely draft a condition that states that the condition modification and nonfarm dwelling partition approvals are not effective until the deed restriction is recorded. The applicants could immediately record the deed restriction attached to this letter. They leave not done so to this point in order to make the collateral attack and not incur unnecessary recording charges should the Board accept the argument. 3. Emergency Road Dolan "rough proportionality" issue. Requiring the Steinfelds to provide an emergency road 1 -or the entire subdivision is an exaction because the county would be requiring the Steinfelds to give up full control of and access to their wholly-owned property. The united States Supreme Cornu said in Dolor n. C'rly of Tigor(l, 512 U.S. 374, 114 S.Ct. 2309, 129 L Ed.2d 304 (1994) that the test for in unconstitutional taking is three -fold in the case of a land use exaction. The Steinfelds argue that requiring the Steinfelds to shoulder the burden of an emergency access road at all does not meet the Dol(in tests. At the very least, the Steinfelds should not be required to shoulder the burden for the rest ofthe subdivision. First, there must: be a legitimate governmental purpose for the exaction. The Steinfelds do not deny that a secondary, emergency access for the subdivision tits with a legitimate governmental concern for the safety of its citizens. They do deny that it is a legitimate purpose to require them to shoulder the burden for the emergency access because ofthe proposal to create one additional lot in the subdivision, again, because the road was not required when all the other lots were created originally. Second, the legitimate governmental purpose must have a "reasonable nexus" to the individual project being reviewed. The Steinfelds Agree that there is somewhat of a reasonable nexus between their partition proposal and the county codle provision of an emergency access to the partition. The Steinfelds do not agree that there is a reasonable nexus to provide such a long and Steinfeld Additional Evidence File No. 247-17-000863MC, etc. Page 3 of 4 involved access road or to provide the access to the other nine lots in the subdivision, particularly when the county did not require the access when the subdivision plat was originally approved m one additional lot is not great enough to reasonably and the final plat recorded. The impacts fro connect this individual project with the purpose of providing the road to all the other property owners who will not be paying for its creation nor its maintenance. Finally, the reasonable nexus must also be "roughly proportional" to the impacts ofthe specific project being reviewed. As with the reasonable nexus test, to require the Steinfelds to allow access through a newly, quite extensive in length, emergency road is not proportional to the impacts of creating one new lot. The one lot will not create enough of an emergency possibility to require allowing all the other property owners to have access through the Steinfelds' property. Additionally, as stated above, it is unconstitutional to require the Steinfelds to create and maintain the road for the other subdivision owners when they will not be contributing to any of the costs for the road creation or maintenance. As stated in the hearing, the Steinfelds already have trouble with people crashing their fences and trespassing on their property to steal their hay. Additionally, according to county staff" ' ODOT will require the road to have a gate at the intersection with Highway 20 to assure that that the road is 'for emergency purposes only. In a phone conversation, Cloverdale Fire District ("District') Chief Thad Olson pointed out that a road that begins and ends with gates with "Knox boxes" on them for which only the firefighters have keys will not be able to be used for egress to Highway 20. That is because the other residents in the subdivision will not have keys to the Knox boxes. "Rhus, granting an easement to those property owners will serve no purpose. The chief also said the frelighters will access a fire any way they can. In fact. approximately a month ago, a fire ert.rpted cm the lot adjacent to subject property. In that situation, the fire truck accessed the fire from the end of Snow Creek Lane, across the rough terrain on the subject )roperty Furthermore, Chief Olson said that the District does not have road standards For constructing emergency roads and the District accepts whatever are the existing county road standards at the time of construction. If the requirements of an all-weather surface and 20 feet wide are required, however, that is not roughly proportional to the impacts of the one lot because the road muse be quite long to reach Ilighway 20. Also. that 20 feet cuts into the farming area on the property. Finally, the issue of the crashes into the fencing along I lighway 20 and the stealing ofthe hay were not raised as an argument to not require the emergency road. They were raised as it possibility as to why the emergency road was not requircd in the original 1991 decision written by Mr. Fitch. Nothing in the decision, however, provides any discussion regarding an emergency road other than to reiterate the code which allowed the possibility of requiring such a road. As 'For the emergency access for other lots, although the opposition showed pictures ofthe dirt road on the BLM land that is between Innes Market Road and the long driveways for Lots 6 and 7. as said above, those roads do not necessarily result in the lack o'f emergency vehicle access or emeroency egress by the residents of the subdivision even if it is officially not a legal emergency access. Furthermore. at least those two lots do have an emergency egress access through that Steinfeld Additional Evidence File No. 247-17-000863MC, etc. Page 4 of 4 route. As a result, including them in any easement adds to the lack of any "rough proportionality" of the road across the subject property. Therefore, the Steinfelds request that the emergency road not be considered possible given the extent: of the length and the loss of land that is farmed. In tyre alternative, the Steinfelds request that the road be something less than that proposed by the staff and not be for the entire subdivision. 4. The possibility of two dwellings with the 1995 conditions modification. After the hearing, the staff rightfully pointed out to the parties that the body of the 1995 decision speaks to the intent of the conditions modification was to allow for the dwelling to be on separate lot in order that the parent parcel would not have to lose its farm deferral, which it would should a nonfarm dwelling be approved. Although that may have been the intent of modifying those conditions, that is not how they were written. Nothing in those conditions prevents the scenario proposed in the hearing. They allow and, in fact, appear to mandate, a dwelling on each parcel first, then a nonfarm dwelling partition. As was pointed out at the hearing and in the Burden of Proof Statement, the dwellings on Lots 6 and 7 of the subdivision have 'farm dwellings on them. Other than possibly having difficulty in finding an area "generally unsuitable for farming;" nothing in any of the conditions in 1995 approval prevents those lots from also seeking a nonfarm dwelling partition. The Steinfelds request the modification merely to do the same, create two dwellings out of the parent parcel. Location of the (Iwelling on the subject property. The Steinfelds originally wanted the nonfarm dwelling partition in the northern portion of the subject property with one possibility just south of Snow Creek Lane and one north of that road. Ilad they located the dwelling north of Snow Creek Lane, the Steinfelds surmise that none of the property owners would be obiecting to the new partition. Brian Rabe, however, found the soil depth in that location to be such that he was not willing to state that that portion of the lot was "generally unsuitable" for growing crops. Mr. Rabe then assisted the Steinfelds in choosing the location currently proposed. Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on the above application. Sincerely, Laurie L. Crrghcad After Recording Return To: Pamalynn N and H. Richard Steinfeld 15685 SW 116"' Ave, 4261 Portland, OR 97224 DECI.,ARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that 11. Richard Steinfeld and Pamalynn N. Steinfeld are the owners ("Owners") of real property in Deschutes County, State of Oregon commonly referred to as 18289 Snow Creek Lane, Bend, Oregon and identified on County Assessor Tax Map 16-11-04 as Tax Lot 804 and on Map 16-11-09 as Tax Lot 101, legally described in Exhibit A ("Property") which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The Property is the subject of this Covenant. The Property is bisected by a section line, yet is only one legal lot of record and was created by Partition Plat 2001-06, recorded January 26, 2001 subsequent to land use approval in July, 2000 under Decision MP-00-18/CU-00-74, comprising approximately 69.37 acres of land. The Property is subject to a number of land use decisions,, including MC -97-2, dated August 27, 1997, which in relevant part requires: 5. further division of the Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision lots shall only be allowed pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.16.055(B) pertaining to the creation of one new parcel for a nonfarm dwelling, and then only if the recording of a deed restriction against any additional dwellings is made a condition of final plat approval for any nonfarm partition approved for the subdivision lot under 18.16.055(B). Such deed restriction shall state that no divellinq shall he allotived on the rernaimler farm parcel. Such a "deed restriction" has yet to be recorded. NOW THEREFORE, the Owners declare as follows: Properties Benefitted and Burdened: All covenants, conditions. and restrictions described and granted in this Declaration will run with the Property and be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Che heirs, assigns, successors, tenants and personal representatives of the owners ofthe Property. DECLARATION 01= RI"STRICTIVI COVI�NAN]" Page I of 3 Covenant: 1. Residential use restriction. Residential dwellings, whether farm or nonfarm in nature, are prohibited on the remainder farm parcel portion of the Property according to the tcrms oi'Decision MC -97-2 or any subsequent modifications of said Decision. 2. The Owners declare that these rights and obligations may only be amended in writing as a recorded amendment hereto and fully intend that these covenants run with the land. 3. The Owners declare that the agreement as evidenced by this declaration is intended to be performed in the State of Oregon, and that the laws of the State of Oregon will govern its interpretation and effect. Further, for all purposes related to this declaration, venue will lie in and with the St"rte Courts of Deschutes County, Oregon. The undersigned, being the Owners of the Property, hereby executes this Declaration of Restrictive Covenant. Fl. Richard Steinfeld, Owner Sl'ATF OF OREGON ) ) ss. County of _ ) '['his record was acknowledged before me on Pamalynn N. Steinfeld, Owner S1'A"l'1: OF OREGON ) ss. County of ) This record was acknowledged before me on by 1-1. Richard Steinfeld Notary Public for Oregon My Commission Expires: by Pamalynn N Steinfeld Notary Public 'For Oregon My Commission Expires: DECLARATION OF RFSTIM-FIVE. COVI=;NANT Page 2 o1-3 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Exhibit "A" Lot 4, A REPLAT OE SNOW CREEK RANCN, Deschutes County, Oregon. EXCEPTING T1-IEREFROM that portion of said Lot 4, lying within the following described tract of land: A tract ofland located in the Southeast Quarter (Sl 1/4) of Section 4, Township 15 South, Range 1 I East; Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of Parcel 2 of that tract of land described in deed to Gary L. and Gloria 0. Neville, recorded in Volume 178, Page 2032, Official Records, said point bears South 88° 56' 3" East, 4306.40 feet from the West Quarter corner of said Section 4; thence South 80° 45' 53" West, 218.99 feet; thence South 800 45' 53" West, 187.51 feet; thence South 77° 01' 03" West_, 108.56 feet; thence South 76° 50' 34" West, 318.57 feet: thence North 00° 28' 57" East. 226.24 feet to a point on the East West centerline of said Section 4; thence along said East West centerline of said Section 4, South 89° 41' 07" East. 415.66 feet to the Northwest corner of said Parcel 2 as described in Volume 178, Page 2032; thence along the West and Southerly boundaries of said Parcel 2 the following 3 courses; thence South 00° 19'20" West, 59.89 feet; thence South 89 ° 43'24" Fast, 184.39 feet; thence South 89 ° 43' 32" East, 215.62 feet to the point of beginning. AND EXCEPTING THERE ROM Parcel 2 of PP -2001-06, also known as Tax Lot 1611040000811. DFICLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT Page 3 of 3 'llttCh LaW (31-Ot11�), PC i .. /kpril 23, 2018 VIA EINIJAIL - boal-rl4idesehtrtev-01:9 Deschutes Count PO Box 6005 Attn: BoCC Bend, OR 97704-600 Re: I'ajnalynn and M Rkhai-d Steigleld's Appeal Application Application Olein; Appealed: 247 -17 -000863 -MC, 864 -till', 865-C1I An nnissioners: Please find enclosed additional materiels !'or the record submitted on behalf of Kevin and Carol Keary. .fhe i`olloXN'ij10 (loc(tments submitted: e 1.-::xhibit A -- Map replat of Snm\- Creed Ranch sho" ing orWind 7 ON ( I 995). f Exhibit 11 — Adap reMat of `,now Creek Ranch sho" ink._ partitions and approxirnatc residcncc locations. b Exhibit C'-- April 17. 2018. Email from WHIM (hums to Ed bitch Very truly Fours. EDWARD P. F.I.1.C11 EPF:l.jn !Enclosure. Cc: Clicnt ','William Groves -- i+r�llicrm.1'ir.� rr�lc.�c1��r�cs.nr 6, ,(lients SMN%Neart, Kcviu K CaloH unci t�se'.2000)1-18 I,tI to Iio Ct'docs 210 S"'50 tit.. Ste. 42 Redmond OR 97750 ('pont: T l , 3 I G. l MS Fn: N 1. ; I G. 19d 3 I jo 132rd v IfitIt M-3 k �r� y AV. }y, ti k • u K • � , °� *., Sx �;� y. fs^ AYE ? � $ ) i• � p g � f sx T A ( i�A �" � Si'• f ; f io Q t r i lip, Ali [ �� WIT i i t i t } s 0 {} j L 14 Xtu t � fitp Om Ji i pg� �`ra F t {E ar tt n B kwi � ��„aIt t� Of Too zoo r r� 7i% � w INN t,r�srt'a �sv tr�l �� z` �i X51 9 7 43 Al k- top j}?E«+ ++wwa 6,; Vigo Q) x Rx, 4t n�.��e�'. SAME � � kahirs �� soepn l 1 # i r iiQ lip t k. j = Ed Fitch Fratw m, Aa, , Goove '„ hans(Ao _. 7{fit fi ion of o, Atli€ici)meots: ".; t=Crit° r:i'ciif °iii pct; Lam ie and I A I found it ereminy the possawNly that INiC M rf'iyflt have Wended 2 drvMW)p pet c}npiwl lot_ i've a�ittachs -it tine cas,so,dated dt':.t`d{:) n alma ., [f{.+rii I+ asl f.S L'+Chlon. it a;tijk(e3f`r si.a3t slir_= two C:4'-,{'Itltj pet {31q'ltic31 ii)t.; iC7 dinextent tt tnytdt }31-' Pf:.'a3ii 41t1.) -!'Vi( 9!J 2 :'a5 f3i.Fi iI1e Itiil'Iltfi3ll I ;iii a gtatt k survey of the < va da ale maatErii)Is. Let me know d you firth anohalih to the d: antraary, hank! Stiff report. ;. aj;v .-'. Staff er(ata: ,t ah the :1pp1i nt'I:,tgwsd ki rim aMov any dwclhn'p iin t o rerrimn&r parcels if I+r.:jt.kiiii i,it.i"ilt3iS.`, sacs are zgTro%cd, o addttikewl 1..€hicle Ilps "i,o ld I)4° tre'ate'd by Me Ialtbl'osai nio dilk:ntio n of Ipprovaal. sclvla hollic,ties Wtiuld ria "Ilii possil"!c„ no! four',cclo Staff Up= Pa ,we T I heapplicant Is dlcarI\ not usu)w this profosed inodification as a scal)miatc Air an aal)licai. 1 I cf`e 'is no possibilil , the .applicui)l t iuld have kihst s) of the.' ill.Ti7ges 'iii icgula?f nis Jor iicvcIot'ment it IW lila€+'}. With the proposed decd restI'Id° ion t'ecoiliincirdc' i i),' d)(: .alder ,t'mv k alts, aall" e S.n% Eat vilhi+�s € n tial reti)aaiawill parccls, there ill be ttf:) alc�4.htldil:a;l Inlpat'ts tela sitrroirrid;iiy pl'fapt:'rtics.?Jo Mlitional dttellings would be allo5,ccd], tihiel) sti team "add nwarI that na :addition al vchicic trips Would OCCUl. ,-1CV fl d \VCIhni .s oil fil kcal ofal)pRAinaa; d; 50S as€ s ttodd be a.tli thatt is dc`cicyed. S to If IicPi.WI INIQ : : Ile piwiposcd modification will nor vorinittttc an QI)l,r{,t aal {al'.a salf).S,�II)tiaallt� I)ct.t proposal. If nct: pni els x%Cr: created and thedlecd Iestriction reds rctlrai cd (and F:lsi) rcgwred im the Ann! Ilaaw. there t5°tsisld cn)lt be stakes in the gIciund till pnVcny t° orn rs. Wav :t uld:l he no 4I;..I e tss the 'ouk o the !and Sever, er, dit'clhrus %could Inc' all that 'a'tatdd he allomv(L Mis in "lot t `,M`tt> +'3 iidn all y en\ I misf tt'ah We iai'sitrt:) M of a P 'I I _ 7Igf) l hcic has I?cc l a signincant vKha2ige In k:ircunist:ank:c.,s perzainul'.? to Illi' applicable stain; a.t) f !