The URL can be used to link to this page

2018-422-Minutes for Meeting September 17,2018 Recorded 10/15/2018TES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 Recorded in Deschutes County Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 10/15/2018 4:39:26 PM CJ2018-422 FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY 111 1111111111111 WORK SESSION MINUTES 1:30 PM MONDAY, September 17, 2018 ALLEN CONFERENCE ROOM Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney and Anthony DeBone. Commissioner Phil Henderson was absent. Also present were Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel; and Sharon Keith, Board Executive Assistant. Several citizens and representatives of the media were in attendance. CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 1:33 p.m. ACTION ITEMS 1. Facilities Department Staffing Plan Facilities Director Lee Randall reported he has reviewed staffing of the department to accommodate growth county -wide. Mr. Randall explained there is a need to add administrative support to manage contracts without adding FTE. One position will be open next year and Mr. Randall recommends changing that position to that of a project manager and changing responsibilities. The department has repurposed a custodial position to an administrative support position that has picked up some of the duties. Commissioner DeBone asked for an update on the Fairgrounds roof replacement and Mr. Randall reviewed the contract work. The Board BOCC WORK SESSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 4 expressed support to add the capacity. A budget adjustment will come before the Board. 2. Potential Appeal of a Hearings Officer Approval of a Conditional Use and Site Plan Review for Modifications to Big Sky Park, Consideration of Board Order No. 2018-064 Will Groves, Community Development Department reviewed the pending appeal concerning limits placed on the expansion of Big Sky Park. The applicant requests the Board hear the appeal. The Board expressed support. Staff discussed a possible schedule for an evening hearing. Staff will ascertain an available date for an evening hearing. Mr. Groves will include testimony time limits in the hearing notice. BANEY: Move approval DEBONE: Second VOTE: BAN EY: Yes HENDERSON: Absent, excused DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 3. Review of Potential Appeal of Marijuana Production Approval and Consideration of Order No. 2018-062 Matt Martin, Community Development Department presented the potential appeal. The Board expressed support to hear the appeal. BAN EY: Move approval DEBONE: Second VOTE: BANEY: Yes HENDERSON: Absent, excused DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried BOCC WORK SESSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2018 PAGE 2 OF 4 Nick Lelack, Community Development Director and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development Planning Manager inquired on the Board's direction for all future marijuana applications, and whether those should be directed to a Hearing's Officer. The Board will further consider this issue when Commissioner Henderson is present (likely on 9/19). 4. Non -Resource Lands/Draft Scope of Work Peter Gutowsky and Nick Lelack, Community Development Department presented an update on the naming convention of non -resource lands. CDD staff communicated with various partners asking for their input. There is interest in the approach to initiate a non -resource lands program. Douglas County has withdrawn their proposal to review and correct identified procedural issues. Non -resource lands don't meet the definition of agriculture or forested lands. Discussion held on drafting comprehensive policies moving forward. A courtesy notice could be sent to property owners to explain. The staff will bring this item back for a future meeting. Mr. Gutowsky noted phase 1 would be draft policies, phase 2 would be platted subdivisions, and phase 3 would be a broader application. OTHER ITEMS: None Reported COMMISSIONER UPDATES: • Commissioner DeBone is considering attending the NACo White House Conference and NACo Briefing to Washington DC. BOCC WORK SESSION SEPTEMBER 17, 2018 PAGE 3 OF 4 EXECUTIVE SESSION: At the time of 2:29 p.m., the Board went into Executive Session under ORS 192.660 (2) (h) pending litigation. The Board came out of Executive Session at 2:57 p.m. ADJOURN Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:57 p.m. DATED this Commissioners. Day of 02018 for the Deschutes County Board of RECORDING SECRETARY BOCC WORK SESSION (A 7 6,11,,eefd ----- ANTHONY DEBONE, CHAIR PHILIP G. HENDERSON, VICE CHAIR TAMMY BANEY, MMISSIONER SEPTEMBER 17, 2018 PAGE 4 OF 4 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 PM, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2018 Allen Conference Room - Deschutes Services Building, 2ND Floor - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend Work Session, which are open to the public, allow the Board to gather information and give direction to staff. Public comment is not normally accepted. Written minutes are taken for the record 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 ACTION ITEMS 1. Facilities Department Staffing Plan - Lee Randall, Facilities Director 2. Potential Appeal of a Hearings Officer Approval of a Conditional Use & Site Plan Review for Modifications to Big Sky Park, Consideration of Board Order No. 2018- 064 - Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner 3. Review of Potential Appeal of Marijuana Production Approval and Consideration of Order 2018-062 - Matthew Martin, Associate Planner 4. Non -Resource Lands / Draft Scope of Work - Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager COMMISSIONER'S UPDATES EXECUTIVE SESSION Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda of 2 Monday, September 17, 2018 Page 1 At any time during the meeting an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.5660(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 public. OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners with to discuss as part of the meeting pursuant to ORS 192.640. 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.org/meetingcalendar Meeting dates and times are subject to change. If you have question, please call (541) 388-6572. Board of Commissioners Work Session Agenda of 2 Monday, September 17, 2018 Page 2 PAGE# OF PAGES C V, CN -( ---1 2 :4, WORK SESSION Date: 1 ,..._O f< (PLEASE PRINT) Vr-'1 P AGENCY 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 Work Session of September 17, 2018 DATE: September 12, 2018 FROM: Lee Randall, Facilities, 541-617-4711 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Facilities Department Staffing Plan 4jir"$ E T Date: September 12, 2018 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Lee Randall, Facilities Director Re: Facilities Department Staffing Plan The Facilities Department seeks to add a Project Manager position through July of 2019 as part of a department reorganization. In July of 2019, Renee Warner will be retiring from the Operations Specialist position after 30 years with Deschutes County. Once the position becomes vacant due to retirement, the Operations Specialist classification would be replaced by the Project Manager position for FY 2020. Going forward, this change would strengthen the department's capacity to manage capital maintenance projects (Fund 070), remodels, and capital construction with no net increase in FTE for FY 2020. This move to increase our internal capacity to manage work performed by contractors and vendors (rather than adding FTE to self -perform the added work) is part of a long term Facilities Department strategy in response to growth across County departments and increased demand for service. Operational duties currently performed by the Operations Specialist would be spread among the other existing supervisory and administrative positions. Duties which are focused on projects would shift from other staff members to the Project Manager position. Remodel and construction projects that the Project Manager position would oversee include: Extension/4H Building Expansion, Courtroom remodel, Stabilization Center, Mike Maier Services Building 1st Floor upgrades (Veterans' Services and Day Care), Legal Department remodel, Facilities/IT Warehouse remodel, and Sheriff's Office Site Safety Improvements. Additional capital maintenance projects are also underway which include: (3) roof replacement projects, exterior painting projects, Underground Injection Control (UIC) upgrades, and HVAC equipment replacements. Reorganizing at this time would significantly increase the department's capacity to manage these projects which are funded for the current fiscal year. An alternate means of accomplishing this work would be to utilize project management consultants in the short term. Locally, such services are currently in high demand, are costly, and require increased staff time when communicating with and managing the outside consultant. An appropriation transfer utilizing funding from Fund 070 could fund the position for the remainder of this fiscal year. 14 NW K • rne; Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O .,ox 005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 41) 330-4686 vv°d.d scFii_ieaor G Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ TE AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Work Session of September 17, 2018 DATE: September 11, 2018 FROM: Cynthia Smidt, Community Development, 541-317-3150 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Potential Appeal of a Hearings Officer Approval of a Conditional Use & Site Plan Review for Modifications to Big Sky Park, Consideration of Board Order No. 2018-064 BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Before the Board of County Commissioners is an appeal of the Hearings Officer's decision approving a conditional use and site plan review for modifications to Big Sky Park proposed by Bend Park and Recreation District. Bend Park and Recreation District filed a timely appeal of the Hearings Officer's decision. The Board will consider Order No. 2018-064 and whether to hear the matter on appeal. See attached staff memorandum for further background information. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None ATTENDANCE: Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Order Declining Review of Hearings Officer Decision in File Nos. 247 -18 -000105 -CU and 247 -18 -000164 -SP (247-18-000745-A) * * ORDER NO. 2018-064 WHEREAS, on September 10, 2018, Bend Park and Recreation District appealed (247-18-000745-A) the Hearings Officer's decision on File Nos. 247 -18 -000105 -CU and 247 -18 -000164 -SP; and WHEREAS, Section 22.32.027 of the Deschutes County Code allows the Board of County Commissioners (Board) discretion on whether to hear appeals of Hearings Officer's decisions; and WHEREAS, the Board has given due consideration as to whether to review these applications; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, HEREBY ORDERS as follows: Section 1. The Board will not hear 247 -18 -000105 -CU and 247 -18 -000164 -SP (247-18-000745-A) pursuant to Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code and other applicable provisions of the County land use ordinances. Section 2. The appellants shall be granted a refund of some of the appeal fees pursuant to DCC 22.32.015. Dated this 17th of September, 2018 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ANTHONY DEBONE, Chair PHILIP G. HENDERSON, Vice Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary TAMMY BANEY, Commissioner PAGE 1 OF 1- ORDER NO. 2018-064 ES COMMt, TY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: September 11, 2018 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner RE: Appeal of Hearings Officer Decision on a Conditional Use and Site Plan review for Big Sky Park (247 -18 -000105 -CU and 247 -18 -000164 -SP) Before the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board) is a timely appeal submitted in response to a Deschutes County Hearings Officer's (H.O.) decision approving the applicant's request for a Conditional Use and Site Plan review of the proposed park modification (Attachment 3). An appeal was submitted by the applicant, Bend Park and Recreation District. 1. BACKGROUND Bend Park and Recreation District submitted a request for a Conditional Use and Site Plan review for park modifications. The 95.31 -acre subject property is located at 21690 Neff Road and at the intersection of Hamby Road and Neff Road. The zoning of the property is Exclusive Farm Use (EFU). The Bend urban reserve area is approximately 0.25 miles to the west. The Urban Growth Boundary and city limits for Bend are both approximately 0.35 miles to the west. The request includes modifying the existing park in a variety of ways including the following': • New drive aisles and parking spaces (250) that will approximately double the amount of off-street parking currently available. • New shared driveway access to Hamby Rd. • Additional new soft surface pedestrian circulation path on the perimeter of the site • New dirt trails of approximately 2.5 miles in length that can double as a high school cross country running course and cyclocross course. This is typically a narrow single-track natural surface or aggregate course with some wider passing areas. • A bike park area that can include but not be limited to facilities such as a pump track, trials course, flow track and jumps, kid's bike trail, etc. 1 Maps of the proposed plans can be found with the application materials (Attachment 1). In addition, a large- scale copy of the plans will be provided at the Board meeting. • Supporting amenities for the bike park including a plaza area, picnic shelter, power and water for events, concrete porta potty pads, etc. • A new radio -controlled (R/C) vehicle track would be developed in a designated area. The track would be for electric -powered vehicles only. • A new "naturehood" area with a path and gathering space(s) that could be utilized by local schoolchildren and teachers for outdoor education and interpretation opportunities. • Designate the old fire station and the area on the southeast side of the park as future park maintenance support facility locations. • New irrigation system cistern. • Outdoor lighting for the sport fields, pedestrian paths, parking areas, roadways. • A new 20' tall fence in the outfield of Field 3 • A proposed maintenance/storage building • New sidewalks. • Wayfinding/Direction signage for field identification • Expanding fields 1 &6 to accommodate recreational needs • Expand the existing dog park by either 2 -acres or 5 acres, entirely fenced. • No "permanent" sound amplification system. The parcel is shown in the following map: Big P; rk Sports i mNEFF RD -2- The H.O. approved the park modification except the tall field lighting for the sports fields2. The H.O. approval included several conditions that restricts organized events and team practices in certain areas of the park and restricts some forms of amplification. II. BEND PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT APPEAL The applicant/appellant, Bend Park and Recreation District, appeals the HO decision, and describes several assignments of error in their notice of appeal (Attachment 2). Three assignments of error address the Hearings Officer's Conditions of Approval 8, 9, 11, and 173. The following summarizes their concerns (footnotes removed): 1. The Hearings Officer erroneously imposed Condition of Approval #8 precluding "organized events" at "bike park west" or at the R/C vehicle track. 2. The Hearings Officer excessively restricted use of the northern portion of the park under Condition of Approval #9. 3. The Hearings Officer erroneously imposed Condition of Approval #11. 4. The Hearings Officer improperly imposed Condition of Approval #17. 5. Finally, the Hearings Officer employed an excessively broad definition of "organized events"that expressly encompassed cross-country practices and likely would cover such things as vehicle trials by student R/C clubs and Mount Bachelor Ski Education Foundation trainings. The applicant/appellant requests a de novo review. 2 Other accessory lighting was approved, however. 3 Condition of Approval Nos. 8, 9, 11, and 17 state the following: 8. Neither bike park west nor the R/C vehicle track shall be used for organized events, including races or competitions. 9. No trail closer than 250' from the northern boundary adjacent to Eastmont Estates shall be used for organized events, including but not limited to cross-country team practices or competitions and cyclocross races. No direct trail access from the single-track trails to the perimeter trail is permitted within the area adjacent to Eastmont Estates. The applicant may reconfigure the trails outlined in Sheet TD -100 to accommodate this condition. 11. There shall be no use of permanent amplified sound systems. No sound amplification shall be permitted for uses associated with bike park west or the R/C vehicle track. To the extent any other amplification is permitted under prior approvals or County Code, it shall comply with applicable DEQ and County standards and be used only as reasonably necessary to start and manage events (e.g. no play by play, promotional use). Nothing in this condition restricts or prohibits use of amplification in case of emergency. 17. Prior to use of the R/C vehicle track, the applicant shall erect a minimum 6' high solid fence that extends at least 20' in each direction (NE/SW) beyond the area in which such vehicles will operate to a maximum of 120', to provide a noise buffer for uses to the west of the park. -3- III. BOARD OPTIONS There are two versions of Order No. 2018-068 (Attachment 1). In determining whether to hear an appeal, the Board may consider only: 1. The record developed before the Hearings Officer; 2. The notice of appeal; and 3. Recommendation of staff.4 In addition, if the Board decides to hear the appeal, it may consider providing time limits for public testimony. If the Board decides that the Hearings Officer's decision shall be the final decision of the county, then the Board shall not hear the appeal and the party appealing may continue the appeal as provided by law. The decision on the land use applications becomes final upon the mailing of the Board's decision to decline review. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The H.O. decision makes a finding regarding restricting organized events and team practices without providing a clear understanding of what is included as organized events and team practices. Staff recognizes that organized events' are integral to the park district but without clear guidelines, it places a responsibility on planning staff and code enforcement to define the meaning of these conditions. For this reason, staff recommends the Board hear the appeal either limited de novo or de novo. V. 150 -DAY LAND USE CLOCK The two land use permits, 247 -18 -000105 -CU and 247 -18 -000164 -SP, have different review periods. In summary, regarding the Conditional Use, 247 -18 -000105 -CU, the 150th day on which the County must take final action is October 29, 2018. The 150th day on which the County must take action for Site Plan Review, 247 -18 -000164 -SP, is November 17, 2018. Bend Park and Recreation District states that they are willing to extend the land use clock in order to allow adequate time of any proceedings on appeal before the Board. 4 Deschutes County Code (DCC) 22.32.035(B) and (D) 5 Events occurring on park property have exclusions and exceptions in other sections of the DCC such as the following: Events and Outdoor Mass Gathering Ordinance DCC 8.16.020, Noise Ordinance DCC 8.08.04, and Lighting Ordinance 5.10.150(C). -4- Attachments 1. Draft Board Orders, No. 2018-064 2. Appeal 247-18-000745-A Application Materials (9.10.18) 3. Hearings Officer's Decision (8.28.18) 4. Post Hearing Applicant Final Arguments (8.7.18) 5. Post Hearing Public (Craghead.Brown) Rebuttal (7.31.18) 6. Post Hearing Applicant Rebuttal (7.31.18) 7. Post Open Record Public Testimony (dated 7.24.18-8.7.18) 8. Post Hearing Public (Craghead.Brown) Testimony (7.24.18) 9. Post Hearing Public Testimony (7.17.18-7.24.18) 10. Post Hearing Applicant Testimony (7.24.18) 11. Post Hearing Staff Testimony (7.23.18) 12. July 17, 2018 Hearing Agenda, Packet and Testimony (7.17.18) 13. J. Bessman updated traffic report dated 7.5.18 (7.17.18) 14. Road Dept. Comments (7.16.18) 15. Continued Hearing, Notice of Public Hearing (6.13.18) 16. June 12, 2018 Hearing Documents (6.12.18) 17. June 12, 2018 Hearing Agenda and Report (6.12.18) 18. P. Brown Comments (6.11.18) 19. Hearing Continuance Request (6.7.18) 20. Staff Report (6.6.18) 21. Road Dept. Comments and Attachments (6.5.18) 22. N. Pince Comments (5,2718) 23. Affidavit of Publication (5.22.18) 24. Notice of Public Hearing (5.21.18) 25. Review Clock Correspondence (5.1.18) 26. Supplemental Application Materials (4.23.18) 27. Tolling Review Clock Correspondence (3.21.18) 28. incomplete Application Letter (3.20.18) 29. Public Comments (3.1.18-3.8.18) 30. Agency Comments (2.27.18-3.2.18) 31. Land Use Action Sign Affidavit and Photo (2.23.18) 32. Land Use Action Sign Notice (2.5.18) 33. Notice of Application (2.21.18) 34. Site Plan Review 247 -18 -000164 -SP Application Materials (2.15.18) 35. Supplemental Application Materials, Site Traffic Report dated 2.2.18 (2.5.18) 36. Conditional Use 247 -18 -000105 -CU Application Materials (2.2.18) C(/6?7t/ Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P,O, Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764 http://www,deschutes.org/cd APPEAL APPLICATION FEE: $4065.90 EVERY NOTICE OF APPEAL SHALL INCLUDE: 1. A statement describing the specific reasons for the appeal. 2. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body, a request for review by the Board stating the reasons the. Board should review the lower decision. 3. If the Board of County Commissioners is the Hearings Body and de novo review is desired, a request for de novo review by the Board, stating the reasons the Board should provide the de novo review as provided in Section 22.32.027 of Title 22. 4. If color exhibits are submitted, black and white copies with captions or shading delineating the color shall a1 provided. .SIli71� also be It is the responsibility of the appellant to complete a Notice of Appeal as set forth in Chapter 22.32 of the County Code. The Notice of Appeal on the reverse side of this form must include the items listed above. Failure to complete all of the above may render an appeal invalid. Any additional comments should be included on the Notice of Appeal. Staff cannot advise a potential appellant as to whether the appellant is eligible to file an appeal (DCC Section 22.32.010) or whether an appeal is valid. Appellants should seek their own legal advice concerning those issues. Bend Park and Recreation District, c/o Bryant, Lovlien & Jarvis, P.C. Phone: 541 382-4331 Appellant's Name (print): Mailing Address: 591 SW Mill View Way City/State/Zip: Bend, OR 97703 Land Use Application Being Appealed: 247 -18-0001 05 -CU and 247 -18-0001 64-5P Property Description: Township 17 Range 12 Section 25 Tax Lot 200 Appellant's Signature: EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN . CTION 22.32.024, APPELLANT SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF ANY HEA r APPEALED, FROM RECORDED MAGNETIC TAPES PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION UPON REQUEST (THERE IS A $5.00 FEE FOR EACH MAGNETIC TAPE RECORD). APPELLANT SHALL SUBMIT THE TRANSCRIPT TO THE PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN THE CLOSE OF THE DAY FIVE (5) DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE SET FOR THE DE NOVO HEARING OR, FOR ON -THE -RECORD APPEALS, THE DATE SET FOR RECEIPT OF WRITTEN RECORDS. (over) 10/15 Quality Services Performed with Pride NOTICE OF APPEAL (This page may be photocopied if additional space is needed.) BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY 247 -18-0001 05 -CU/ 247 -18-0001 64-5P APPLICANT/OWNER: DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF APPEAL Bend Metropolitan Park and Recreation District 799 SW Columbia Street Bend, Oregon 977A2 ATTORNEY: Garrett Chrostek Bryant, Lovlien & Jarvis, P.C. 591 SW Mill View Way Bend, Oregon 97702 LOCATION: The property is identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Map No. 17-12-25, as Tax Lot 200 and has an address of 2169A Neff Road, Bend. The parcel is shown in the following map: REQUEST: Conditional use and site plan review to expand Big Sky / . Luke Damon Sports Complex in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone. I. STANDING: Appellant Bend Parks and Recreation District ("BPRD") is the Applicant in the matter that is the subject of this appeal and appeared in proceedings below both in writing and at the public hearing. II. STATEMENT DESCRIBING SPECIFIC REASONS FOR APPEAL: BPRD concurs with a majority of the Hearings Officer's decision in these proceedings. However, BPRD objects to several of the conditions of approval and requests clarification on other matters. Accordingly, BPRD asserts that the decision is in error for the following reasons: 1. The Hearings Officer erroneously imposed Condition of Approval #8 precluding "organized events" at "bike park west" or at the R/C vehicle track. Applicant never proposed such a condition nor suggested that no events would ever occur. These facilities are located within the "Luke Damon Sports Complex As the name suggests, the overall park is intended for "organized events" and the BPRD Board of Directors authorized the Notice of Appeal Page 1 of 3 {019)7487-00991814;11 funding of these facilities with the anticipation that events would occur. BPRD requests that the condition be removed or, in the alternative, that the Board impose a reasonable limit on the number of "organized events" at these facilities. 2. The Hearings Officer excessively restricted use of the northern portion of the park under Condition of Approval #9. BPRD agrees that placing event headquarters or spectators within 250 feet of the northern property is not appropriate and had no such intent. However, restricting the actual cross-country and bicycle users during "organized events", which create little in any additional impacts as compared to "unorganized users", from using this area unduly Limits this park feature. BPRD also does not understand the prohibition on making connections between the perimeter trail and "bike park east". 3. The Hearings Officer erroneously imposed Condition of Approval #111. Similar to Condition of Approval #8, BPRD did not propose a prohibition on amplified sound with respect to "bike park west" or the R/C vehicle track or suggest that no amplified sound would ever occur. Amplified sound is generally necessary to hold events and is contemplated by the Deschutes County Code to promote safety at events. The submitted sound study demonstrates that amplified sound can occur within the park without breaching applicable DEQ and County Standards. If needed, appropriate conditions of approval could be crafted regarding amplified sounds for events at "bike park west" and the RIC vehicle track. 