{teal land use -regulations gov rriing cad=tclopI))c. v of EI:C'-rcflt{:ci Ii nds !*incc the ollg.,naal ;ipplo% a in 1 {lR)I, and since. Ile nid}difll:d. ion aal,innvd ur 1991 I_11.e ctaarou state ofVplivable W is such that it is practically ia)ipda:;;ililc Or mq of We As cn ared ht.•TP-91 nMalt tri qiuilifv Or <apprvval ofaa Wrin related dtt°tlling, Ileattever, other �:I)allgcs IIS Q'Ipplicabl; Iatt' no" i))ake it possible llbr romiaar i dwellati s to he aapi7rc"`ed oi) a3 portion of,a km or parcel that is generally unsuitable Or f firm use. fit addition. as new parod less than the +,tits r" isc applicable MiI)irt)ut)) hn size ( 0 acic's) rim, be crarr d in c(?n.iunctiol) with ,) t)o)fiai-1)) duelling, Conditional use approva 1, EXtHBrF c lie!)Ictpowd Iiia=dilitaanons of c aiditiotis €>fapproval `> I tau! A "ntdd allow the `ono" Page f oft I A'A NOW MW hmo hc kkvhjvd in 1h, Immm 4 a )KORM 14 a All hw,�; w K, "Owq. Ad c by Wom use d a mv h INV o m I& I kna I wsc prock.,". If wn p'l I 0� I Id 1)" _.:r�';ik-d I Woqh dw pmn In "I pit wcNN jug pqYQY'4Q; parmoy 4 pod A w: if ow ownc payot s Mquohlial kous him tax WAvA A mlF im! nalkel wkw. D"n "M! hu."MmAr; us dw 1100"YOU101 1� MY, , wt944ta2 r.,-wid!tion -"'5 rs 311191;# 1,C placc il dcvd Wsm"thin mt dir lemnAr K"m painawl a, app"Indl im wq pil ,awn ally OwAl Ul"THUS Ills KY FKA"! WmHaw!i "oWd 1l Am anyodw; d"Abils mi beshud on thromainder Am ImiM. Him C1000% OuninAlow Me fkamp(WHscon awis INO the apynal "-W !e_' }.l KXfHB1T C Page 2 of 2 A vwd stmopqn0ga (Kans in Wu q.zn, A n !V,' ;,a anyjfqo� KXfHB1T C Page 2 of 2 A William Groves From: William Groves Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 3:28 PM To: Laurie Craghead; Ed Fitch (ed@f itch lawgroup.com) Subject: Steinfeld Attachments: MC972 Additional Materials.pdf Laurie and Ed, found interesting the possibility that MC -97-2 might have intended 2 dwelling per original lot. I've attached the associated record materials from that decision. It appears that the two -dwelling -per original lot, to the extent it might be read into MC -97-2, was not the intention. I did a quick survey of the available materials. Let me know if you find anything to the contrary. Thanks! Staff report, page 3: Staff note: With the applicant's proposal to not allow any dwellings on the remainder parcels if nonfarm dwelling sites are approved, no additional vehicle trips would be created by the proposed modification of approval. Seven homesites would remain possible, not fourteen. Staff Report Page 4: The applicant is clearly not using this proposed modification as a substitute for an appeal. There is no possibility the applicant could have known of the changes in regulations for development of EFU lands. With the proposed deed restriction recommended by the applicant to not allow any dwellings on the remainder parcels, there will be no additional impacts on surrounding properties. No additional dwellings would be allowed, which in turn would mean that no additional vehicle trips would occur. Seven dwellings on the total of approximately 508 acres would be all that is developed. Staff Report page 5: The proposed modification will not constitute an approval of a substantially new proposal. If new parcels were created and the deed restriction was required (and also required on the final plat), there would only be stakes in the ground for property comers, there would be no change to the look of the land. Seven dwellings would be all that would be allowed. This is what was originally envisioned with the approval of TP -91- 760. Applicant's Burden, Page 3: There has been a significant change in circumstances pertaining to the applicable state and local land use regulations governing development of EFU-zoned lands since the original approval in 1991, and since the modification approved in 1993. The current state of applicable law is such that it is practically impossible for any of the lots created by TP -91-760 to qualify for approval of a farm related dwelling. However, other changes in applicable law now make it possible for nonfarm dwellings to be approved on a portion of a lot or parcel that is generally unsuitable for farm use. In addition, a new parcel less than the otherwise applicable minimum lot size (20 acres) may be created in conjunction with a nonfarm dwelling conditional use approval. The proposed modifications of conditions of approval # I and 45 would allow the Snow Creek Subdivision lots to be developed in this manner. If a portion of a lot is found to be generally unsuitable for farm use through the conditional use process, then a small parcel could be created through the partition process. The purpose of the partition would simply be to allow the balance of the property, the remainder farm parcel to remain on farm tax deferral. The farm tax deferral works as an incentive for the property to be developed for agricultural use. If the entire property is disqualified from farm tax deferral, it will discourage investment in agricultural improvements as it would result in higher property taxes at real market value. This would be contrary to the Hearings Officer Ed Fitch's finding of explanation in condition #5. The Applicant is willing to place a deed restriction on the remainder farm parcel as a condition of approval for any partition approved under this method. The deed restriction would not allow any other dwellings to be sited on the remainder farm parcel, thus effectively eliminating the Hearings Officer's concerns that the approval would lead to a rural residential subdivision. Will Groves Senior Planner, CFM 117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bend, Oregon 97703 PO Box 6005 ( Bend, Oregon 97708 Tel: (541) 388.6518 1 www.deschutes.org/cd 1306 Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a persons property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. `a CDD COVER SHEET FOR MAS 12/03/2008 13:30:45 PL 1 PAGES FILE ID 1611040000800PL20081203133046 TAXMAP 1611040000800 SERIAL 131227 DIVISION PL SITUS 66460 HWY 20 HOUSE# 66460 STREET HWY 20 CONTENT M C 9 7 2 RECORD ID MC 97 2 LOCATED IN DATE FILE Cover Sheet Identifier AHJKMTWX 2 Community Development Department NOV Administration Bldg., 1130 N.W. Harriman, Bend, Oregon 97701 (541) 388-6575 FAX 385-1764 Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division FILE NUMBER: MG" q 7 go 0% qoelftj S VTT lc4r.% F441S CERTIFICATE OF NOTICE BY MAIL I certify that on a-, day 1997, the attached notice/report, dated , 1997, was mailed by first-class mail, postag prepai , to the person(s) and address(es) set forth on the attached list. DATED this (T� day of 1997.72 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT a' N 0 a By: a �� �N *L/le-an 1p 115 johpq e a�fi l SSD Qaivt ew lea,? 15��d 4,2 X2201 C6uril%y �,S�S.S'Q � hr. G2D(AC�r Ghh e t 1 f.'t�s �'�L� �i lac, Gtr C�� evrd, o,e 1-7202 Quality Services Performed with Pride DESCHUTES COUNTY LAND USE HEARINGS OFFICER SIGN IN SHEET DATE: _rT APPLICANT:�- NAME (Print) ADDRESS FILE # y� 1. 1'o��41 S 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. DR. LEONARD L. LANGELIERS OPTOMETRIST 66585 FRYREAR RD. BEND, OREGON 97701 541-385-6697 10 JULY 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1130 N.W. HARRIMtAN BEND, OREGON 97701 ATTN: PAUL BLIKSTAD, ASSOCIATE PLANNER DEAR SIR: THIS LETTER IS IN RESPONSE TO OUR PHONE CONVERSATION THIS PAST MONDAY (7 JULY) REGARDING FILE NUMBER: MC -97-2. MY CONCERN AS EXPRESSED BY PHONE IS THAT THIS APPLICATION WILL MODIFY THE EXISTING LAND USE CODES FOR ASSESSOR'S MAP 16-11-4, TAX LOTS 800, 802, 803, 804, 805 806 ; ASSESSOR'S MAP 16-11-9, TAX LOTS 100 AND 101; AND ASSESSOR'S MAP 16-11-10, TAX LOTS 300 AND 310 RESULTING IN AN INCREASE IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLINGS ON THESE PROPERTIES. IF THE PROPOSED CHANGE DOES NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLINGS ( 7 PER OUR CONVERSATION ) I WOULD HAVE NO OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL. SHOULD THE CONDITIONS BE MODIFIED TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS OVER THAT CURRENTLY APPROVED AND ALLOW SIGNIFICANT EXPANSION THAT WOULD CREATE TRAFFIC AND SAFETY HAZARDS I WOULD STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS CHANGE. WHEN THE APPROVING AUTHORITY HAS REACHED A DECISION MYSELF, AND MY NEIGHBORS WOULD APPRECIATE A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT AND AN EXPLANATION AS TO EXACTLY WHAT THE RULLING WILL .ALLOW. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION: SINCERELY, LEONAR L. LANGELIERS O.D., M.A. 44 i „ ,. Community Development Department Administration Bldg., 1130 N.W. Harriman, Bend, Oregon 97701 (541 ) 388-6575 FAX 385-1764 FILE NUMBER:��� • s orwr Row r CERTIFICATE OF NOTICE BY MAIL Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division ,�`. I certify that on �— day o 1997, the attached notice/report, dated' 1997, was mailed by first-class mail, Posta repaid, to the person(s) and address(es) set forth on the attached list. DATED this ILI day of , COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT By: _ ��& ___ ff.w/�wr le a*It kr6a M -SW -7 �11 ') -.a,— z Joy;W_I n �, -) Quality Services Performed zvith Pride DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION NW Harriman Street, Bend, OR 97701 (541)388-6575 LAND USE APPLICATION INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED 1. Complete the application form and provide appropriate signatures. 2. Attach correct fee. 3 Include a plot plan which shows all property lines and existing and proposed structures, parking, landscaping, lighting, etc. 4 All applicable standards and criteria must be addressed in writing prior to acceptance of the application. Detailed descriptions, maps and other relevant information must be attached to the application. TYPE OF APPLICATION (check one): APPLICATION FEE: $ 2 9 8. 0 0 CONDITIONAL USE (CU)_ TEMPORARY USE (TU)_ SETBACK EXCEPTION (SE) PARTITION (MP) _ SITE PLAN (SP)— OTHER: MODIFICATION -70F CONDIT-- SUBDIVISION (TP)_ VARIANCE (V) APPLICANTS NAME (print): BILL REED PHONE(5 4 1 4 9- 6 0 0 0 MAILNG ADDRESS: P.10. BOX 219 CITY: SISTERS STATE: OR ZIP: 97759 PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME (if different): PHONE( ) MAILNG ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP: 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Township 16 Range 11 Section 4 Tax Lot 8 0 0 ( and others see Burden of Proof) 2. PROPERTY ZONE(S): EFU-TRB/LM PROPERTY SIZE (acres or sq. ft.): 508 ACRES 3. PROPERTY ADDRESS. HWY 20 4. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: VACANT 5. EXISTING STRUCTURES: NONE 6. REQUEST: MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS NO. 1 AND 5 OF TP -91-760 7. PROPERTY WILL BE SERVED BY: Sewer. 8. DOMESTIC WATER SOURCE: WELL APPLICANTS SIGNATURE.' PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE (if diffe AGENT'S NAME (if applicable): DALE E.- MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1151 On -Site Disposal System X DATE: `6 ��c \4 DATE: 2 ( 7 ALKENBURG HONE(541)382-4331 LEN & U1_11%V.LL.-��j BEND OR 97709 CITY: STATE: ZIP: If this application is not signed by the property owner a letter authorizing signature by the applicant must be attached. 3197 DR. LEONARD L. LANGELIERS OPTOMETRIST 66585 FRYREAR RD. BEND, OREGON 97701 541-385-6697 10 JULY 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1130 N.W. HARRIMAN BEND, OREGON 97701 ATTN: PAUL BLIKSTAD, ASSOCIATE PLANNER THIS LETTER IS IN RESPONSE TO OUR PHONE CONVERSATION THIS PAST MONDAY (7 JULY) REGARDING FILE NUMBER: MC -97-2. MY CONCERN AS EXPRESSED BY PHONE IS THAT THIS APPLICATION WILL MODIFY THE EXISTING LAND USE CODES FOR ASSESSOR'S MAP 16-11-4, TAX LOTS 800, 802, 803, 804, 805 806 ; ASSESSOR'S MAP 16-11-9, TAX LOTS 100 AND 101; AND ASSESSOR'S MAP 16-11-10, TAX LOTS 300 AND 310 RESULTING IN AN INCREASE IN THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLINGS ON THESE PROPERTIES. IF THE PROPOSED CHANGE DOES NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DWELLINGS ( 7 PER OUR CONVERSATION ) I WOULD HAVE NO OPPOSITION TO THIS PROPOSAL. SHOULD THE CONDITIONS BE MODIFIED TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS OVER THAT CURRENTLY APPROVED AND ALLOW SIGNIFICANT EXPANSION THAT WOULD CREATE TRAFFIC AND SAFETY HAZARDS I WOULD STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS CHANGE. WHEN THE APPROVING AUTHORITY HAS REACHED A DECISION MYSELF, AND MY NEIGHBORS WOULD APPRECIATE A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT AND AN EXPLANATION AS TO EXACTLY WHAT THE RULLING WILL ALLOW. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION: SINCERELY, LEON L. LANGELIERS O.D., M.A. ETES W2- Community Development Department _' Administration Bldg., 1130 N.W. Harriman, Bend, Oregon 97701 (541) 388-6575 FAX 385-1764 Planning Division NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division The Deschutes County Hearings Officer will hold a Public Hearing on TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997, at 7:00 P.M. in the Juvenile Justice Center Room A located at 1128 Harriman Street in Bend,.to consider the following request: FILE NUMBER: MC -97-2 SUBJECT: An application for a Modification of Conditions to amend conditions of approval nos. 1 and 5 of the Tentative Plat for Snow Creek Ranch subdivision (TP -91-760). Condition #1 deals with dwellings on each of the lots and condition #5 deals with division of the lots. APPLICANT: Bill Reed LOCATION: The property is located adjacent to Highway 20 near Plainview. Snow Creek Ranch subdivision is identified on the County Assessor's maps as follows: 16-11-4, tax lots 800, 802, 803, 804, 805 and 806, 16-11-9, tax lots 100 and 101, and 16-11-10, tax lots 300 and 301. STAFF CONTACT: Paul Blikstad, Associate Planner ALL INTERESTED PERSONS MAY APPEAR, BE HEARD, BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, OR SEND WRITTEN SIGNED TESTIMONY. ALL WRITTEN REPLIES MUST BE RECEIVED BY THIS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE OR SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING. ANY PARTY TO THE APPLICATION IS ENTITLED TO A CONTINUANCE OF THE INITIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING OR TO HAVE THE RECORD LEFT OPEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.24.140 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE. �1yg17 78 y82� , JUN 1997 CN� NOPH - MC -97-2 - Property Owner `� wutm ,y Page 1 ti ro L -- LEDE Quality Services Performed with Pride BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANT: BURDEN OF PROOF BILL REED APPLICANT/ Bill Reed OWNER: P.O. Box 219 Sisters, Oregon 97759 AGENT: Dale Van Valkenburg Bryant Lovlien & Jarvis P.C. Post Office Box 1151 Bend, Oregon 97709-1151 REQUEST: Approval of a Modification of Conditions for TP -91-760, the Snow Creek Ranch subdivision. The Applicant seeks to modify condition 91 as already modified by file MC -93-15, and condition #5. APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Title 22 of the County Code, Land Use Procedures: * Chapter 22.36, Limitation on Approvals Section 22.36.040, Modification of Approvals FINDINGS of FACT: 1. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the east side of Highway 20, between Fryrear and Innes Market Roads, and is identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Map #16-11-4 as tax lots 800, 802, 803 804, and 805; on Map #16-11-9 as tax lots 100 and 101; and on Map #16-11-10 as tax lots 300 and 301. 2. ZONING: The subject property is zoned EFU-TRB, Exclusive Farm Use - TumalotRedmond/Bend Subzone, and LM - Landscape Management Combining Zone. The property is designated as Agriculture on the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan. Bill Reed Burden of Proof MATAWSViCLMEX1$*QSAFIDtSOD- Page I Bryant Lmhen ® Jarvis APFJ H ALCLWLNA AT2NNEVSATI W 40 N.W. Greenwood - P.O. Box 1151 - Bend, Oregon 97709-1151 - (541) 382-4331 - Fax (541) 389-3386 FINDING: The subject approval was granted in September of 1991. More than six months has elapsed since the approval was issued. "B. Unless otherwise specified in a particular zoning ordinance provision, the grounds for filing a modification shall be that a change of circumstances since the issuance of the approval makes it desirable to make changes to the proposal, as approved. A modification shall not be filed as a substitute for an appeal or to apply for a substantially new proposal or one that would have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. FINDING: There has been a significant change in circumstances pertaining to the applicable state and local land use regulations governing development of EFU-zoned lands since the original approval in 1991, and since the modification approved in 1993. The current state of applicable law is such that it is practically impossible for any of the lots created by TP -91-760 to qualify for approval of a farm related dwelling. However, other changes in applicable law now make it possible for nonfarm dwellings to be approved on a portion of a lot or parcel that is generally unsuitable for farm use. In addition, a new parcel less than the otherwise applicable minimum lot size (20 acres) may be created in conjunction with a nonfarm dwelling conditional use approval. The proposed modifications of conditions of approval #1 and #5 would allow the Snow Creek Subdivision lots to be developed in this manner. If a portion of a lot is found to be generally unsuitable for farm use through the conditional use process, then a small parcel could be created through the partition process. The purpose of the partition would simply be to allow the balance of the property, the remainder farm parcel, to remain on farm tax deferral. The farm tax deferral works as an incentive for the property to be developed for agricultural use. If the entire property is disqualified from farm tax deferral, it will discourage investment in agricultural improvements as it would result in higher property taxes at real market value. This would be contrary to the Hearings Officer Ed Fitch's finding of explanation in condition 95. The Applicant is willing to place a deed restriction on the remainder farm parcel as a condition of approval for any partition approved under this method. The deed restriction would not allow any other dwellings to be sited on the remainder farm parcel, thus effectively eliminating the Hearings Officer's concerns that the approval would lead to a rural residential subdivision. "C. An application to modify an approval shall be directed to one or more discrete aspects of the approval, the modification of which would not amount to approval of a substantially new proposal or one that would have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. Any proposed Bill Reed Burden of Proof Page 3 P! DATATZMMTMQ,�0-1 Bryant L.aalien ® Jarvis --E% gAI,�T ATrtJPNEY9 AT W 40 N.W. Greenwood • P.O. Box 1151 - Bend, Oregon 97709-1151 ■ (541) 382-4331 ■ Fax (541) 389-3386 :a i �i Q� Q w W U W ;n O � _MN Ln a �w M M � O Z obi L S00 51'13"W N LI =4W 2635.45r z U 4 z Ir WUW z N zC W 2 '400 <znzUTV5. W z Uti 3 4WD � U3; O - _ ryp U .h OC �W Zig O l�/1 X40 �� UO N W 023 3,Zf,OS.00N W In CL '�t'6BB! � Ovew 3,Zt,04,00N�T °'� z �Et, N LI =4W 2 U 'C2 M fn e � vi O J J N�1� Na <znzUTV5. z CL z - _ .� N _ 511.3.24 —.. O <~ 01" Z W In CL to k Y O Oi W i• :. 2 W'CN v `\ cr!L�j/ G�3� o � UJ M40 Q o9j"c� Gk i 0 U � a � J z gg CC to 4 O (S'�vFi 2t�i7y 2 O • A G Gr N LI WIin rca4W 3a `c�ir`z3z�o�-+ zwzcoosot�z000����oo� !n^ aq�W�W OZ�A2Q OOW W TOW4 Q ¢~W!L gz DIIIOVd H -?M J lyle� Q2W4¢ X03 CE NTrr 4�~3 <znzUTV5. 8 0 W WLam% P�2y2C - _ sooa3'os•w L Q11, _ 511.3.24 —.. 01" Z W M X52 ze a � z O Oi W at e O a 7v, ro4 \•'A M W4 OW 3 U � a � J z gg CC to 4 O (S'�vFi 2t�i7y 2 O • A G Gr N LI WIin rca4W 3a `c�ir`z3z�o�-+ zwzcoosot�z000����oo� !n^ aq�W�W OZ�A2Q OOW W TOW4 Q ¢~W!L gz owoe ze o xW�iSSc�Wo4oWeW i4� lyle� Q2W4¢ X03 CE NTrr 4�~3 <znzUTV5. 0 W WLam% P�2y2C L Q11, ko Alb U � a � J z gg CC to 4 O (S'�vFi 2t�i7y 2 O • A G Gr N LI WIin rca4W 3a `c�ir`z3z�o�-+ zwzcoosot�z000����oo� !n^ aq�W�W OZ�A2Q OOW W TOW4 Q ¢~W!L gz owoe ze o xW�iSSc�Wo4oWeW i4� lyle� Q2W4¢ X03 CE NTrr 4�~3 0 W WLam% P�2y2C O T vi 0 / u - n ti, +l r Kum l.6 Krir . t5,-CUJ. mt; H' , r 5c,. , 5ca`J' kj i it REED BROS. zet W.OASCADE REALTY SfSi ffiPOBox210 sU& t"f, . FAX (641) SAIM71 May 30, 1997 Community Development Department Administration Bldg. 1130 N.W. Harriman Bend, OR 97701 Via fax: 389-3386 .Ladies and Gentlemen: Please be advised that Dale Van Valkenburg, Bob Lovhen or Sharon Smith 1 -ms authorization to sign land use appkcatizons on our behalf Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, c WiMam, F. Reed, Jr. M. F. Reed An independently Owned and Operated Member of Goldwell Banker Residential NNilates, ioe. P. 2 ASR INQ Serial: 131227 Acct: R 6-012 161104 00 0080u Port 244 08:16:18 10 JUL 1997 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 POTENTIAL ADD'L TAX TYPE: ABATED AMOUNT 6862.20 Site Address: 66460 HWY 20 BEND 97701 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: 1 Prop C1s:450 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFU20LM *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D6 39.26 125,630 155 DEFERRED Page 1 *** --------1997-------- --------1996-------- --------1995-------- Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd o RMV Ass'd LND: 125,630 155 125,630 155 98,125 155 Factor Book: Land: 94. Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval'Tax 0.00 1.48 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-96 4096 -1.44 -0.04 C 90 708490 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 1.49 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-95 3659 -1.45 -0.04 C 90 595736 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 1.51 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 06-14-95 3496 -1.60 0.09 L 90 561322 --1-- ,SR / ,SR INQ Serial: 185296 Acct: R 6-012 161104 00 0080ot, Port 244 08:16:27 10 JUL 1997 Page 1 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. 'EED,WILLIAM R JR EED,MYRON F 'O BOX 218 ;ISTERS OR 97759 .ssessor Property Description NOW CREEK RANCH Lot: 2 rop C1s:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 smt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) 11 :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) ** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D4 23.00 64,400 2,348 DEFERRED EFU.D6 30.62 85,735 122 DEFERRED *Total 53.62 150,135 2,470 ** --------1997-------- Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd VD: 150,135 2,470 a Factor Book: Land: 94 Dpraisal Year: Land: 94 --------1996-------- Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd o 150,135 2,470 --------1995-------- Total Total Tr RMV Ass,d 87,005 2,315 S Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 24.01 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-96 4096 -23.29 -0.72 C 90 708482 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 22.58 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-95 3659 -21.90 -0.68 C 90 595742 b Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 22.70 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-95 3659 -25.43 2.73 L 90 595741 ASR INQ Serial: 191269 Acct: R 6-012 161104 00 0080b Port 244 08:17:09 10 JUL 1997 Page 1 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: PTN 2 Prop Cls:550 MA:6 VA:17 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D7 1.99 4,975 10 DEFERRED *** --------1997-------- Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd LND: 4,975 10 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 0.09 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-96 4096 -0.09 --------1996-------- Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd 0 4,975 10 --------1995-------- Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd 0 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 0.00 C 90 708480 ASR INQ Serial: 185297 Acct: R 6-012 161104 00 0080.- Port 244 08:16:42 10 JUL 1997 Page 1 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. THOMAS,DONALD NEIL THOMAS,JANE STEINFELD 15411 NW MCNAMEE ROAD PORTLAND OR 97231 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: 3 Code Splits: 6013 Prop C1s:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3941866 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) 11 :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D4 23.00 64,400 2,344 DEFERRED EFU.D6 27.70 69,250 111 DEFERRED *Total 50.70 133,650 2,455 *** --------1997-------- --------1996-------- --------1995-------- Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd 96 LND: 133,650 2,455 133,650 2,455 133,750 2,295 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 23.87 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 10-25-96 4062 -23.15 -0.72 C 90 660058 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 22.37 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-95 3659 -21.70 -0.67 C 90 595748 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 22.52 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-95 3659 -25.22 2.70 L 90 595746 ASR INQ Serial: 185298 Acct: R 6-013 161104 00 0080.s Port 244 08:16:43 10 JUL 1997 Page 1 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. THOMAS,DONALD NEIL THOMAS,JANE STEINFELD 15411 NW MCNAMEE ROAD PORTLAND OR 97231 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: 3 Code Splits: 6012 Prop C1s:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3941866 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) if :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES EFU.D6 6.46 *** --------1997-------- Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd 0 LND: 22,610 25 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 0.21 Trn Date Btch Received 10-25-96 4062 -0.20 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 0.20 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -0.19 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 0.19 Trn Date Btch Received 06-14-95 3496 -0.20 R.M.V ASS'D 22,610 25 DEFERRED --------1996-------- Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd 22,610 25 --------1995-------- Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd 0 16,150 25 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.01 C 90 660057 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.01 C 90 595744 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 0.01 L 90 561323 ASR INQ Serial: 185299 Acct: R 6-012 161104 00 00804 Port 244 08:16:54 10 JUL 1997 Page 1 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. STEINFELD,H RICHARD STEINFELD,PAMALYNN N 234 NW SKYLINE BLVD PORTLAND OR 97210 Site Address: 18325 SNOW CREEK LN BEND 97701 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: PT 4 Prop C1s:550 MA:6 VA:17 Val-Page:3941872 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) " :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D4 4.00 10,000 409 DEFERRED EFU.D6 35.21 88,025 141 DEFERRED *Total 39.21 98,025 550 *** --------1997-------- --------1996-------- --------1995-------- Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd o RMV Ass'd o LND: 98,025 550 98,025 550 98,650 520 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 5.34 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-07-96 4073 -5.18 -0.16 C 90 673717 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 5.07 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-95 3659 -4.92 -0.15 C 90 595755 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 5.09 Trn Date Etch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-95 3659 -5.70 0.61 L 90 595753 ASR INQ Serial: 185295 Acct: R 6-013 161109 00 00101 Port 244 08:17:35 10 JUL 1997 Page 1 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. STEINFELD,H RICHARD STEINFELD,PAMALYNN N 234 NW SKYLINE BLVD PORTLAND OR 97210 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: PT 4 Prop C1s:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) if :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D4 13.17 32,400 1,344 DEFERRED EFU.D6 21.52 52,940 86 DEFERRED *Total 34.69 85,340 1,430 *** --------1997-------- --------1996-------- --------1995-------- Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd o RMV Ass'd o RMV Ass'd o LND: 85,340 1,430 85,340 1,430 57,240 1,335 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 12.39 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-96 4096 -12.02 -0.37 C 90 708483 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 11.56 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-95 3659 -11.21. -0.35 C 90 595751 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 11.54 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-95 3659 -12.93 1.39 L 90 595749 ASR INQ Serial: 185300 Acct: R 6-012 161104 00 00805 Port 244 08:17:02 10 JUL 1997 Page 1 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 Site Address: 18330 SNOW CREEK LN BEND 97701 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot% 5 Prop C1s:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D4 26.00 65,000 2,652 DEFERRED EFU.D6 40.65 101,625 163 DEFERRED *Total 66.65 166,625 2,815 *** --------1997-------- --------1996-------- --------1995-------- Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd o LND: 166,625 2,815 166,625 2,815 166,525 2,630 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 27.36 Trn Date Etch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-96 4096 -26.54 -0.82 C 90 708478 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 25.65 Trn Date Etch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-95 3659 -24.88 -0.77 C 90 595764 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 25.81 Trn Date Etch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-95 3659 -28.91 3.10 L 90 595762 ASR INQ Serial: 131413 Acct: R 6-013 161109 00 00100 Port 244 08:17:28 10 JUL 1997 Page 1 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 POTENTIAL ADD'L TAX TYPE: ABATED AMOUNT 2064.56 Site Address: 66308 HWY 20 BEND 97701 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: PT 6 Prop C1s:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) It :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values *** ASMI TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D4 77.07 165,700 7,860 DEFERRED EFU.D6 0.47 1,010 5 DEFERRED *Total 77.54 166,710 7,865 *** --------1997-------- --------1996-------- --------1995-------- Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd o RMV Ass'd a RMV Ass'd LND: 166,710 7,865 166,710 7,865 167,955 7,380 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 68.12 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-96 4096 -66.08 -2.04 C 90 708488 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 63.95 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-95 3659 -62.03 -1.92 C 90 595767 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 63.84 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-95 3659 -71.49 7.65 L 90 595765 ASR INQ Serial: 149873 Acct: R 2-007 161110 00 0030! Port 244 08:17:56 10 JUL 1997 Page 1 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 Site Address: 18475 SNOW CREEK LN BEND 97701 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: PT 6 Prop C1s:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) 1' :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D4 19.46 41,840 1,987 DEFERRED EFU.D6 8.29 17,825 33 DEFERRED *Total 27.75 59,665 2,020 *** --------1997-------- --------1996-------- --------1995-------- Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd a RMV Ass'd a RMV Ass'd i LND: 59,665 2,020 59,665 2,020 42,775 1,550 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 20.44 Trn Date Etch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-96 4096 -19.83 -0.61 C 90 708485 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 16.87 Trn Date Etch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-95 3659 -16.36 -0.51 C 90 595769 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 20.71 Trn Date Etch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-95 3659 -23.19 2.48 L 90 595768 ASR INQ Serial: 131989 Acct: R 2-007 161110 00 0030u Port 244 08:17:47 10 JUL 1997 Page 1 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 POTENTIAL ADD'L TAX TYPE: ABATED AMOUNT 2618.88 Site Address: 66080 HWY 20 BEND 97701 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: 7 Code Splits: 6013 Prop C1s:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) " :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values *** 0.00 87.95 Trn Date Btch ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D Adval Tax EFU.D4 84.36 150,160 8,606 DEFERRED EFU.D6 19.76 35,170 79 DEFERRED *Total 104.12 185,330 8,685 *** --------1997-------- --------1996-------- --------1995-------- Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd o RMV Ass'd o RMV Ass'd LND: 185,330 8,685 185,330 8,685 192,645 8,485 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 87.95 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-96 4096 -85.31 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 92.26 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -89.49 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -2.64 C 90 708486 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -2.77 C 90 595771 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 113.42 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-95 3659 -127.03 13.61 L 90 595770 ASR INQ Serial: 185301 Acct: R 6-013 161110 00 0030U Port 244 08:17:47 10 JUL 1997 Page 1 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: 7 Code Splits: 2007 Prop C1s:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) if :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES EFU.D4 6.69 *** --------1997-------- Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd 0 LND: 11,910 680 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 5.88 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-96 4096 -5.70 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 4.34 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -4.21 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 4.32 Trn Date Btch Received 06-14-95 3496 -4.55 R.M.V ASS'D 11,910 680 DEFERRED --------1996-------- Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd % 0 11,910 680 --------1995-------- Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd o 9,325 500 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.18 C 90 708479 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.13 C 90 595773 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 0.23 L 90 561324 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The ;Deschutes' County Hearings Officer will hold a Public: Hearing on TOES DAY; .JULY 22, 1997, at TOT) P:M.: in„the:Juvenile Justice Center Room -A lo- dated at� 11.28 Harriman Street in Bend; to consider the foilowing,,request:.. FILE' NUM9EW MQ -97-2' . SUBJECT:'An application for a: Modification of`Conditions to....amend conditions of ap- p pvai'nos .1. -and 5 of1he ZTtative Plat.