4. 'The Hearings Officer improperly imposed Condition of Approval #17. Evidence in the record demonstrated that electronic remote -control vehicles emit very little noise (there was no evidence to the contrary other than a hare allegation from one opponent) and far less than the amplified noise investigated in the noise study (which found amplified noises to be compliant with DEQ standards). The electric vehicle track is located more than 500 feet from any residential property (with an intervening road and fire station). This condition of approval is not supported by any evidence in the record and an unnecessary use of public funds. 5. Finally, the Hearings Officer employed an excessively broad definition of "organized events" that expressly encompassed cross-country practices and likely would cover such things as vehicle trials by student RIC clubs and Mount Bachelor Ski Education Foundation trainings. As identified above, the hearings officer then imposed a complete ban on "organized events" at "bike park west", the R/C course as well as a partial ban at "hike park east". Small-scale "organized activities" such as cross-country practices, RIC club meetings, and athletic trainings should not be subject to any restrictions, particularly in a public park developed as a sports complex. If the Board elects to regulate larger events at "bike park west", "bike park east", and the R/C course, there should be a clear delineation as to what constitutes a regulated event. Notice ofAppeal Page 2 of 3 (01917487-00991814;1) III. REQUEST FOR REVIEW: For the foregoing reasons, BPRD requests that the Board of County Commissioners hear the review de novo, but only with respect to the specific appeal issues. The Board is authorized under DCC 22.32.027(2) and (3) to conduct a de novo review and pursuant to DCC 22.32.027(4) may limit the scope of review to the issues listed in this notice of appeal. De novo review for the specified appeal items is appropriate to allow introduction of additional evidence related to the identified conditions of approval to rebut the assumptions and arguments made by the Hearings Officer, which in several instances were not raised during the course of the public hearing below. The Board should hear the appeal because it will resolve plain error in the hearings officer's decision, clarify conditions of approval for a public facility, and facilitate BPRD's delivery of demanded public services. IV. SCHEDULING BPRD is willing to be flexible in the scheduling of any proceedings on appeal before the Commissioners including affording additional time for the Commissioners to hear the appeal, SUBMITTED this 10th day of September, 2018. Notice of Appeal Page 3 of 3 BRYANT, LO V LrEN & JARVIS, P.C. By: GARRET CHROSTEK, OSB#122965 Of Attorneys for Applicants {01917487-00991814;1) FILE NUMBERS: HEARING DATE: APPLICANT/OWNER: PROPOSAL: STAFF CONTACT: HEARINGS OFFICER: I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Mailing Date: Tuesday, August 28, 2018 HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION 247 -18 -000105 -CU and 247 -18 -000164 -SP June 12, 2018, 6:00 p.m. & July 17, 2018 Bend Metropolitan Park and Recreation District 799 SW Columbia Street Bend, Oregon 97702 Conditional use and site plan review to expand Big Sky / Luke Damon Sports Complex in the Exclusive Farm Use Zone. Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner Dan R. Olsen Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management Section 3.8. Rural Recreation Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 195, Local Government Planning Coordination Oregon Administrative Rules Division 33, Agricultural Land Division 34, State and Local Park Planning Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.16. Chapter 18.80. Chapter 18.128. Chapter 18.124. Chapter 18.116. Exclusive Farm Use Zone Airport Safety Combining Zone Conditional Uses Site Plan Review Supplementary Provisions Title 22, Deschutes County Procedures Ordinance This decision generally incorporates the Staff Report, with edits, except as noted by the heading "Hearings Officer". 1 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision II. BASIC FINDINGS: A. LOCATION: The property is identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Map No. 17-12-25, as Tax Lot 200 and has an address of 21690 Neff Road, Bend. The parcel is shown in the following map: B. LOT OF RECORD: Deschutes County has recognized this subject property as a legal lot of record because it is Parcel 2 of partition MP -79-223 and based on subsequent land use permits. The property was also reconfigured through property line adjustment LL -04-2. C. ZONING: Exclusive Farm Use - Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone (EFU-TRB). The property is also within the Airport Safety (AS) Combining Zone and is designated Agriculture on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. D. SITE DESCRIPTION: The property is approximately 95.31 acres and irregular in shape. The property has varying terrain and is developed with the Big Sky / Luke Damon Sports Complex, which includes play fields (e.g. soccer), BMX track, off -leash dog park, and other park -related facilities. The site also includes a former fire station building in the southwest corner of the property and a cell tower in the same location. Vegetation includes introduced landscaping throughout the property mixed with native vegetation of juniper trees, shrubs, and grasses. An irrigation canal and access road cross the property in the northern half of the parcel and forms the southeastern boundary in the southern half. As indicated below by Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID), the property also includes another canal right-of-way and access road in the eastern side of the property. According to COID, the subject park has 9.09 acres 2 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision of water rights that appear to be specifically assigned to the three southernmost play fields. Neff Road is adjacent to the southern property boundary. Hamby Road is adjacent some areas along the western boundary. Primary access to the property is from Neff Road to the south. There are three' other minor access points in the southwestern corner, near the intersection of Hamby Road and Neff Road, for the former fire station and the existing cell tower. According to the Flood Insurance Rate Map for Deschutes County and the National Wetlands Inventory, the subject property is not located in the 100 -year flood plain nor does it contain wetlands. E. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The area surrounding consists of a mix of uses including farm - zoned parcels, rural residential properties, an elementary school and fire station, and a newly established solar energy facility. Two residential subdivisions are in the area including Eastmont Estates to the north and Quail Ridge to the west. The Bend urban reserve area is approximately 0.25 miles to the west. The Urban Growth Boundary and city limits for Bend are both approximately 0.35 miles to the west. The closet farm use in the area appears to be occurring on a parcel that abuts the park's northwest corner. To the east approximately 0.20 miles is an approved horse and dog training and testing trial facility. Zoning in the area is a mixture of Exclusive Farm Use, Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA10), Urban Area Reserve (UAR10), and a zoning district - Residential Standard Density - within the City of Bend. F. SOILS: According to Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maps of the area, there is one soil unit mapped on the subject property. Unit 59C, Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskamp Complex, 0 to 15 percent slopes. This soil complex is composed of 50 percent Gosney soil and similar inclusions, 25 percent rock outcrop, 20 percent Deskamp soil and similar inclusions, and 5 percent contrasting inclusions. Gosney soils are somewhat excessively drained and have rapid permeability and available water capacity of about 1 inch. Deskamp soils are somewhat excessively drained, have rapid permeability, and about 3 inches of available water capacity. The major use of this soil type is livestock grazing. The agricultural capability rating for 59C Gosney soil is 7e when not irrigated and 4e when irrigated and the Deskamp soil is 6e when not irrigated and 3e when irrigated. This soil is not considered high-value when irrigated. According to Central Oregon Irrigation District's water rights map, the property has 9.09 acres of water rights located in the southern region of the property and are related specifically to the three southernmost play fields in the park. The entire property of 95.31 acres is made up of this soil type. G. LAND USE HISTORY: The property has the following land use and development permit history related to the proposed modification: M P-79-223 Approval of a two -lot partition 'Two of these access points are taken from Neff Road along the south boundary and one is taken from Hamby Road along the western boundary. 