>- for -Snow deals.with dwellings on each of the lots and condition #5 deals :with.'division-of.. the Affidavit of Publication STATE OF OREGON, COUNTY OF DESCHUTES, —ss. I, BETTY SPRAGUE , being first duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Principal Clerk of the Publisher, of The Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published at Bend in the aforesaid county and state as defined by ORS 193.010 and ORS 193.020. that DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPT. #SMC --97-2, Bill Reed a printed copy of which is hereto affixed was published in the entire issue of said newspaper for One Time successive and consecutive weeks in the following issues: June 29? 1997 bscrib nd sworrKo before this 11 2nd day of July ,197 U11 k 43"s'�rpi,MAL SEAL NOTARY PUBLIC-OREAMN biA5CdN IMIDIN No. M 31 MY C MMMMV EMY'r�,�SAUG 14, 1117 � A ES C Community Development Department Administration Bldg., 1130 N.W. Harriman, Bend, Oregon 97701 (541) 388-6575 FAX 385-1764 M E M O R A N D U M Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division DATE: July 29, 1997 TO: Karen Green, Hearings Officer FROM: Paul Blikstad, Associate Planner RE: Snow Creek Ranch modification Based on my discussions with John Wurst with the County Assessor's Office, the lots within Snow Creek Ranch subdivision could not have dwellings put on them without the Planning Division issuing an approval. This approval would have to be either for a farm dwelling or nonfarm dwelling. The Assessor's Office cannot disqualify only a portion of the lots from farm tax deferral if a nonfarm dwelling is approved. I believe that was your question and it does not appear that there is another way to site a dwelling on the lots without jeapordizing farm deferral. Quality Services Performed with Pride DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT FILE NUMBER: MC -97-2 APPLICANT/ Bill Reed PROPERTY OWNER: Post Office Box 219 Sisters, Oregon 97759 REQUEST: Modification of Condition nos. 1 and 5 for TP -91-760 (RP - 95 -3), the Snow Creek Ranch subdivision. HEARING DATE: Tuesday, July 22, 1997 7:00 p.m. Room A, Juvenile Justice Center 1128 NW Harriman Bend, Oregon 97701 AGENT: Dale Van Valkenburg 75TH,, Bryant Lovlien & Jarvis P.C. �0��121314 o, Post Office Box 1151 Bend, Oregon 97709-1151 cin STAFF CONTACT: Paul Blikstad, Associate Planner "' O��ES ti APPLICABLE CRITERIA: W Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code Chapter 22.20, Review of land use action applications. Chapter 22.24, Land use action hearings. Chapter 22.28, Land use action decisions. Chapter 22.36, Limitation on approvals: Section 22.36.040, Modification of approval. FINDINGS OF FACT: LOCATION: The subject property is located adjacent to Highway 20 between Fryrear Road and Innes Market Road in the Plainview area of the county. The Snow Creek Ranch subdivision is identified on the County Assessor's maps as follows: 16-11-4, tax lots 800, 802, 803, 804, 805 and 806; 16-11-9, tax lots 100 and 101; and 16-11-10, tax lots 300 and 301. 2. ZONING: The subject property is zoned EFU-TRB, Exclusive Farm Use - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzone, with an LM, Landscape Management combining zone on that portion of the property that is within one-quarter mile of Highway 20. The property is designated Agriculture and Landscape Management on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. MC -97-2 Page 1 3. APPLICATION BACKGROUND: The applicant received approval of a tentative plat, TP -91-760, for a 7 -lot subdivision referred to as Snow Creek Ranch by the County Hearings Officer's findings and decision dated September 18, 1991. (The original application was for 8 lots and the applicant was required to reduce it to 7 lots). The subdivision has been recorded as Snow Creek Ranch. The applicant received approval of a Modification of Conditions (MC -93-15) for condition of approval #1 of TP -9,1,-750 _by the Planning Division's findings and decision dated September � 1993. This condition was amended to state: 1. Each lot must obtain a conditional use permit for a farm dwelling pursuant to applicable Deschutes County ordinances and stale law. The applicant received Final Plat Approval for Snow Creek Ranch. The final plat was recorded with the County Clerk's Office on December 1, 1993. The applicant subsequently received approval of a Replat (RP -95-3) of the subdivision by the Planning Division's findings and decision dated November 3, 1995. This replat included minor adjustments to the road right of way location for Snow Creek Lane and a change in the lot line between lots 6 and 7 of the subdivision. The final plat for the Snow Creek Ranch replat was recorded with the County Clerk's Office on December 12, 1995. 4. PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a modication of approval to amend conditions of approval nos. 1 anand 5 of TP -917760. As indicated above, condition of approval no.:l was amended by approval of MC -93-15. The applicant is now requesting that condition of approval no. i be amended to state: 1. Each lot must obtain a conditional use permit for a dwelling pursuant to applicable Deschutes County ordinances and state law. The applicant is also requesting that condition of approval no. 5 be amended to state: 5. Further subdivision shall be allowed only pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.16.055 pertaining to the creation of one new parcel for a �7 nonfarm dwelling, and then only if a deed restriction against any additional dwellings is placed on the remainder farm parcel. 5. The Planning Division sent notice of the proposed modification to several public agencies and received the following responses: A. The Watermaster's Office states that this entire property is covered by Groundwater Right #G-12705. The applicant has until September 11, 1997 to begin construction on the wells. The permit lists seven wells. B. The County Property Address Coordinator states that the address of record for this parcel is 66460 Highway 20. This address is subject to change. C. The County Public Works Department states the following: "This land use request, if approved, would allow the further partitioning of each of the seven existing parcels in the Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision. This would add MC -97-2 Page 2 another seven single family homes to this area, thereby adding between 42 and 70 motor vehicle trips to Fryrear Road, which provides the only access to this property. These trips would be in addition to the 42 to 70 trips that will exist when the seven existing lots on Snow Creek Lane are developed. The distance between the intersection of Snow Creek Lane and Fryrear Road and the intersection of Highway 20 and Fryrear Road is just under 400 feet. This additional traffic could affect the intersection of Highway 20 and Fryrear Road, which is already a busy intersection. Fryrear Road had an average daily traffic volume (ADT) of 474 in 1996 at a point located .08 mile north of Highway 20. Highway 20 has a traffic volume of several thousand vehicles per day. My concern is that each further partitioning of any lots within this subdivision will add incrementally to the existing traffic volumes on both Fryrear Road and Highway 20. Deschutes County does not have a systems development charge to recover any of the direct road maintenance costs caused by these additional units. Snow Creek Lane has been improved with a paved two lane surface and can handle the traffic generated by either seven or fourteen dwellings. Staff note: With the applicant's proposal to not allow any dwellings on the remainder parcels if nonfarm dwelling sites are approved, no additional vehicle trips would be created by the proposed modification of approval. Seven homesites would remain possible, not fourteen. D. The County Environmental Health Division states that any new lots created or modified by lot line changes will require a new septic site evaluation for each lot. E. US West Communications and the County Assessor's Office had no comments. F. No response was received from the Cloverdale Fire Department, the Oregon Department of Transportation, Central Electric Cooperative and US West Communications. 6. To date, the Planning Division has received no written response to the notice sent out on the public hearing, which was mailed out on June 18, 1997. The Planning Division has received a few phone calls with questions about the proposal. 7. This application was accepted as complete on July 10, 1997. The 120 -day review period thus ends on November 7, 1997. 8. Staff has checked the County Assessor's records and conducted a site visit, and there are no dwellings on any of the lots, nor does there appear to be any accessory structures on any of the lots. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS: 1. Conformance with Section 22.26.040 of Title 22. 22.36.040. Modification of approval. A. An applicant may apply to modify an approval at any time after a period of six months has elapsed from the time a land use action approval has become final. MC -97-2 Page 3 Staff findings: The original approval was almost six years ago and the first modification for condition no. 1 was approved almost four years ago. B. Unless otherwise specified in a particular zoning ordinance provision, the grounds for filing a modification shall be that a change of circumstances since the issuance of the approval makes it desirable to make changes to the proposal, as approved. A modification shall not be filed as a substitute for an appeal or to apply for a substantially new proposal or one that would have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. Staff findings: The applicant has addressed this criterion on page 3 of the burden of proof statement. The applicant has correctly stated that there have been significant changes to state and county regulations governing development of land within the Exclusive Farm Use zones, both since the original approval of TP -91-760 in 1991 and the modification of that approval in 1993. The standards in place for obtaining approval of a farm dwelling have changed dramatically from both 1991 and 1993. The gross income test required for either high value or non high value farmland is such that it is virtually impossible to meet the standards necessary for a farm dwelling. Even though the lots in Snow Creek Ranch are somewhat larger than parcels within the Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzone, they are still not large enough to accommodate a farm use which could potentially meet either the $32,500 income test for non high value farmland, or the $80,000 income test for high value farmland. The intent of the subdivision proposal in 1991 was to create lots that were suitable for farm use and which could qualify for a farm dwelling. Under current regulations, as briefly mentioned above, obtaining a farm dwelling on these lots is problematic. Without a dwelling on-site, farm use of the property is probably not realistic. The applicant's proposal offers a scenario whereby a nonfarm dwelling /parcel could be created for a farm operator, and the larger parent parcel could be put to farm use. By amending condition of approval no. 1 of TP -91-760 as proposed by the applicant, the applicant has the possibility of still applying for a farm dwelling on each lot. By amending condition no. 5 to allow a potential partition of each lot, the applicant may be able to qualify for a nonfarm dwelling on a small portion of each lot, while retaining the larger portion in farm use and in farm deferral status. Staff agrees with the applicant that by retaining a majority of the lots in farm deferral, there is more incentive for a property owner to maintain an agricultural use of the property. The applicant is clearly not using this proposed modification as a substitute for an appeal. There is no possibility the applicant could have known of the changes in regulations for development of EFU lands. With the proposed deed restriction recommended by the applicant to not allow any dwellings on the remainder parcels, there will be no additional impacts on surrounding properties. No additional dwellings would be allowed, which in turn would mean that no additional vehicle trips would occur. Seven dwellings on the total of approximately 508 acres would be all that is developed. C. An application to modify an approval shall be directed to one or more discrete aspects of the approval, the modification of which not amount to approval of a substantially new proposal or one that would have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. Any proposed modification, MC -97-2 Page 4 as defined in this section, shall be reviewed only under the criteria applicable to that particular aspect of the proposal. Proposals that would modify an approval in a scope greater than allowable as a modification shall be treated as an application for a new proposal. Staff findings: The proposed modification is directed at conditions of approval nos. 1 and 5 of TP -91-760. These conditions deal with how a dwelling is approved on each of the seven lots within the subdivision, and whether it can be further divided. With the applicant proposing a deed restriction on each lot, which would prevent any dwellings on the remainder parcels created by partitions allowed under Section 18.16.055 (B), there would be no additional impacts on surrounding properties. The proposed modification will not constitute an approval of a substantially new proposal. If new parcels were created and the deed restriction was required (and also required on the final plat), there would only be stakes in the ground for property corners, there would be no change to the look of the land. Seven dwellings would be all that would be allowed. This is what was originally envisioned with the approval of TP -91- 760. D. An application for a modification shall be handled as a land use action. Staff findings: The modification is being handled as a land use action, pursuant to Title 22 of the County Code. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed modification meets the criteria of Section 22.36.040 of Title 22. The proposed modification is the most logical way to provide for development of the lots within Snow Creek Ranch subdivision. It provides flexibility by still allowing for the possibility of a farm dwelling on each lot, or for the applicant to attempt to get dwellings by a partition allowed under Section 18.16.055 (B) of Title 18. Staff recommends that conditions of approval nos. 1 and 5 be amended to state: 1. Each lot must obtain a conditional use permit for a dwelling pursuant to applicable Deschutes County ordinances and state law. 5. Further division of the Snow Creek Ranch lots shall only be allowed pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.16.055 (B) pertaining to the creation of one new parcel for a nonfarm dwelling, and then only if a deed restriction against any additional dwellings is placed on the remainder farm parcel, and the final plats for any partitions approved contain a statement that no dwellings shall be allowed on the farm parcel. PEB:slr MC -97-2 Page 5 DES(-AUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVIS-JN ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 1130 NW HARRIMAN ST BEND, OREGON 97701 (541) 388-6575 ��151617'g�9 18 JUN 1997 WATERMASTER - DISTRICT 11 1340 N.W. WALL, SUITE #100 BEND, OR 97701-1939 The Deschutes County Planning Division attached application. Your agency may be concerns about this proposal. co has received the affected or have APPLICATION NUMBER: MC972 - 161104 00 00800 APPLICANT: BILL REED 66460 HWY 20, BEND REQUEST: Modification of Conditions to allow MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS #1 & 5 OF TP -91-760 In order for the planning division to consider your comments they must be received by 06/30/97. If there are significant questions or problems with this application, a meeting with the applicant and Planning Division may be necessary. This meeting should be requested as soon as possible. List facts, adopted policies, or any other comments you feel may apply to this application: (Feel free to attach a separate sheet.) C P4+" r 11 C �S i C� few r l l��7 "j"�� ec w�; i~ (i5 s 5e ven welts . Suggested Action by Dekchutes County: -4 &-I R70 NO COMMENTS Check if you want a copy of the Staff Report or Findings and Decision. Agent I ALL--l'��i S &6fS ' Date -2- 3--77 kf "- Please contact PAUL E. BLIKSTAD at 388-6575 if you have any questions. Thank you. G- /27x5" DESLdUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVIS-JN ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 1130 NW HARRIMAN ST BEND, OREGON 97701 1�15�6977g�9 (541) 388-6575co �ryti`✓ e'�a SUN 199T �� H cA0 �A el ti 18 JUN 1997 PROPERTY ADDRESS COORDINATOR 1130 N.W. HARRIMAN STREET BEND, OR 97701 The Deschutes County Planning Division has received the attached application. Your agency may be affected or have concerns about this proposal. APPLICATION NUMBER: MC972 - 161104 00 00800 APPLICANT: BILL REED 66460 HWY 20, BEND REQUEST: Modification of Conditions to allow MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS #1 & 5 OF TP -91-760 In order for the planning division to consider your comments they must be received by 06/30/97. If there are significant questions or problems with this application, a meeting with the applicant and Planning Division may be necessary. This meeting should be requested as soon as possible. List may facts, adopted policies, or any other comments you feel apply to this application: (Feel free to attach a Suggested Ac NO COMMENTS Check if you want a copy of the Staff Report or Findings and Decision. Q Agent ��� Date _�1 - '"'-C Please cact PAUL E. BLIKSTAD at 388-6575 if you have any questions. Thank you. HJT ES c0 ..:......: Department of Public Works .:.:...::. .: .{ 61150 S.E. 27th St., Bend, OR 97702 MEMORANDUM(541) 388-6581 -FAX (541) 388-2719 TO: Paul E. Blikstad, Planner, Deschutes County Planning Division FROM: Dick Johnson, Management Analyst, Deschutes County Public Works DATE: June 23, 1997 SUBJECT: MC -97-2 Bill Reed requests a Modification of Conditions #1 & #5 of TP -91-760 for Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision. Condition #1 deals with dwellings on each of the lots and condition #5 deals with division of the lots. The property is located adjacent to Highway 20 near Plainview. Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision is identified on the County Assessor's maps as follows: 16-11-4, tax lots 800, 802, 803, 804, 805 and 806, 16-11-9, tax lots 100 and 101 and 16- 11-10, tax lots 300 and 301. This land use request, if approved, would allow the further partitioning of each of the seven existing parcels in the Snow Creek Ranch Subdivision. This would add another seven single family homes to this area, thereby adding between 42 and 70 motor vehicle trips to Fryrear Road, which provides the oirly access to this property. These trips would be in addition to the 42 to 70 trips that will exist when the seven existing lots on Snow Creek Ranch Road are developed. The distance between the intersection of Snow Creek Ranch Road and Fryrear Road and the intersection of Highway 20 and Fryrear Road is just under 400 feet. This additional traffic could affect the intersection of Highway 20 and Fryrear Road which is already a busy intersection. Fryrear Road had an average daily traffic volume (ADT) of 474 in 1996 at a point located .08 mile north of Highway 20. Highway 20 has a traffic volume of several thousand vehicles per day, I'm waiting for ODOT to get back to me with the latest ADT for Highway 20. My concern is that each further partitioning of any lots within this subdivision will add incrementally to the existing traffic volumes on both Fryrear Road and Highway 20. Deschutes County does not have a systems development charge (SDC) to recover any of the direct road maintenance costs caused by these additional units. Obviously, additional vehicle registration fees and fuel taxes will be generated by any additional vehicles owned by vehicles of residents living in this area. Snow Creek Ranch Road has been improved with a paved two lane surface and can handle the traffic generated by either seven or fourteen dwellings. Planners will need to determine if this request meets all planning issues other than transportation concerns. Quality Services Performed with Pride DESChUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVIS.LON ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 1130 NW HARRIMAN ST �y1�y171879� BEND, OREGON 97701 �'+�` (541) 388-6575 N fir' 18 JUN 1997 DESCHUTES COUNTY ENVIR. HEALTH 1130 N.W. HARRIMAN STREET BEND, OR 97701 JUN 1991 �, MARLED KKs DESCHUTES A COUNTY h,`j� The Deschutes County Planning Division has received the attached application. Your agency may be affected or have concerns about this proposal. APPLICATION NUMBER: MC972 - 161104 00 00800 APPLICANT: BILL REED 66460 HWY 20, BEND REQUEST: Modification of Conditions to allow MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS $#1 & 5 OF TP -91-760 In order for the planning division to consider your comments they must be received by 06/30/97. If there are significant questions or problems with this application, a meeting with the applicant and Planning Division may be necessary. This meeting should be requested as soon as possible. List facts, adopted policies, or any other comments you feel may apply to this application: (Feel free to attach a separate sheet.) Suggested Action by Deschutes County: NO COMMENTS Agent Check if you want Staff Report or Decision. a copy of the Findings and Date Please contact PAUL E. BLIKSTAD at 388-6575 if you have any questions. Thank you. DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 1130 NW HARRIMAN STa361677F 7,9, BEND, OREGON 97701 �`o (541) 388-6575 ® �, JAN 199 W oFti Fa 18 JUN 1997 c9Z yF'4 DESCHUTES COUNTY ASSESSOR d.�b£�zrgts��� 1164 N.W. BOND STREET BEND, OR 97701 The Deschutes County Planning Division has received the attached application. Your agency may be affected or have concerns about this proposal. APPLICATION NUMBER: MC972 - 161104 00 00800 APPLICANT: BILL REED 66460 HWY 20, BEND REQUEST: Modification of Conditions to allow MODIFICATION OF, CONDITIONS #1 & 5 OF TP -91-760 In order for the planning division to consider your comments they must be received by 06/30/97. If there are significant questions or problems with this application, a meeting with the applicant and Planning Division may be necessary. This meeting should be requested as soon as possible. List facts, adopted policies, or any other comments you feel may apply to this application: (Feel free to attach a separate sheet.) Suggested Action by Deschutes County: _�NO COMMENTS _7' Check if you want a copy of the Staff Report or Findings and -Decision. _ r:1 l � r Agent--�' ��.,=. Date�� t f Please contact PAUL E. BLIKSTAD at 388-6575 if you have any questions. Thank you. mss' JUN 199-1 r DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, 1130 NW HARRIMAN ST BEND, OREGON 97701 ��6171g7���i (541) 388-6575 AN 19974 1Z �. °�0 vv s co 18 JUN 1997 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS 100 N.W. KEARNEY BEND, OR 97701 The Deschutes County Planning Division has received the attached application. Your agency may be affected or have concerns about this proposal. APPLICATION NUMBER: MC972 - 161104 00 00800 APPLICANT: BILL REED 66460 HWY 20, BEND REQUEST: Modification of Conditions to allow MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS #1 & 5 OF TP -91-760 In order for the planning division to consider your comments they must be received by 06/30/97. If there are significant questions or problems with this application, a meeting with the applicant and Planning Division may be necessary. This meeting should be requested as soon as possible. List facts, adopted policies, or any other comments you feel may apply to this application: (Feel free to attach a separate sheet.) Suggested Action by Deschutes County: . NO COMMENTS Check if you want a copy of the Staff Report or Findings and Decision. Agent , `, Date Please contact PAUL E. BLIKSTAD at 388-6575 if you have any questions. Thank you. co co r�nC�"LJ v>ES c Community Development Department Administration Bldg., 1130 N.W. Harriman, Bend, Oregon 97701 (541) 388-6575 FAX 385-1764 FILE NUMBER:` Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division CERTIFICAqE, PF NOTICE BY MAIL I certify that on day ofx, , attached notice/report, dated mailed by first-class mail, postag epaid, to the and address(es) set forth on the attached list. DATED this day of 199 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Gz Quality Services Performed with Pride 1997, the 1997, was person(s) 7 ���..6e7laz9 i{o J&) 199T �� �4®4�O fis I MM U �Y ti 1 N _ S00 51'13"W z a eW W w ti~� ti / 01j1,lVd HPM µN; 00 r LO LO wiz c� w m� 3 OLO p Z p0 m� W N 8 ,g m� 4 50043'06"W G23 — iY68Bi 3.Zi,0.Q00N 511 .3.24 N z < L70 n. z psi n,Ot lii6/ 3.Zt,OSw00N G) Gti 98Lt`N N0044'34"E 876.00' LLJ Nrn f4Y 1 21 3 -. ZR Z / ao ¢a r\ CL at z i Q a�3 to 'Wn w 'd'� CN 2:a�1 �2 �r� �6�� <ecQ c (IVp'I pp w �Q ¢K'O 'th 41 tti0 N NaN NIL W Y 3 y� N ••�� [il Puwi:i ►7i pO 2 W n N�~Q� W / -���. Ok 0.Zy Q ODU •W at zI a '�' �3a�Fvzi K ccZ a-pZZ 01 w `�// no� ��iQaQ Gc� hN 2t0 2 ��0 H � � ^ °'ao «a ya O�l 000�oo� 0 • kN z UtiO�O �oV1W�p1-O�IUO�K ez� pp W40�W hjaK�W����� rc� OW=�'OQ�'W'��uzUU3 a��U c.- WrizwS3ZZi c�krcQ��w py �'� OQ qoq �p W� 00 Ld 01j1,lVd HPM J � � U Ln I 8 50043'06"W _ — _ — 511 .3.24 W,p z psi 2 q WY Z \~ ^ -K Q � e 2 O vpv� �2 3 mf '` 3, N O r^ n z zM„ti9,Z4.00S a 3 ,ZI.92%t W V J cZv a j ti a Nth O ^ oa ¢yU 3 'j 'w a`� o� zap L1Wp aj9 ,.y�jly'S M /.0 0 n,Ot lii6/ 3.Zt,OSw00N G) Gti 98Lt`N N0044'34"E 876.00' LLJ Nrn f4Y 1 21 3 -. ZR Z / ao ¢a r\ CL at z i Q a�3 to 'Wn w 'd'� CN 2:a�1 �2 �r� �6�� <ecQ c (IVp'I pp w �Q ¢K'O 'th 41 tti0 N NaN NIL W Y 3 y� N ••�� [il Puwi:i ►7i pO 2 W n N�~Q� W / -���. Ok 0.Zy Q ODU •W at zI a '�' �3a�Fvzi K ccZ a-pZZ 01 w `�// no� ��iQaQ Gc� hN 2t0 2 ��0 H � � ^ °'ao «a ya O�l 000�oo� 0 • kN z UtiO�O �oV1W�p1-O�IUO�K ez� pp W40�W hjaK�W����� rc� OW=�'OQ�'W'��uzUU3 a��U c.- WrizwS3ZZi c�krcQ��w py �'� OQ qoq �p W� 00 1„xc�,�''�•`e l --; a em t �e3 i.^jY3}qs V 5 d . �' S3 � SSs �,ryre Kh \ •#s f• F cr V� r t N '' � t r r+� t J �t 1 IRA t�.RY, �� r. 9) �tk 7�gh 5 1 a b r a: �t 4 1� k "• ". �y v r '' r t T a �� � � � ' 4� !: r� � na43v� I' r+ '' { r��• � �1� ti�z:r+) � r r �i t<>! , � ,�.. � ft )A Ut..� Sir -tT�`3�j'�+x �', I � 1),' _,1 tA� ti \ � i 1 e v "H•,`.yf'`�t W19 ,���`fi. ": z} N „�.,.4 � '. ;='tl�� �r ��v� t e qk� � �+^°^� `.: h, ""+ � o�ta C1.,kc .� , FrrJr , •� ',�"v jd it � # N T `^ :�v� 'f t,; WAS A'l Al $" Xys•es t t - en-` +)�i.�s' s, n b °' { 3 Y k' All r ray �d �. S` t 'C r r d Aar + t 'iT r �r . h� s Fr. r- v fi r ,w -.•fir ' "}�✓ r • � �� Y � Gb y � � y r, � J ��g,"; r(i ¢ `iY � O ! b 1 rk a. ?,� r \ � 3 r � ,etiA ��,�'� ?h}pjr�3� ` '�• a�'r p E a �e M �..� � Tr�v ,: , )� �T�a J yg �fi � f ,' 4?�r r�.. T7� �`y' •m.-. � � �.� Jy c �t i �� ���}1 .�{ ��r �� � �c r ��7'QT i � !��`' iP ;k i Ir R : G Y .M ✓2 .. 'M �', t I "h 2r 1 'N.�9 �tr %'r ,a4 -.:4t r f ) r: r.. Y' a. 1� °rr} •, :++rr y ? ;� it 4 ?q 7.�.,y ''- "'� t�y'Vf '.� �i'2',,i"L: iGi,' `i -'r - - .BD NAPM ................................ ................ • ADbkESS........:.................. On Y......... ...,... STATE. ZIP.... GROUP' 1 BEND FIRE DEPARTMENT b NW MINNESOTA BEND ORy//Ht FD 2 BLACK BUllk FIkF DkVAk1MFNl L'llal UFF'IGL BUX 816:4 BLALK BUTTE. UN97759 FD 4 LAPINE Flkk DkPAK'IMLNT i1U.1 UF'FICk A%UX 1161 LAPINE OR97739 FD 5 REDMOND FIRE_DEPARTMENT •341 W. DOGWOOD REDMOND 093//56 FD 7 SUNRIVER FIRE DEPARTMENT PI)Sf 1)t F'EGE t'tOX .32/d :iUNKiVF:K OR97/0 FD 8 TOLLUAIk FIkE ll:t4lk1L:'I L:/U P.O. BUX lb"le sIC:lENS OR97759 FD 10 CENTRAL OkELiON 1KKIUAIION D'1'lK1C'1 2598 N HWY 97 kkDMUND OR97756-IE19 I 11 BOATS WATER SYSTEMS 6114/ HAMILOIN LANE BEND 13R•477M2 I 13 SWALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT PUSt' OPFIGE BOX S1S6 BEND 13897/1313-5126 I 14 TUMALU 1kk1UA'IIUN Dl 'IKlt:'I 6469'/ COOK AVFNUE PEND OR97701 1 16 LAPINE SANl•IAkY h SeWtk DISIRILI c/o KEN IKAVI5, P.U. BUX lIGB LAPINE OR97739 MISC " 17 CITY OF BEND - PLANNING DEP( PO -if OFF'IGE BOX 431 BEND OK9//09 Cl 19 CITY OF SISTERS - MEI: THUMPSUN POSE urp:cct- BI)X J9 :i1:3fER' tlR37Ji'3 CI - 20 BEND CABLE UOMMUNICAl I UNt-; PUSS UF'F I VE BUX SNF'/ 14kND Ok97708-5067 MISC z 22 BLACK BUIIF kANL:H UWNLKS' ASSU(:. VUSI UFF1Ck BUX 881616 bIl.0LkS OR97759 MISC 23 9-1-1 ba42M HAMBY ROAD BEND UR9/101 CO 25 DESCHUTES COUNTY BUILDING DIVISION 1130 N.W. HARRIWAN b 1 BEND 1JR97/0L CO - 26 DESCHU'1 ES L:ULIN'i Y CUbk ENt-UkUEpiF Nl 1J.40 N.W. HAkKINAN S'1 kk L-1 BIND Ok97701 CU 28 DESCHUIES CUUNIY ENVlk. HEALTH 13316 N.W. HAkklhAN SlH E1 BEND OR97701 CO z 29 DESCHUTES COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS 611bo G..E. 27fH SfRtkf BENI) 1JR97/02 CO 31 DESCHUTES COUNTY SURVEYOR/Jt-FV KERN 61 L:50 a. t. 811'H :i i RF'E 1' BEND OR9 / 104 CO 32 LEGAL UUUNt:k L, VkUPl- k't Y hiNM't . SE'k 4. ,. 1 1:40 N.W. BUND tt'1 kEF-1 _ Bk ND OR97701 CO 34 WATERMASIFK - DISIRIUI 11 1:4416 N.W. WALL, SUITE 0300 Bk ND Uk97701-1939 CO 35 CASCADE NATURAL GAS COMPANY 334 N.E. HAWTHORNE AVt'NUF -.SEND 0891/181 MISC `37 MIDSTATE ELECTRIC VOSI* OFFEGE BUX 127 LAPINE: 1JR137/31 MISC 64% N.W. WNLL S'tkEEl BEND OR97701 MISC. a9 :;Wl4A69 *01001 !14PAQl0iiA6li;F i)tkG'PR:66L 40 US WLST.,MMMUNIL•Al1UNS - IWO N.W. KtARNBY 6i -N- Bk ND 0R97701 MISC y41 BEND/LAPINE SCHOOL DISTRICT ti2d N.W. WALL BEND • UtCt317N1 -SD 43 SISTERS SCHOOL DISTRICT POSE OrtECE 11UX 99 SIS rERv OR97159 SD r47 DEPT. ENV. UUALl'IY (LEU) 2i46 N.k. 4'IH SINLL'1 BEND 0897701 ST 49 DEPT. .UF FUktSIKY RoUIE #a, BUX .357 PkINEV1LLE 0897754 ST 50 DEPT.GEOLOGY 8 MINERAL INDUStkIk5 Str36 QUEEN AVENUE, S.. E. ALBANY Ok9/.321 ST . 52 DLCD l l ltJ CUUR I' S fRE�--' f, N, L. !3ALEH t3K9 /.310 ST "S3 DIV153UN OF t;'IA'IE LANDS i3O.4WU EMPIRE AVFNUt Oe -i ktENL DR97701-5712 ST `59 0 D 0-.1`k A'llNs JkkkY NAUk VLUS'1 UF%'ICk'BUX 5 469.; :„- BEND OR97708-5309 ST bO 0'D O -:T - ATTH. PETER 'RUSSELL v 63034 U B RILEY' ROAD BERV i 04!601 OR97701 - ST 1.glAim 62 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT yt)Sr UF'110E BOX wso PRINF.VILI.r OR911*4 US 63 DISTk1Cl kAN6+ k, U..;. FURLSmj SERV. i.!:40 N'. 