3 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision CU -91-117 SP -91-138 Approval of a "youth sports complex" (park) CU -96-84 DR -97-1 Approval to expand the park to include BMX bicycle track facility SP -02-50 Approval to construct two small open-air picnic structures CU -03-14 SP -03-11 Approval to expand the park to include three additional soccer fields, parking, restroom, and shelter SP -04-33 Approval to expand the park to include an off -leash dog park SP -05-54 Approval to establish a wireless telecommunications facility H. PROPOSAL: Hearings Officer: The applicant clarified and adjusted some aspects of its proposal primarily in response to public comments and I understand the proposal to consist of the following: • New drive aisles and parking spaces (250) that will approximately double the amount of off-street parking currently available. • New shared driveway access to Hamby Rd. • Additional new soft surface pedestrian circulation path on the perimeter of the site • New dirt trails of approximately 2.5 miles in length that can double as a high school cross country running course and cyclocross course. This is typically a narrow single-track natural surface or aggregate course with some wider passing areas. • A bike park area that can include but not be limited to facilities such as a pump track, trials course, flow track and jumps, kid's bike trail, etc. • Supporting amenities for the bike park including a plaza area, picnic shelter, power and water for events, concrete porta potty pads, etc. • A new radio -controlled (R/C) vehicle track would be developed in a designated area. The track would be for electric -powered vehicles only. • A new "naturehood" area with a path and gathering space(s) that could be utilized by local schoolchildren and teachers for outdoor education and interpretation opportunities. • Designate the old fire station and the area on the southeast side of the park as future park maintenance support facility locations. • New irrigation system cistern. • Outdoor lighting for the sport fields, pedestrian paths, parking areas, roadways. • A new 20' tall fence in the outfield of Field 3 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision • A proposed maintenance/storage building • New sidewalks. • Wayfinding/Direction signage for field identification • Expanding fields 1 &6 to accommodate recreational needs • Expand the existing dog park by either 2 -acres or 5 acres, entirely fenced. • No "permanent" amplification system. I. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice to several agencies and received the following comments: 1. Central Oregon Irrigation District: The submitted comments together with a water rights map of the property were provided by Daniel Downing, GIS/Operations Technician, on March 3, 2018. COID FACILITIES: • Subject property has the A-24 Sub lateral that runs through a portion of it. o It has a 40' canal right of way along with an additional 20' road right of way along the west side of the canal o No crossings of COID facility is allowed without obtaining a crossing license o Subjects property also has the A-24-8 delivery ditch that runs through it. ■ It has a canal right of way of 20' along with a 20' canal road COID WATER RIGHTS: • Subject property has 9.09 acres of COID water rights • COID requests a site plan • Please contact COID concerning use of water rights COID GUIDELINE STATEMENT: • none 2. Deschutes County Building Safety Division: Randy Scheid, Building Safety Director, submitted the following comments on February 26, 2018. The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code mandates that Access, Egress, Setbacks, Fire & Life Safety, Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. must be specifically addressed during the appropriate plan review process with regard to any proposed structures and occupancies. Accordingly, all Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure, occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review. 3. Deschutes County Environmental Soils Division: On February 27, 2018, Todd Cleveland, Environmental Health Supervisor, submitted the following comments. Based on the proposal, it appears the expansion of areas of this part may result in potential increases in the necessary restroom facilities and use. A septic review may be necessary to determine if upgrades or new systems are warranted. 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision J• 4. Deschutes County Road Department & Transportation Planner: Hearings Officer: Originally, the Road Department and the Transportation Planner expressed numerous concerns and highlighted inadequacies in the applicant's transportation related information. The applicant submitted additional information and the Road Department responded on July 16, 2018. Transportation related issues are discussed below. 5. The following agencies did not respond or had no comments: Bend Fire Department, Bend Municipal Airport, Bend / La Pine School District #1, City of Bend Planning Department, Deschutes County Assessor, Deschutes County Fire Protection District, and Oregon Department of Aviation (ODA). NOTICE REQUIREMENT: The applicant complied with the posted notice requirements of Section 22.24.030(B) of Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 22. The applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit, dated February 23, 2018, indicating the applicant posted notice of the land use action on February 23, 2018. K. HEARING: Hearings Officer: The hearing originally was scheduled for June 12, 2018. The applicant requested a continuance and granted a waiver of the 150 -day clock. To avoid having to re - notice, Stephanie Hicks, Hearings Officer, stepped in, opened the hearing, took testimony from those present and continued the hearing to July 17. On July 17, I opened the continued hearing. I provided the statutorily required notices. I indicated that I had received no ex parte contacts, had not conducted a site visit and had no conflicts of interest. I indicated that I had reviewed the video of the initial proceeding and read the materials in the record. At the end of testimony, the applicant requested that the record be kept open as follows: July 24, 2018 New evidence and argument July 31, 2018 Rebuttal to evidence and argument during first open record period Aug. 7, 2018 Final applicant rebuttal. No new evidence I noted that all submittals had to actually be received by Community Development before the close of business on each deadline. Staff indicates that some comments were receive after the deadline. I have not considered any such comments. III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan A. CHAPTER 3. RURAL GROWTH MANAGEMENT 1. Section 3.8. Rural Recreation. 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision Goal and Policies Goal 1 Promote a variety of passive and active park and recreation opportunities through a regional system that includes federal and state parks and local park districts. Policy 3.8.1 Cooperate with public agencies and local park districts to provide park and recreation lands, facilities and opportunities. FINDING: Although Bend Park and Recreation District may have an overarching master for the district and/or specific parklands within the district, the County has not adopted such plan(s) into its Comprehensive Plan. Nevertheless, according to the above policy, working together with a local park district is encouraged within the County's goals and thus includes acknowledging such plans as presented by the district. Oregon Revised Statutes 1. ORS 195.120. Rules and planning goal amendments for parks required; allowable uses; application of certain land use laws. (1) The Legislative Assembly finds that Oregon's parks are special places and the protection of parks for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations is a matter of statewide concern. (2) The Land Conservation and Development Commission ... shall adopt rules and land use planning goal amendments as necessary to provide for: (a) Allowable uses in state and local parks that have adopted master plans; (b) Local government planning necessary to implement state park master plans.... (3) Rules and goal amendments adopted under subsection (2) of this section shall provide for the following uses in state parks: (a) Campgrounds, day use areas and supporting infrastructure, amenities and accessory visitor service facilities designed to meet the needs of park visitors; (b) Recreational trails and boating facilities; (c) Facilities supporting resource -interpretive and educational activities for park visitors; (d) Park maintenance workshops, staff support facilities and administrative offices; (e) Uses that directly support resource-based outdoor recreation; and 117 Other park uses adopted by the Land Conservation and Development Commission. (4) A local government shall not be required to adopt an exception under ORS 197.732 from a land use planning goal protecting agriculture or forestry resources to authorize a use identified by rule of the Land Conservation and Development Commission under this section in a state or local park. (5) A local government shall comply with the provisions of ORS 215.296 for all uses and activities proposed in or adjacent to an exclusive farm use zone described in the state or local master plan as adopted by the local government and made a part of its comprehensive plan and land use regulation. 11997 c.604 §31 7 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision 2. ORS 215.283. Uses permitted in exclusive farm use zones in nonmarginal lands counties; rules (2) The following nonfarm uses may be established, subject to the approval of the governing body or its designee in any area zoned for exclusive farm use subject to ORS 215.296: (d) Parks and playgrounds. A public park may be established consistent with the provisions of ORS 195.120. DIVISION 33. AGRICULTURAL LAND 1. Section 660-033-0090. Uses on High -Value and Non -High -Value Farmland. (1) Uses on land identified as high-value farmland and uses on land not identified as high-value farmland shall be limited to those specified in OAR 660-033-0120.... 2. Section 660-033-0120. Uses Authorized on Agricultural Lands. The specific development and uses listed in the following table are allowed or may be allowed in the areas that qualify for the designation pursuant to this division. All uses are subject to the general provisions, special conditions, additional restrictions and exceptions set forth in this division. The abbreviations used within the schedule shall have the fnllowing meanings_ (2) R — Use may be allowed, after required review. The use requires notice and the opportunity for a hearing. Minimum standards for uses in the table that include a numerical reference are specified in OAR 660-033-0130. Counties may prescribe additional limitations and requirements to meet local concerns. Parks/Public/Quasi-Public (from Section 660-033-0120 Table 1) Public parks and playgrounds. A public park may be established consistent with the provisions of ORS 195.120. 3. Section 660-033-0130. Minimum Standards Applicable to the Schedule of Permitted and Conditional Uses. (31) Public parks including only the uses specified under OAR 660-034-0035 or 660-034- 0040, whichever is applicable. DIVISION 34. STATE AND LOCAL PARK PLANNING 1. Section 660-034-0035. Park Uses on Agricultural and Forest Lands. 8 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision (2) The park uses listed in subsection (a) through (i) of this section are allowed in a state park subject to the requirements of this division, OAR chapter 736, division 18, and other applicable laws.... (a) Campground areas: recreational vehicle sites; tent sites; camper cabins; yurts; teepees; covered wagons; group shelters; campfire program areas; camp stores; (b) Day use areas: picnic shelters, barbecue areas, swimming areas (not swimming pools), open play fields, play structures; (c) Recreational trails: walking, hiking, biking, horse, or motorized off-road vehicle trails; trail staging areas; (d) Boating and fishing facilities: launch ramps and landings, docks, moorage facilities, small boat storage, boating fuel stations, fish cleaning stations, boat sewage pumpout stations; (e) Amenities related to park use intended only for park visitors and employees: laundry facilities; recreation shops; snack shops not exceeding 1500 square feet of floor area; (f) Support facilities serving only the park lands wherein the facility is located: water supply facilities, sewage collection and treatment facilities, storm water management facilities, electrical and communication facilities, restrooms and showers, recycling and trash collection facilities, registration buildings, roads and bridges, parking areas and walkways; (g) Park Maintenance and Management Facilities located within a park: maintenance shops and yards, fuel stations for park vehicles, storage for park equipment and supplies, administrative offices, staff lodging; 2. Section 660-034-0040. Planning for Local Parks. (1) Local park providers may prepare local park master plans, and local governments may amend acknowledged comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances pursuant to the requirements and procedures of ORS 197.610 to 197.625 in order to implement such local park plans. Local governments are not required to adopt a local park master plan in order to approve a land use decision allowing parks or park uses on agricultural lands under provisions of ORS 215.213 or 215.283 or on forestlands under provisions of OAR 660-006-0025(4), as further addressed in sections (3) and (4) of this rule. If a local government decides to adopt a local park plan as part of the local comprehensive plan, the adoption shall include: (a) A plan map designation, as necessary, to indicate the location and boundaries of the local park; and (b) Appropriate zoning categories and map designations (a "local park" zone or overlay zone is recommended), including objective land use and siting review criteria, in order to authorize the existing and planned park uses described in local park master plan. (2) Unless the context requires otherwise, this rule does not require changes to: (a) Local park plans that were adopted as part of an acknowledged local land use plan prior to July 15, 1998; or 9 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18-000164-5P Hearings Officer Decision (b) Lawful uses in existence within local parks on July 15, 1998. (3) All uses allowed under Statewide Planning Goal 3 are allowed on agricultural land within a local park and all uses allowed under Statewide Planning Goal 4 are allowed on forest land within a local park, in accordance with applicable laws, statewide goals, and rules. (4) Although some of the uses listed in OAR 660-034-0035(2)(a) to (g) are not allowed on agricultural or forest land without an exception to Goal 3 or Goal 4, a local government is not required to take an exception to Goals 3 or 4 to allow such uses on land within a local park provided such uses, alone or in combination, meet all other statewide goals and are described and authorized in a local park master plan that: (a) Is adopted as part of the local comprehensive plan in conformance with Section (1) of this rule and consistent with all statewide goals; (b) Is prepared and adopted applying criteria comparable to those required for uses in state parks under OAR chapter 736, division 18; and (c) Includes findings demonstrating compliance with ORS 215.296 for all uses and activities proposed on or adjacent to land zoned for farm or forest use. Section 18.16.030. Conditional Uses Permitted -High Value and Nonhigh Value Farmland. The following uses may be allowed in the Exclusive Farm Use zones on either high value farmland or non -high value farmland subject to applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, DCC 18.16.040 and 18.16.050, and other applicable sections of DCC Title 18. H. Public park' and playground consistent with the provisions of ORS 195.120, and including only the uses specified under OAR 660-034-0035 or 660-034-0040, whichever is applicable. Hearings Officer: Although the applicant has adopted a parks master plan, the County has not. Various opponents argue that the following components of the proposal are not permitted on EFU land: Expansion of public parks generally The bike park/pump track Remote Controlled Vehicle track Field Lighting Big Sky Park originally was approved in 1991 as a "youth sports complex". The BMX facility was approved in 1996/1997. Additional sports fields, parking, restrooms and a shelter were 2 DCC 18.04.030 defines "Public Park" as the following: "Public park" means an area of natural or ornamental quality for outdoor recreation that provides the resource base for the following activities: picnicking, boating, fishing, swimming, camping and hiking or nature oriented recreation such as viewing and studying nature and wildlife habitat, and may include play areas and accessory facilities that support the activities listed above. 10 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision approved in 2003. Those approvals did not address the applicable statutes and OAR's despite that fact that the statutes or administrative rules existed in some form during much of that time. The applicant candidly acknowledges this situation, stating that "to the extent any of the decisions concerning Big Sky Park issued after July 15, 1998 are inconsistent with the subsequently adopted regulations for local park (sic) on EFU lands, those decisions are final and not subject to collateral attack as part of these proceedings." Fn.3, First Supplemental Burden of Proof. See also, OAR 660-034-0040 (Unless the context provides otherwise, this rule does not require changes to: ...