'IHI10 Sl., 11A-162 Bk ND OR97701 US 64 SISTERS RANGER ]DISTRICT, D. N. I- . p0ti f UFr 1t:E NUX 24.3 :i i5 CER:, UK'j / /;i'3 U$ 65 U.S. FUkL$51 tA-MVIL:E iG316 N.E. -IHlkv SlkEET Bk ND DR97701 US 67 SUNkIVEk UWNERS' ASSUL:IA'IION VUS'1 UFFlCk BUX 32!78 SUNkiVEK OR97707 MISC ' 68 SUNRIVER RESORT, L.P. I:1Uyf OFFICE BOX 3389 SUNRIVER UN9//0/ MISC 70 OREGON HEALTH DIVISION P. U. BUX 14468 POR fLAND OR9Ie 14 ST 71 OREGUN SlAlL PAKKS 216,4016 ENl-'lkE AVkNUF 014-1 Bk ND DR97701-5713 ST 76 TERkEBUNNE UUMES'11C WATER DISI. 11116 C AVFNUb 'IEkNLBUNNE DR97760 I ” 77 CENTRAL OREGON PARK R REG. DISTRfui P.U. BOX 84.3 RLDMUND 1JR9/1;;6 CO 82 MICHAEL HOUSER, HISTORIC PLHNNI_8 11.30 NW HAKRii•IAN :il'FtEEI' BEND 1JR97/01 CO 83 LA FINE 1NDUbIRIAL UkUUV INC P U BUX 1440 LA 1-1) NL OR97739 MISC F=7- HUMBER: M7 r . bw jeed 5000 3 /,76 4 4100 lq--393l # # # # # # # # A a 33- w 0 3- wO W h u>n azo m¢ -J L= I-- CL 0 M Wu7 . a tY M A M x M Z (7dODw M 0 M p A JM 43N xwo vMr M > n sza• _ M ►- a AJGr t:ao Od P) V) a 0 0 A Nit0Z (7dODw M E M m �r N A Zr F �o Zwr J r Z F- O` x ,0 Op '7 [r -wo mr-z NZ mIx0w w p M p x 0 h w J A ¢A Z >r r+ 0 0 war Jar -w 01 cr a} wwIt ol M4 0 aw0 Z�Z ,+ IEn 10 w -a IM 01 h n 0• A J a a z -0O 0 M En rn x Er to MWOw NZm►- + a N (7a0M Mm IL LO w QW0 Z M rn w wz(r a¢ J J Cr .0.O �r rn .4"o - aOrODA MW(VZ c)amw M x M p L" " w O h •-� n a>n wz0% M M 0 d Or J 0: CL cD } NWtn _ wIL LLrdZ (7O0Dw M V M m Ix 0 w w w h u� m h 3 „+ xcnOD (A wJ v a_ Jx3 J h d O - 3MW N - J M04th d Z(')h- NQ�}Q ODx0w -+ V (V U) W W h •+ U) m awn hU)0, h A Or h 0 O w w A - maz JPO w0E- N a a m .atw aa.r> �+ O. r J MxNU) N r 0 I-- Q N (o U Oh M h z V } J. M Z w sJh Q z W 0 w F- E LL. aw r+ cc O J O O o U rd 0 MZOZQ MJ4U) 0` uy n n J 0` Y zvit ¢00 M to LL M 0 x m Cd 00 W ('d+ZmN M w 0 M *+ 0 (L. U) a J3O 0 n aOrn J Z3X axO mz o,xao [7Q0Z drO�Ow M m .0 m aoo Mar J n M } P x3 ax tr 0'30 to z 00 M 0` - Q-zrn MIxOZ .�.+p,0 In Deschutes County Oregon Community Development Department FAX 'Phone Fax Phone Phone 0 For your review Date Number of pages including cover sheet FROM. Bend, Ore. Phone. 7F, (0� 2IL Bend Fax Phone: 541-385-1764 Redmond, Ore. Phone: Redmond Fax Phone; 541-923-3097 Please Comment Community Development Department Administration Bldg., 1130 N.W. Harriman, Bend, Oregon 97701 (541) 388-6575 FAX 385-1764 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division The Deschutes County Hearings Officer will hold a Public Hearing on TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997, at 7:00 P.M. in the Juvenile Justice Center Room A located at 1128 Harriman Street in Bend, to consider the following request: FILE NUMBER: MC -97-2 SUBJECT: An application for a Modification of Conditions to amend conditions of approval nos. 1 and 5 of the Tentative Plat for Snow Creek Ranch subdivision (TP -91-760). Condition #1 deals with dwellings on each of the lots and condition #5 deals with division of the lots. APPLICANT: Bill Reed LOCATION: The property is located adjacent to Highway 20 near Plainview. Snow Creek Ranch subdivision is identified on the County Assessor's maps as follows: 16-11-4, tax lots 800, 802, 803, 804, 805 and 806, 16-11-9, tax lots 100 and 101, and 16-11-10, tax lots 300 and 301. STAFF CONTACT: Paul Blikstad, Associate Planner ALL INTERESTED PERSONS MAY APPEAR, BE HEARD, BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, OR SEND WRITTEN SIGNED TESTIMONY. ALL WRITTEN REPLIES MUST BE RECEIVED BY THIS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE OR SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING. ANY PARTY TO THE APPLICATION IS ENTITLED TO A CONTINUANCE OF THE INITIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING OR TO HAVE THE RECORD LEFT OPEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.24.140 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE. NOPH - MC -97-2 Page 1 Quality Services Perforrrced with Pride A copy of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at the Planning Division at no cost, and can be purchased for 25 cents a page. STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA: * Chapter 18.16 of Title 18, EFU zone * The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan * Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code Please contact Paul Blikstad with the County Planning Division at (541) 388-6575 if you have any questions. NOPH - MC -97-2 Page 2 �.J Community Development Department Administration Bldg., 1130 N.W. Harriman, Bend, Oregon 97701 (541) 388-6575 FAX 385-1764 Planning Division NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Building safety Division Environmental Health Division The Deschutes County Hearings Officer will hold a Public Hearing on TUESDAY, JULY 22, 1997, at 7:00 P.M. in the Juvenile Justice Center Room A located at 1128 Harriman Street in Bend, to consider the following request: FILE NUMBER: MC -97-2 SUBJECT: An application for a Modification of Conditions to amend conditions of approval nos. 1 and 5 of the Tentative Plat for Snow Creek Ranch subdivision (TP -91-760). Condition #1 deals with dwellings on each of the lots and condition #5 deals with division of the lots. APPLICANT: Bill Reed LOCATION: The property is located adjacent to Highway 20 near Plainview. Snow Creek Ranch subdivision is identified on the County Assessor's maps as follows: 16-11-4, tax lots 800, 802, 803, 804, 805 and 806, 16-11-9, tax lots 100 and 101, and 16-11-10, tax lots 300 and 301. STAFF CONTACT: Paul Blikstad, Associate Planner ALL INTERESTED PERSONS MAY APPEAR., BE HEARD, BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, OR SEND WRITTEN SIGNED TESTIMONY_ ALL WRITTEN REPLIES MUST BE RECEIVED BY THIS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE OR SUBMITTED AT THE BEARING. ANY PARTY TO THE APPLICATION IS ENTITLED TO A CONTINUANCE OF THE INITIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING OR TO HAVE THE RECORD LEFT OPEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.24.140 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE. ("-�6 aJUN 1997MNLW BUTES NOPH - MC -97-2 - Property Owner COUNNPage 1 qJ�2L L£O`` Quality Services Performed with Pride Recipients of this notice may request a copy of the Staff Report (25 cents a page). Any person submitting written comment or who presents testimony at the hearing will receive a copy of the Hearings officer's findings and decision. Notice of the decision will only be provided to those who submit written or oral testimony regarding this application. Failure to raise an issue in person at the hearing or in writing precludes appeal by that person to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Failure to provide statements of evidence sufficient to afford the decision -maker an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to LUBA based on that issue. A copy of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at the Planning Division at no cost, and can be purchased for 25 cents a page. STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA: * Chapter 18.16 of Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, Exclusive Farm Use zones; 18.16.050, Standards for dwellings in the EFU zones; 18.16.060, Dimensional standards; 18.16.065, Subzones. * The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan establishes an overall planning and development framework for the County. * Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code: Chapter 22.28, Land Use Action Decisions; Chapter 22.24, Land Use Action Hearings. Section 22.36.040, Modification of approval. NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST PROMPTLY BE FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. Please contact Paul Blikstad with the County Planning Division at (541) 388-6575 if you have any questions. NOPH - MC -97-2 - Property Owner Page 2 BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION APPLICANT: BURDEN OF PROOF BILL REED APPLICANT/ OWNER: Bill Reed P.O. Box 219 Sisters, Oregon 97759 AGENT: Dale Van Valkenburg Bryant Lovlien & Jarvis P.C. Post Office Box 1151 Bend, Oregon 97709-1151 REQUEST: Approval of a Modification of Conditions for TP -91-760, the Snow Creek Ranch subdivision. The Applicant seeks to modify condition #1 as already modified by file MC -93-15, and condition #5. APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Title 22 of the County Code, Land Use Procedures: * Chapter 22.36, Limitation on Approvals Section 22.36.040, Modification of Approvals FINDINGS of FACT: 1. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the east side of Highway 20, between Fryrear and Innes Market Roads, and is identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Map # 16-11-4 as tax lots 800, 802, 803 804, and 805; on Map # 16-11-9 as tax lots 100 and 101; and on Map #16-11-10 as tax lots 300 and 301. 2. ZONING: The subject property is zoned EFU-TRB, Exclusive Farm Use - Tumalo/RedmondBend Subzone, and LM - Landscape Management Combining Zone. The property is designated as Agriculture on the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, Bill Reed Burden of Proof P?DATAOEVCLMNT QS1F MOD - Page 1 Bryant Lovhen ® Jas AI`AOfH&QVALCOIOi)IN- ATIOIL'F1IA- 40 N.W. Greenwood - P.O. Box 1151 ■ Bend, Oregon 97709-1151 - (541) 382-4331 • Fax (541) 389-3386 3. PROPOSAL: The Applicant is proposing a Modification of Conditions to amend conditions of approval #1 and #5 of TP -91-760, which was platted on December 12, 1995 as subdivision plat D-177. Condition of approval 91 was previously amended by MC -93- 15 so that it now reads: "l. Each lot must obtain a conditional use permit for a farm dwelling pursuant to applicable Deschutes County ordinances and state law." Condition of approval #5 currently reads: 115. No further subdivision of this land would be allowed since this appears to be the minimum size in this area for farm use. Also, any further division would necessarily split up productive farm land and make it difficult to site residences on lands that did not encompass agricultural lands." In order to allow the approval of a non-farm dwelling conditional use permit and to allow a non-farm homesite to be partitioned off from the remaining farm acreage, the proposal would modify these conditions as follows: "l. Each lot must obtain a conditional use permit for a dwelling pursuant to applicable Deschutes County ordinances and state law." 115. Further subdivision shall be allowed only pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.16.055(B) pertaining to the creation of one new parcel for a nonfarm dwelling, and then only if a deed restriction against any additional dwellings is placed on the remainder farm parcel." REQUIRED FINDINGS, BURDEN OF PROOF: The authority modify a decision stems from Section 22.36.040 (Modification of approval) of Title 22, the Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance, which provides the following: "A. An applicant may apply to modify an approval at any time after a period of six months has elapsed from the time a land use action approval has become final. Bill Reed Burden of Proof WDATA DkV TffITnQ-SVFIDL OD.ODI Page 2 Bryant IAMien ® Jarvis Af'It0iE2lQtiALCOMDAAIIW Al'InPIJ5�5 AT UN' 40 N.W. Greenwood - P.O. Box 1151 - Bend, Oregon 97709-1151 - (541) 382-4331 - Fax (541) 389-3386 FINDING: The subject approval was granted in September of 1991. More than six months has elapsed since the approval was issued. "B. Unless otherwise specified in a particular zoning ordinance provision, the grounds for filing a modification shall be that a change of circumstances since the issuance of the approval makes it desirable to make changes to the proposal, as approved. A modification shall not be filed as a substitute for an appeal or to apply for a substantially new proposal or one that would have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. FINDING: There has been a significant change in circumstances pertaining to the applicable state and local land use regulations governing development of EFU-zoned lands since the original approval in 1991, and since the modification approved in 1993. The current state of applicable law is such that it is practically impossible for any of the lots created by TP -91-760 to qualify for approval of a farm related dwelling. However, other changes in applicable law now make it possible for nonfarm dwellings to be approved on a portion of a lot or parcel that is generally unsuitable for farm use. In addition, a new parcel less than the otherwise applicable minimum lot size (20 acres) may be created in conjunction with a nonfarm dwelling conditional use approval. The proposed modifications of conditions of approval #1 and 95 would allow the Snow Creek Subdivision lots to be developed in this manner. If a portion of a lot is found to be generally unsuitable for farm use through the conditional use process, then a small parcel could be created through the partition process. The purpose of the partition would simply be to allow the balance of the property, the remainder farm parcel, to remain on farm tax deferral. The farm tax deferral works as an incentive for the property to be developed for agricultural use. If the entire property is disqualified from farm tax deferral, it will discourage investment in agricultural improvements as it would result in higher property taxes at real market value. This would be contrary to the Hearings Officer Ed Fitch's finding of explanation in condition #5. The Applicant is willing to place a deed restriction on the remainder farm parcel as a condition of approval for any partition approved under this method. The deed restriction would not allow any other dwellings to be sited on the remainder farm parcel, thus effectively eliminating the Hearings Officer's concerns that the approval would lead to a rural residential subdivision. "C. An application to modify an approval shall be directed to one or more discrete aspects of the approval, the modification of which would not amount to approval of a substantially new proposal or one that would have significant additional impacts on surrounding properties. Any proposed Bill Reed Burden of Proof Page 3 Bryant Lovhen ® Jarvis APROfFWPVALCVR(bPA11Q:J A�—Ar Low 40 N.W. Greenwood - P.O. Box 1151 - Bend, Oregon 97709-1151 - (541) 382-4331 - Fax (541) 389-3386 modification, as defined in this section, shall be reviewed only under the criteria applicable to that particular aspect of the proposal. Proposals that would modify an approval in a scope greater than allowable as a modification shall be treated as an application for a new proposal. FINDING: The proposed modifications are directed specifically at conditions of approval #1 and #5. The proposal does not result in a substantially new application, but rather is simply a response to changes in applicable law since the earlier approvals were granted. "D. An application for a modification shall be handled as a land use action." FINDING: The Applicant has made application on forms provided by the County, is submitting this statement in support of the proposal, and has included the appropriate fee as provided in the County's fee schedule. The Applicant understands that the proposal is subject to public notice and the opportunity for an appeal. CONCLUSION: The Applicant respectfully requests approval of the proposed modification of conditions based on the above findings. Dated this 30th day of May, 1997 Bryant Lovlien & Jarvis ale Van Principal Tanner DEV:dev Bill Reed Burden of Proof awArAmev c masQ snn son.w Page 4 Bryant 1"lien ® Jarvis AIROFt ALCOPJOIWiION ATIORYEt5ATLW 40 N.W. Greenwood • P.O. Box 1151 • Bend, Oregon 97709-1151 • (541) 382-4331 - Fax (541) 389-3386 ��1 j: DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION 11-0 I NW Harriman Street, Bend, OR 97701 (541)388-6575 LAND USE APPLICATION INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED 1. Complete the application form and provide appropriate signatures. 2. Attach correct fee. 3 Include a plot plan which shows all property lines and existing and proposed structures, parking, landscaping, lighting, etc. 4 All applicable standards and criteria must be addressed in writing prior to acceptance of the application. Detailed descriptions, maps and other relevant information must be attached to the application. TYPE OF APPLICATION (check one): APPLICATION FEE: $ 2 9 8. 