(b)Lawful uses in existence within local parks on July 15, 1998.) Although some opponents have complaints about how various aspects of the park impact them, no one has argued that the existing park components and uses are unpermitted or unlawful. The previous failure to address the statutes and OAR's is unfortunate, however, as that would have provided important context for evaluating the components at issue rather than being an issue of first impression with, as noted below, little guidance. The Brown's, through counsel, argue that the express reference to "expansion of an existing private park" in DCC 18.16.030 (G) and the absence of such reference in (H) for public parks indicates an intent to allow the former but not the latter. I disagree. DCC 18.16.030 (G) is as much or more a limitation as an authorization. Its primary purpose appears to be to not permit new private parks and to limit "expansion" of a private park to the same lot as the existing park. It also suggests that "expansion" means enlargement of the physical area rather than the addition of new components. The statutes and OAR's treat new components as "uses" not expansions. Finally, a reference to "expansion" is unnecessary when it comes to uses that are allowed, such as public parks in part because it would not make sense to allow a new park but allow expansion only by creating a separate new park adjacent to the existing one. I find that the proposal is a modification of an existing park and not an expansion and even if it is an expansion, expansions are not prohibited per se. In Linn County Farm Bureau vLinn County, LUBA No. 2010-006 (2010) (referenced in the record as "Koos"), LUBA several times expressed its frustration with the OAR's, labeling 660-034-0035 as "profoundly ambiguous" regarding which park uses require an exception and which do not and noting that there is a "lack of guidance". Nothing has improved since then. The opponent's position is simple - pump tracks (and related facilities), remote control vehicle parks and field lighting are not listed in the statutes or OAR's. Therefore, absent a County master plan, an exception to Goal 3 is required. The applicant notes that public parks and playgrounds are permitted conditionally under ORS 215.283, so components that fit within those terms do not require an exception. Further, the applicant cites Rural Thurston Inc., v Lane County, LUBA No. 2007-104 (2007) in which LUBA found that, by implication, some of the uses listed in OAR 660 -034 -0035(2)(a) -(g) do not require a goal exception. The applicant further contends that the OAR list is not exclusive. The applicant argues that there is an important distinction between a "use" and an "improvement". The former consists only of the remote -control car track and the bike course. The balance, including field 11 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision lighting, are simply improvements supporting approved or approvable uses. Further, since the Park, including the sports fields, is an approved use that is permitted to continue, improvements that expand the intensity of those uses are permitted. Rural Thurston involved a 10 -acre park with trails, benches, signs, doggy bag dispensers and landscaping. The applicant proposed to add a restroom, tables and benches, a gathering area with a pergola, informational kiosk and children's play area. LUBA concluded that these do not require an exception because they are on the Tess intensive end of the spectrum of uses listed in OAR 660-034-0035(2) and are "passive, low intensity uses similar to those allowed in campgrounds in resource zones." Koos involved a 175 -acre EFU tract on which the County sought to create a new park with 196 RV campsites each with sewer, water and electric hookups, five restroom/shower buildings, a camp store, one or two 1200 sq. ft. enclosed shelters, a caretaker dwelling, and administrative/shop/storage building., plus a large day use area with trails, picnic shelters and restrooms. LUBA first concluded that it is inappropriate to transfer the restrictions on private campgrounds (e.g. no swimming pools, tennis courts, retail stores) in part because "LCDC has chosen to treat public parks more favorably" but that those restrictions provide some context to delineate what uses in the rule are allowed without an exception. Consistent with Rural Thurston, LUBA concluded that the uses requiring an exception are those on the "more developed, intensive end of the spectrum." To draw that line, LUBA looked to Goal 3, i.e. to preserve and maintain agricultural land for farm use and related guidelines. Thus, "the scope of permanent development, services and infrastructure should be minimized". If there is more than one way to provide a park development or service, local governments are encouraged to choose the Tess permanent, intense option. LUBA found that full individual hook-ups went too far in creating "urban -like" development and that centralized facilities were a relatively common and feasible option. Similarly, the clubhouse and the retail store were rejected. But the administrative office and staff lodging were allowed, noting that such facilities are allowed on forest lands.3 1. Bike park/pump track. "Bike park west" proposes a tower no higher than 30' for self-directed starts onto various trails with varying degrees of difficulty. There also would be a starter mound, a skills course, sessions area and trials area. Unlike the BMX facility, there would be no starting gate or similar features. See, Sheet TD -100. ORS 195.120 and OAR 660-034-0035 (2) (c) list recreational trails, including biking and "trail staging areas" as permitted in state parks without a goal exception. I also think that trails are inherent in use of the term "parks and playgrounds" in ORS 215.283(2)(d). While this bike park has several trails in a relatively small area and clearly is intended for active and fairly intense use, it fundamentally is a bike trail system and appears to me to be on the less intensive side of the spectrum of uses analyzed by LUBA. Neither the trails or starting tower are inherently permanent features that would preclude the (unlikely) reconversion to agricultural use. Similarly, I think the tower falls within the rubric of a "play structure". It is modest in size and 3 LUBA also addressed Goals 11 and 14, neither of which were raised in this proceeding. 12 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision does not have the accouterments found in the BMX facility. In short, the proposed use is a bike "playground" that may be more involved than the typical playground but is not so much as to place it into a category requiring an exception. 2. R/C vehicle track. The applicant notes that "off-road" vehicle trails are permitted without an exception in state parks. It argues that this essentially is an off-road vehicle trail that is much less noisy and intense than one for motorcycles or ATV's. Alternatively, it is a play structure. The applicant contends that it is an "extremely low impact use". It is proposed to be located between the fire station and the BMX track. Few other details are provided. Presumably, it is unpaved with no significant permanent features. It is unclear whether "off-road vehicle" trails for ATV's would be permitted in a local park without an exception. Certainly, a relatively small track for battery powered remote control vehicles would be much less impactful. It is not an urban use. I cannot see how a relatively small, non -permanent facility such as this would trigger an exception. 3. Lighting. The applicant notes that uses that have been recognized as not needing an exception, or likely would not require an exception if tested, frequently have lighting. These include trails, restrooms, parking areas and group shelters. I agree, and no one has contested such lighting. Field lighting is very different, however, notwithstanding the technological advances made to reduce impacts. Such lighting involves relatively permanent, tall poles. They make possible a much greater intensity and duration of use. Nighttime games and practices are more urban or at least suburban. On the other hand, there is very little conversion of farm land in the lights themselves. Further, the applicant argues that lighting is not a use but rather is an improvement that supports an approved use, e.g. the developed sports fields. Since the fields were originally approved in 1991, prior to the OAR's, they should be allowed to be modified or improved. The application for the original sports complex stated that it "will not have exterior lighting for the ball fields." CU -91-117. The expansion application similarly did not seek sports field lighting, although the approval states, "However, if exterior lighting is installed' it must meet DCC Chapter 165.1- Outdoor Lighting Control. CU -03-14, SP -03-33. "Open play fields" are permitted in state parks without an exception. OAR 660-034-0035 (2)(b). The OAR's also reference "amenities related to park use" some of which LUBA has recognized as not requiring an exception for county parks such as restrooms and staff lodging. The OAR's specify allowed "support facilities" such as sewer, water and electrical. In Koos, LUBA denied individual campsites facilities but permitted centralized support facilities. This categorization belies applicant's argument that field lighting simply is an allowed improvement in support of a use and not a regulated use. The same could be said for electrical, sewer, water and similar items that the OAR's call "facilities". They also are support items similar to lighting. There would be no reason for the OAR's to list such items if they are merely support improvements not subject to Goal 3. 