0 0 CONDITIONAL USE (CU)_ TEMPORARY USE (TU)_ SETBACK EXCEPTION (SE) PARTITION (MP)_ SITE PLAN (SP)_ OTHER: MODIFICATION�F CONDITIO1 SUBDIVISION (TP)_ VARIANCE (V) APPLICANTS NAME (print): BILL REED PHONE(5 41)5 49-6000 MAILNG ADDRESS: P, -'O: BOX 219 CITY: SISTERS STATE: OR ZIP: 97759 PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME (if different): PHONE( MAILNG ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP: 1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Township 2. PROPERTY ZONE(S): EFU—TRB/LM 3. PROPERTY ADDRESS: HWY 2 0 1611 4 300 (and others see Range Section Tax Lot�rden of Proof) PROPERTY SIZE (acres or sq. ft.): 508 ACRES 4. PRESENT USE OF PROPERTY: VACANT 5. EXISTING STRUCTURES: NONE 6. REQUEST: MODIFICATION OF CONDITIONS NO. 1 AND 5 OF TP -91-760 7. PROPERTY WILL BE SERVED BY: Sewer, 8. DOMESTIC WATER SOURCE: WELL On -Site Disposal System X APPLICANTS SIGNATURE: ` �� — DATE:1�14 q 7 q PROPERTY OWNER'S SIGNATURE (if differ t): DATE: ( 7- AGENT'S NAMEpP if applicable):_ DALE E. ALKENBURG HONE( 541 ) 41) 382-4331 ( MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 1151 CITY: BEND STATE: OR ZIP. 97709 If this application is not signed by the property owner a letter authorizing signature by the applicant must be attached. 3197 5-30-1997 10:57AM FROM CB REED BRAS. REALTY 541 549 0171 REED Pow -� yB�ROS." SISTERS, OR 87768 Lfr�f l BUS. (681) S494M • FAX (541) 54"171 May 30, 1997 Community Development Department Administration Bldg. 1130 N.W. Hardman Bend, OR 97701 Via fax: 389-3386 .Ladies and Gentlemen: Please be advised that Dale Van Valkenburg, Bob Lovhen or Sharon. Smith has authorization to sign land use applications on our behali Thank you for your assistance ba this matter. Sincexe]y, WWkm R. Reed, Jr. M. F. Reed An Independently owned and Operated Member of Coldwell Banker Residential Afflllates. Inc. l ASR INQ Serial: 131227 Acct: R 6-012 161104 00 0080u Port 244 08:16:18 10 JUL 1997 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 POTENTIAL ADD'L TAX TYPE: ABATED AMOUNT 6862.20 Site Address: 66460 HWY 20 BEND 97701 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: 1 Prop C1s:450 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFU20LM *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D6 39.26 125,630 155 DEFERRED Page 1 *** --------1997-------- --------1996-------- --------1995-------- Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd o RMV Ass'd o RMV Ass'd o LND: 125,630 155 125,630 155 98,125 155 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 1.48 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-96 4096 -1.44 -0.04 C 90 708490 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 1.49 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-95 3659 -1.45 -0.04 C 90 595736 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 1.51 Trn Date Etch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 06-14-95 3496 -1.60 0.09 L 90 561322 ASR INQ Serial: 185296 Acct: R 6-012 161104 00 00802 Port 244 08:16:27 10 JUL 1997 Page 1 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: 2 Prop C1s:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) it :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D4 23.00 64,400 2,348 DEFERRED EFU.D6 30.62 85,735 122 DEFERRED *Total 53.62 150,135 2,470 *** --------1997-------- --------1996-------- --------1995-------- Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd % LND: 150,135 2,470 150,135 2,470 87,005 2,315 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 24.01 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-96 4096 -23.29 -0.72 C 90 708482 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 22.58 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-95 3659 -21.90 -0.68 C 90 595742 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 22.70 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-95 3659 -25.43 2.73 L 90 595741 ASR INQ Serial: 191269 Acct: R 6-012 161104 00 0080b Port 244 08:17:09 10 JUL 1997 Page 1 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: PTN 2 Prop C1s:550 MA:6 VA:17 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D7 1.99 4,975 10 DEFERRED *** --------1997-------- Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd o LND: 4,975 10 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 0.09 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-96 4096 -0.09 --------1996-------- Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd 15 4,975 10 --------1995-------- Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd o Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 0.00 C 90 708480 ASR INQ Serial: 185297 Acct: R 6-012 161104 00 0080.1 Port 244 08:1.6:42 10 JUL 1997 Page 1 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. THOMAS,DONALD NEIL THOMAS,JANE STEINFELD 15411 NW MCNAMEE ROAD PORTLAND OR 97231 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: 3 Code Splits: 6013 Prop C1s:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3941866 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMA.LO/REDMOND/BEND) It :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D4 23.00 64,400 2,344 DEFERRED EFU.D6 27.70 69,250 111 DEFERRED *Total 50.70 133,650 2,455 *** --------1997-------- --------1996-------- --------1995-------- Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd o RMV Ass'd o RMV Ass'd o LND: 133,650 2,455 133,650 2,455 133,750 2,295 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 23.87 Trn Date Btch Received 10-25-96 4062 -23.15 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 22.37 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -21.70 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 22.52 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -25.22 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# -0.72 C 90 660058 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# -0.67 C 90 595748 Description Description Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 2.70 L 90 595746 ASR INQ Serial: 185299 Acct: R 6-012 161104 00 00804 Port 244 08:16:54 10 JUL 1997 Page 1 INFORMATION IS NOT.WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. STEINFELD,H RICHARD STEINFELD,PAMALYNN N 234 NW SKYLINE BLVD PORTLAND OR 97210 Site Address: 18325 SNOW CREEK LN BEND 97701 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: PT 4 Prop C1s:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3941872 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) 11 :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D4 4.00 10,000 409 DEFERRED EFU.D6 35.21 88,025 141 DEFERRED *Total 39.21 98,025 550 *** --------1997-------- --------1996-------- --------1995-------- Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd o RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd LND: 98,025 550 98,025 550 98,650 520 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 5.34 Trn Date Etch Received 11-07-96 4073 -5.18 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 5.07 Trn Date Etch Received 11-15-95 3659 -4.92 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 5.09 Trn Date Etch Received 11-15-95 3659 -5.70 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.16 C 90 673717 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.15 C 90 595755 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 0.61 L 90 595753 . ASR INQ Serial: 131413 Acct: R 6-013 161109 00 00100 Port 244 08:17:28 10 JUL 1997 Page 1 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 POTENTIAL ADD'L TAX TYPE: ABATED AMOUNT 2064.56 Site Address: 66308 HWY 20 BEND 97701 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: PT 6 Prop C1s:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) it :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values *** ASMI TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D4 77.07 165,700 7,860 DEFERRED EFU.D6 0.47 1,010 5 DEFERRED *Total 77.54 166,710 7,865 *** --------1997-------- --------1996-------- --------1995-------- Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd o RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd a LND: 166,710 7,865 166,710 7,865 167,955 7,380 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 68.12 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-96 4096 -66.08 -2.04 C 90 708488 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 63.95 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-95 3659 -62.03 -1.92 C 90 595767 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 63.84 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-95 3659 -71.49 7.65 L 90 595765 ASR INQ Serial: 149873 Acct: R 2-007 161110 00 00301 Port 244 08:17:56 10 JUL 1997 Page 1 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 Site Address: 18475 SNOW CREEK LN BEND 97701 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: PT 6 Prop C1s:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) if :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D4 19.46 41,840 1,987 DEFERRED EFU.D6 8.29 17,825 33 DEFERRED *Total 27.75 59,665 2,020 *** --------1997-------- --------1996-------- --------1995-------- Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd o RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd o LND: 59,665 2,020 59,665 2,020 42,775 1,550 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 20.44 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-96 4096 -19.83 -0.61 C 90 708485 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 16.87 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-95 3659 -16.36 -0.51 C 90 595769 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 20.71 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-95 3659 -23.19 2.48 L 90 595768 ASR INQ Serial: 131989 .Acct: R 2-007 161110 00 0030u Port 244 08:17:47 10 JUL 1997 Page 1 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 POTENTIAL ADD'L TAX TYPE: ABATED AMOUNT 2618.88 Site Address: 66080 HWY 20 BEND 97701 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: 7 Code Splits: 6013 Prop C1s:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) if :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES R.M.V ASS'D EFU.D4 84.36 150,160 8,606 DEFERRED EFU.D6 19.76 35,170 79 DEFERRED *Total 104.12 185,330 8,685 *** --------1997-------- --------1996-------- --------1995-------- Total Total Tr Total Total Tr Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd % RMV Ass'd o RMV Ass'd LND: 185,330 8,685 185,330 8,685 192,645 8,485 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 87.95 Trn Date Etch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-96 4096 -85.31 -2.64 C 90 708486 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 92.26 Trn Date Btch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-95 3659 -89.49 -2.77 C 90 595771 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 113.42 Trn Date Etch Received Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 11-15-95 3659 -127.03 13.61 L 90 595770 ASR IN4 Serial: 185301 Acct: R 6-013 161110 00 0030U Port 244 08:17:47 10 JUL 1997 Page 1 INFORMATION IS NOT WARRANTED OR GUARANTEED ACCURATE. REED,WILLIAM R JR REED,MYRON F PO BOX 218 SISTERS OR 97759 Assessor Property Description SNOW CREEK RANCH Lot: 7 Code Splits: 2007 Prop C1s:550 MA:6 VA:17 Vol-Page:3912111 Asmt Zone:EFU CDD Zone:EFUTRB (EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - TUMALO/REDMOND/BEND) if :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values *** ASMT TYPE ACRES EFU.D4 6.69 *** --------1997-------- Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd o LND: 11,910 680 Factor Book: Land: 94 Appraisal Year: Land: 94 96 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 5.88 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-96 4096 -5.70 95 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 4.34 Trn Date Btch Received 11-15-95 3659 -4.21 94 Balance Due Adval Tax 0.00 4.32 Trn Date Btch Received 06-14-95 3496 -4.55 R.M.V ASS'D 11,910 680 DEFERRED --------1996-------- Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd o 11,910 680 --------1995-------- Total Total Tr RMV Ass'd 9,325 500 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.18 C 90 708479 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description -0.13 C 90 595773 Int/Disc Jrnl Rcpt# Description 0.23 L 90 561324 w vCommunit Development Department A4,1A Community p p Administration Bldg., 1130 N.W. Harriman, Bend, Oregon 97701 (503) 388-6575 Planning Division Building Safety Division 09,53 Environmental Health Division FILE NQMBER: CERTIFICATE OF NOTICE BY MAIL +11— I 1`_I certify that on day of , 1995, the attached notice/repor , dated 1995, was mailed by first-class mail, pastae Pfepaid, to the person(s) and address(es) set forth on the attached list. DATED this ��r day of -C" 1995. $gb% 12137gt'S,b' �A -440 COMKUNITY DEVELOPMENT_ DEPARTMENT OEC 1995 CH a By; CO H TES tv 1�+Q�s28t z�Z��w1, LZ9 Quality Services Performed ivith Pride Community Development Department Administration Bldg., 1130 N.W. Harriman, Bend, Oregon 97701 i (503) 388-6575 FAX 385-1764 Planning Division December 13, 1995 Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division William R. and'Myron F. Reed P.O. Box 219 Sisters, OR 97759 RE: File IRP -95-3 Gentlemen: This is to inform you that the above mentioned Replat has received final approval. If you should have any questions, please call the Planning Division. Sincerely, DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION la&&4'zJ- 11 2'1314 7S 76>> Paul Blikstad Associate Planner % PEB : s lr ' � '{ Epi N� o�AW. Enclosure C4 -e _ A cc: File _��OC6i8ZLZ County Surveyor County Cartographer Western Title & Escrow First American Title Key Title & Escrow Central Oregon Underground Utilities Coordinating Council Cloverdale Fire Department W & H Pacific Quality Services Performed with Pride 6. After the Board has signed the final plat it must be picked up by the applicant for duplication. Two mylar copies (which must be certified as true and exact copies of the originals) and 15 blue line copies are required. Mylar copies are kept at the County Surveyor's Office and County Clerk's Office. Blue line copies are distributed to the County Assessor's Office, title companies, fire districts and other agencies. Don't forget copies for yourself. 7. When the copies are prepared they must be returned to the Planning Division. The Planning Division must review the final plat to ensure it has not been altered. The easiest way to receive final Planning approval is to make an appointment with the Planner who was the reviewer of the original application. Phone 388-6575. A final plat can also be turned in for review by attaching the appropriate fee and leaving the plat and copies at the reception window. You will be called when the plat is ready to record. 8. The final step is receiving a plat number and recording the plat with the County Clerk. No plat may be recorded unless it is accompanied by a signed statement of water rights unless the plat displays approval of an irrigation district. A recording fee is required at the Clerk's Office. Signature in the space below by a Planner will allow issuance of a plat number and recording by the County Clerk's Office. The County Code prohibits the Clerk's Office from recording plats without final Planning Division approval. File # �2�-� is complete and the plat may be recorded by the County Clerk. �r�o� Gre.� �C' �cc�,c-f�i ✓�e�fCl Planning Division Date File ## �tsr has been recorded as Plat .mak y� I Coun Clerk's Office Date Final Plat November 1993 Page 2 ES ctsQ ?; { Community Development Department + K, -:S Administration Bldg., 1130 N.W. Harriman, Bend, Oregon 97701 (503) 388-6575 Planning Division Building Safety Division nn /� 3 Environmental Health Division FILE NUMBER: i� f '95' tki,di1'? S eec/Sox7 CERTIFICATE OF NOTICE BY MAIL I certify that on a-r—z"day of j , 1995, attached notice/report, dated Ida , 1995, mailed by first-class mail, postage p epaid, to the person and address(es) set forth on the attached list. rzk DATED this day of , 1995. w COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT By: 6— 1?7 2,70 ✓I) Quality Services Performed with Pride the was 1234q&' NOV 1995 MAID N o^�cHu s �, William Groves From: Laurie Craghead <laurie.craghead@outlook.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 3:10 PM To: William Groves; Ed Fitch Subject: Re: Steinfeld Nonfarm Partition - final rebuttal deadline Yes, Pamalynn talked to him too. He told her something a bit different. We're working on getting more information and IT put it in with my other information for this first submittal. As for the timing of the final arguments, you don't need a new order. Laurie E. Craghead Attorney at Law PO Box 5833 Bend, OR 97708-5833 (458) 206-6884 THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IS CONFIDENTIAL. IN PARTICULAR, IT MAY BE PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY- CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, AND OTHER PRIVILEGES AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SENDER HAS NOT WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE AND THAT YOU MAY NOT READ, DISCLOSE, COPY, DISTRIBUTE, USE OR TAKE ACTION BASED UPON THIS TRANSMISSION OR ANY ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THE E-MAIL. THIS E-MAIL COMMUNICATION IS NOT INTENDED AS AND SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS LEGAL ADVICE OR OPINION. THE TRANSMISSION OF THIS E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SENDER AND YOU. DO NOT ACT OR RELY UPON THE INFORMATION IN THIS COMMUNICATION WITHOUT SEEKING THE ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY. From: William Groves <William.Groves@deschutes.org> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 2:32 PM To: 'Laurie Craghead'; Ed Fitch Subject: RE: Steinfeld Nonfarm Partition -final rebuttal deadline I talked to Chief Olsen with Cloverdale Fire. He said the county fire road standard (from the F2 zone) would work for the emergency access, which I've quoted below, with an all-weather (gravel) surface. Access roads shall have an unobstructed horizontal clearance of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13.5 feet, and provide an all-weather surface. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Will Will Groves I Senior Planner, CFM o, Ts 117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bend, Oregon 97703 PO Box 6005 1 Bend, Oregon 97708 Tel: (541) 388.651.8 1 www.deschutes.org/cd G 10 08 Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with DCC 22.20.005 and shall not be deemed to constitute final County action effecting a change in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. From: Laurie Craghead <laurie.craghead@outlook.com> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 4:49 PM To: Ed Fitch <ed@fitchlawgroup.com>; William Groves <William.Groves@deschutes.org> Subject: Re: Steinfeld Nonfarm Partition - final rebuttal deadline I have: 1. Dolan rough proportionality issue. 2. Accident relationship to emergency access. That, however, was not my argument. My argument is that may have been why ODOT didn't allow a secondary access to Hwy 20 in 1991 when the original plat was recorded. 3. Whether the deed requirement was ongoing. Anything else, Will? Laurie E. Craghead Attorney at Law PO Box 5833 Bend, OR 97708-5833 (458) 206-6884 THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IS CONFIDENTIAL. IN PARTICULAR, IT MAY BE PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY- CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, AND OTHER PRIVILEGES AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SENDER HAS NOT WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE AND THAT YOU MAY NOT READ, DISCLOSE, COPY, DISTRIBUTE, USE OR TAKE ACTION BASED UPON THIS TRANSMISSION OR ANY ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THE E-MAIL. THIS E-MAIL COMMUNICATION IS NOT INTENDED AS AND SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS LEGAL ADVICE OR OPINION. THE TRANSMISSION OF THIS E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SENDER AND YOU. DO NOT ACT OR RELY UPON THE INFORMATION IN THIS COMMUNICATION WITHOUT SEEKING THE ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY. From: Ed Fitch <ed@fitchlawgroup.com> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 4:40 PM To: Laurie Craghead; 'William Groves' Subject: RE: Steinfeld Nonfarm Partition - final rebuttal deadline No problem with May 211t. Will can you bullet point the issues you see need briefing so we are all on the same page Edward P. Fitch Attorney 210 SW 5th St., Suite 2 Redmond, OR 97756 541-316-1588 541316-1943 fax ed@fitchlawgroup.com www.fitchlawgroup.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email transmission, and any documents, files or previous email messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us be reply at info@fitchlawgroup.com or by telephone at 541316-1588, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to a disk. From: Laurie Craghead <laurie.craghead@outlook.com> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 3:41 PM To:'William Groves' <William.Groves@deschutes.org> Cc: Ed Fitch <ed@fitchlawgroup.com> Subject: Steinfeld Nonfarm Partition - final rebuttal deadline Will: I didn't have my calendar with me when we all agreed on the dates. I just noticed that the May 19 final argument deadline agreed to falls on a Saturday. That would make the deadline fall to the next Monday, May 21 or did I not hear the date correctly? Laurie E. Craghead Attorney at Law PO Box 5833 Bend, OR 97708-5833 (458) 206-6884 THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IS CONFIDENTIAL. IN PARTICULAR, IT MAY BE PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY- CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, AND OTHER PRIVILEGES AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SENDER HAS NOT WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE AND THAT YOU MAY NOT READ, DISCLOSE, COPY, DISTRIBUTE, USE OR TAKE ACTION BASED UPON THIS TRANSMISSION OR ANY ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THE E-MAIL. THIS E-MAIL COMMUNICATION IS NOT INTENDED AS AND SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS LEGAL ADVICE OR OPINION. THE TRANSMISSION OF THIS E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SENDER AND YOU. DO NOT ACT OR RELY UPON THE INFORMATION IN THIS COMMUNICATION WITHOUT SEEKING THE ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY. William Groves From: Ed Fitch <ed@fitchlawgroup.com> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 4:41 PM To: Laurie Craghead; William Groves Subject: RE: Steinfeld Nonfarm Partition - final rebuttal deadline No problem with May 215`. Will can you bullet point the issues you see need briefing so we are all on the same page Edward P. Fitch Attorney 210 SW 5th St., Suite 2 Redmond, OR 97756 541-316-1588 541316-1943 fax edPfitchlawsroup.com www.fitchlawgroup.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email transmission, and any documents, files or previous email messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us be reply at info@f itch lawgroup.com or by telephone at 541316-1588, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to a disk. From: Laurie Craghead <laurie.craghead@outlook.com> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 3:41 PM To:'William Groves' <William.Groves@deschutes.org> Cc: Ed Fitch <ed@fitchlawgroup.com> Subject: Steinfeld Nonfarm Partition - final rebuttal deadline Will: I didn't have my calendar with me when we all agreed on the dates. I just noticed that the May 19 final argument deadline agreed to falls on a Saturday. That would make the deadline fall to the next Monday, May 21 or did I not hear the date correctly? Laurie E. Craghead Attorney at Law PO Box 5833 Bend, OR 97708-5833 (458) 206-6884 THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION IS CONFIDENTIAL. IN PARTICULAR, IT MAY BE PROTECTED BY THE ATTORNEY- CLIENT PRIVILEGE, THE WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE, AND OTHER PRIVILEGES AND CONFIDENTIALITY PROVISIONS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT THE SENDER HAS NOT WAIVED ANY PRIVILEGE AND THAT YOU MAY NOT READ, DISCLOSE, COPY, DISTRIBUTE, USE OR TAKE ACTION BASED UPON THIS TRANSMISSION OR ANY ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SENDER AND DELETE THE E-MAIL. THIS E-MAIL COMMUNICATION IS NOT INTENDED AS AND SHOULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS LEGAL ADVICE OR OPINION. THE TRANSMISSION OF THIS E-MAIL COMMUNICATION DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SENDER AND YOU. DO NOT ACT OR RELY UPON THE INFORMATION IN THIS COMMUNICATION WITHOUT SEEKING THE ADVICE OF AN ATTORNEY. < Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Business Meeting of June 25, 2018 DATE: June 19, 2018 FROM: Nick Lelack, Community Development, 541-385-1708 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: DELIBERATION: CDD Work Plan for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 The Board of County Commissioners will deliberate, decide, and adopt the Community Development Department Annual Report and Work Plan for FY 2018-19. MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Nick Lelack, AICP, Director DATE: June 25, 2018 SUBJECTS: Community Development Department (CDD) Work Plan FY 2018-19 Deliberations BACKGROUND The purpose of this agenda item is for the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to deliberate, decide, and adopt the Community Development Department (CDD) Annual Report and Work Plan for FY 2018-19. The Long Range Planning Decision Matrix is intended to assist the Board determine the projects to include in or remove from the Planning Division's Long Range Work Plan. In addition to the Matrix, the Board will decide: 1. Whether to include the Central Oregon Association of Realtors (COAR) proposed addition to the Environmental Soils Work Plan (Support for initiating a public education, information, and outreach effort regarding allowed uses on vacant, recreational lots in Southern Deschutes County to residents and realtors.). 2. The overall CDD Annual Report and Work Plan, including other projects for all CDD Divisions, as proposed or modified by the Board at this meeting. Upon adoption, CDD will amend and finalize the FY 2018-19 Work Plan. II. BOARD DECISION Staff seeks Board adoption of the CDD Annual Report and Work Plan FY 18-19 at this meeting, prior to the start of the new fiscal year on July 1, 2018. Attachment Susan Strauss testimony 0 .N 'u a, D V `m O m O N N i_+ O N L N m O N m p m p m p Z E 0 N N N N N N N Y co Y Co = m v E a` u u u u v u ~ c ~ 0 O O O O Y a na CA to .0) U j 4- Y L C m E C E C m E a` = c C c c c `a O Y c v H u v E C� m ?� Q CL 1- Q 1- coo c j p Q a a y m a a -- H Q Q Q L (La m m O L m L Om L L 3 a1 () aJ c O a) O a1 c a) O a1 N O O = O c O CO c O CCO C cc G E G G N m @ Y O C OA m YO s Y N •N a) O C o -0 O m N U Q (.1 O Y Y m •N = .c a cu O Y LrJ 3 U = Q O ai = N m C L m E p Q@ m E 0" N m> c C p a 0 O '0 " °� '0 E al a) m 0- a a u a) o n a, m o 4" T a C o a C o bD c ?= ao E a, E 3 m m v W v L ;� .@ c, o E v v C- �� oa �� 3 °Y' m �.@ o m'Q E C N 'N '^ C: a1 C O �'' C -Yp a m v -C '> N Q m m N N a7 C Y VI \@ L 3 E Q o o a s m O Y M c 3 o o N E- t cu Q O N p N N v .c v �_ 3 o o a Y p L a tn `" � _T Q m .+ CL a p v 0= w 0 0 aT+ N c O U aJ a) _ a CJ a m C cr m a) Y 01 U E m eco �' U U ,- c E `° p — 3 m a) 0 T C O C N M �_ o U U •° _ •_ FO N O U 4- L O Y L U a) Y h=D w v v aJ N O a) U L N O_ 0 0 O N C.J O"C m m aI Y Q. L Y ei N N W U u '�E = Y = Y L 4L - s a v CD C ai Ln� z a 3 Q 3 o Q Vl N (n o 3 N Q 7 � ,� c N 0 a N C N C m y v +� s° cu 'a p o 0 s rJ ro 0 Y c U Y a) o v '+� -o e Y m v c Y m T + o = a = m E c o Q m m C m CL -O 6 C L a C C v Y L C m U 4- m a1 L a "6 C E E 7 a1 'c N m E N u E— i+ N s m C7 = a) E ai E0 O p N c c v s O �° Y O v U Q m m U u Q v Q O a, Y H= U n. m U m w c o Qj Cl) a, v Cc a N a co � a d, In v O CL c p i v "n O LA u °ia 2 ^ oQc 06 E Q oa a :C c ` a � U ru E a, x v E o m o o a °' o E,a a w¢ c � c m v�� = o tea, v Z cc m 0 .N 'u aJ D r`a O 00 N al W "6 "p +�+ 00 LLro C >• T u7 LL C 'O a) N ro "6 T �+ 3 c +�+ p ++ OZS rn u T C +m•+ L •E L N Q O C ,> I 00 C i C C � a) Z O O T "O 0 Z ro ra Op — M 00 O _ C7 p O° O •L 0 •L C C O v �- a a +_' U a) �+ p I% m �'' C aJ CL E S L Q a O N E "O O m a! O U •� Q p 'O rN6 vOi i dA aJ t1'I C a-1 N U i m h0 O OA C d C T 'p L a L of - T 0 N to 2 a Q OA C2 O OA an 'O O N C r6 v ` 4 a) C > °D o z o c a03 l a S aL rn O aU U + Q Ln a v o° d bn N E NU = a '� M U ° au o IL 0 U f0 ro I m fu O ++ i fi i U U U a) O a1 a) tw0 V) N OA C O 10 � "0 cu O p N C L cu +� C C t Y — C 0 c fa m•> > to C E °1 m p N 00 a) ro Oozi ;a,,, CO U L ro o v 0, m m w o c aJ a) C o Y .+g N o 3 Y E E m O CL N E T a-+ p �-' C S0 C m O cn �n N ++ C "O C E ° > o v 0 O 0 3 C n o w t O O v m a O r`o 1 U C 'p E OA C '6 5 m +-' C a) U C '6 N N "O _ m C i C T O Q N "O C +�+ +�.+ "t3 N = ri0 vii "O N C a O 1 1 p a) C O C U � p O � C '6 CO '- ro fC0 c >O O •*'' C E y+',, �) U 00 c> a1 a) N a+ 0 N O E Q a) Q ra - c T O U v N E m m E .0 c m C E i Lo � W O +� O T Q0 ca C ,� `° ° 0 c C° C v LA O m 0 U C o m rn > U al 7 N O C C O a1 OA u U 7 OA C to a E C m r6 aJ O C � ar C v p p v a`o v m a1 OA J E '0 C E- •+T+ a On °A _p +�+ v E CD J^ — w t Lo v 0 a a +� _ °1 0 C 0 v v v E a! :3 aj L C ro O O 'J O w w O O N N I t ++ E N— O E O a) 1 O m U a1 '3 O O a) C M aJ C:..- N 'O U >. O U p N CD0 °>' u m a) C a_, (9 a`) opo I Q O � Q n a .0 E I E o ra U N ha ra OA "O u S ,� a) L u N rn O +. E C -p _ 3 O Q s 10 'tCL ° ,�,, 'N L C �n ++ O NFF u m p C u co I— Y 7 d J -0 ° tw ° '1 E d "a � d - cL OD N � O rho U m U rn rU0 (ao o u Ov-0 W 3 U 'O O Ou N W � C u � v a .� c •p a a a -_j a, •N a Q v C aui Ou 0 o C o o o o _ ` a CF U Q m c 0 Mn a! 0 f0 O m C N N O a1 NIm L L o a, E N .0 Q O as'T O Q OO Q Q L = = S = Y a1 :t— cm: C C E C J J U cu `° a ~ Z Z v S S o m o a CL -- u 0 CA O 7 p C m a! O C LL O aU U w- m V ;•� O 0 O 4 pC,p 'pC 0,p � 'vI O u N N as Y LO @ ++ O C Q L 4Jp A CLA *' ++ O ns "p viiOJ a, _ CL _CL Q Y QE L Q to Q 'E Q a),bz O C C Q O � — OX OcCL Qp h@a mN ,•" — O CL v O C p i f" a N co m c a) _C 3 =3 0 oCO m oo O V `y 'U O O fl_ t0 N N a) N .0 U -6 p N 7 = fl- N N N N C a) O "Q N c ca N m C Y o 'a fl Q fO t v 3 0 u C N c L@ ai E a o f u° (a L E N i-� L L (a Q m ~ L Q OD E ro a c N 0 a (a N 0 C o v v o aJ ai CO N N E O C cC G CO�+ O > L N N "O � Q p C .,',, _ N _ ,O to a) E O C7 V) j CO C m Q_ O D o N Q G. -p N E t� ai C L A :C U .L a) C U 'C J O .'2 C O u 0 aU a) (5 Q l0 U E V O UN U� v O r-I C O N N OU O @ u O Q ttou CL aj u C LL- p co In _0 v Q p U a, 'L C _C co U +.., O O V •L C L OA 0 0 N a1 aU °a C m O v N N +-+ :� fC N N ns a1 C E `° ) o c OJ u u o o° C .F ++ n3 C a1 N 0 p t C v +� O -O '' a) Q •o -N E °C° Y E ago u a �; v _^ E �° v m CL •N E 'E '� v Mn .L 0 0 i v L@ N 0 p c a) N 0 c > E Y 'a a; Q 3 ao v t m o v o 0 0 3 o c Q- o �° E° ca m E m Q c E a� 0 D U N Q N@ L Q S a) Z) C. U a1 W fl_ L Q t1a U N In E a v C3 v ate' c E a v a -a o 0 0 0, kn y v c 0 c o c o E C3 z i Ln O p u v o c v u a C7 vIn o v _" oma, I E In v a` v a o Q a s O 2 N :� is E= O CC a 13 k k 7 2 �0d o L = _ z E 2 e _ o - \ �Kv \� 0 \ L ©�06 z z � c u § 2 o { k §/ -E ƒ S } � ) \ / a o S � \ j \ [ -F " 3 / E o 0 \ E 0 / u / m E I- CL e %/ \ ® o \\ �\ kn E = u I/ % o m / \ \ § ® m �� ƒ} \u \{ \ \ § •. � Q \/§ y C 0 \ / \ \ \ - \ /CI "C3 a a t c ® R \ \/ m = ± 5 f Attachment -6- From: Susan Strauss To: Nick Lelack; Board Subject: Comment on Development Work Plan Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:39:33 PM Dear Mr. Lelack and Deschutes County Board, Our family lives in the EFU zone. We run a small farm. Also, we buy only organic produce and through our supplemental purchasing of vegetables and meats we try to support local farmers whenever possible. We farm with a strict mind to conserve our precious water resources. We know that the fish and beautiful rivers of our region also need cool and healthy levels of water. We are writing to urge you to protect the zoning of EFU for farming which supports local produce and meat production, industrial hemp and related "necessary" farming. We are not keen on hobby farming that irresponsibly using water. But, also, we know that farmland also serves as a support to wildlife population through travel corridors and winter deer range protection. We are extremely anxious about the dollars signs that we see in people's eyes (especially realtors) when they eye the possibility of altering our land use protections to open up land for suburban housing. Please, we don't want Central Oregon to become the next neighboring suburb of LA or Seattle. Too often, we have met people from larger cities who fondly think of Bend as a place to have a second home. Agriculture has to be done with an ecological consciousness and agricultural lands are an essential part of protecting our beloved Oregon wildlife and wild lands. Thank you, Susan Strauss 66280 White Rock Loop Bend, OR 97703