13 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision Further, and more importantly, the OAR's list only "open play fields". "Open play fields" are defined as "a large, grassy area with no structural improvements intended for outdoor games and activities by park visitors. The term does not include developed ball fields, golf courses or courts for racquet sports." OAR 660-034-0010. This is not a matter of whether a use not listed may be approved, it is specific limitation. Thus, it appears that the developed ball fields proposed to be lighted would be not approvable today without an exception. OAR 660-034-0040 (2) states that it "does not require changes to...lawful uses in existence within local parks on July 15, 1998." Some fields were approved prior to that date and some after, but as discussed above are not subject to collateral attack. Therefore, the exact legal status of the ball fields is somewhat unclear. See generally, Pioneer Asphalt, Inc. v Umatilla County, 71 Or LUBA 65 (2015) (Batch plan that received a conditional use permit under then applicable criteria is not a non -conforming use.); Tolbert v Clackamas County, 70 Or LUBA 388 (2014) (Issues arguably relevant to a modification that could have been, but were not, raised as part of original approval are not required to be addressed.) The applicant has not provided me with rationale for why adding field lighting resulting in a more "developed ball field" is permissible when I cannot approve a developed ball field in the first place without an exception. Lighting is being proposed to significantly increase the hours of operation and use of the fields. Thus, it moves the fields even farther along the spectrum of intensity or urban/suburban style use when developed fields apparently were considered by LCDC to be too intense of a use to obtain a new approval if starting fresh. Installation would further preclude (the admittedly unlikely) future conversion back to agricultural. If a ball field with lighting could not be approved at a state park without an exception, I cannot see how I can approve a conditional use for lighting to an existing ballfield at a local park. For these reasons, the field lighting component of the application is denied. Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance A. CHAPTER 18.16. EXCLUSIVE FARM USE ZONES Hearings Officer: Although I have denied the field lighting component, I include it in the analysis under this and subsequent code standards in case the Board of Commissioners or other authority disagrees with my conclusion. The entire property includes one soil type, Unit 59C, Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskamp Complex. High value farmland, as defined in DCC 18.04, is land predominantly comprised of specific soil units that are irrigated. The definition of high-value farmland does not include soil type 59C. For this reason, the subject property is not high-value farmland. 2. Section 18.16.040. Limitations on Conditional Uses. A. Conditional uses permitted by DCC 18.16.030, 18.16.031, and 18.16.033 may be established subject to ORS 215.296, applicable provisions in DCC 18.128, and upon a finding by the Planning Director or Hearings Body that the proposed use: 14 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision 1. Will not force a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(c) on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest uses; and 2. Will not significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use; and FINDING: The lands surrounding the subject property include a mix of uses consisting of farm -zoned parcels, rural residential properties, an elementary school, a fire station, and a newly established solar energy facility. The residential subdivision of Eastmont Estates is adjacent to the park property along its north boundary, with Quail Ridge subdivision located to the west and across Hamby Road. The urban reserve area associated with the City of Bend is located approximately 0.25 miles to the west while the Urban Growth Boundary and city limits are just beyond that at approximately 0.35 miles. To the east approximately 0.20 miles is an approved horse and dog training and testing trial facility located at 21700 Neff Road. The newly established solar energy facility is adjacent to the park's northeastern boundary at 21580 Neff Road. The closest farm use in the area is to the north at 21699 Eastmont Drive and 62650 Hamby Road, two abutting parcels (approximately 50 acres total area) under one ownership. These parcels are located between Eastmont Estates and Hamby Road, with the southern parcel touching the park property at the park's northwest corner. The next closest farm uses appear to be occurring at least 0.25 miles to the east, west, and south, beyond the residential subdivisions and the solar energy facility. There are no observable forest practices occurring in the surrounding area. The predominant tree species in the area is juniper, which have no commercial value. Hearings Officer: Several parties contend that some of the modifications will increase dust, traffic and otherwise adversely impact farm operations but few, if any, specifics are provided. As far as I can tell no one who farms has expressed concerns. Most comments are from rural residential property owners which, in the aggregate, generate much the same impacts as the park and are as likely, if not more so, to impact farm practices. The applicant has proposed trail treatments to mitigate dust. There is no evidence that existing use of the park has adversely impacted farming. As discussed below, the applicant provided supplemental traffic information and no impacts on farming are identified. There was no evidence that the noise or lighting would interfere with livestock. This criterion is met. 3. That the actual site on which the use is to be located is the least suitable for the production of farm crops or livestock FINDING: The proposed park expansions will be located throughout the property in areas not cultivated or irrigated. The entire property is within the soil type 59C, which is not considered high-value farmland. Approximately 9.09 acres of water rights are assigned to the park property and, based on the COID water rights map, are specifically located on the three southernmost play fields in the park. For areas not irrigated, the soil type has an agricultural classification of 7e. The soil type will not support the production of farm crops without irrigation. The soil unit may support large acreage livestock grazing. However, the subject property has been dedicated to park use since 1991, when the park 15 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision use was approved by the County. Agricultural production has not occurred since about the time the park was established, based on staffs review of historic aerial photos. Based on this information, staff believes the proposed park expansion areas are located in the least suitable areas since it is devoid of irrigation and agricultural use. Furthermore, staff believes that the historic use of the property as a park is well established and thus less likely that the property will be suitable for or converted to a farm use. Hearings Officer: I concur. This criterion would be more relevant if the park was expanding its boundary, but the more significant proposed modifications are internal - wedged between the school, fire station, Hamby Road and the ball fields. The only improvements that are arguably in a location that might have some potential for agriculture are the pedestrian/bike trails that have minimal if any impact on the unlikely future conversion of this property to agricultural use. 3. Section 18.16.060. Dimensional Standards. E. Building height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040. FINDING: The proposed park expansion includes some structures such as restroom buildings, shade structures, and slope style starter tower. The applicant submitted photo examples of the proposed one-story structures. Staff recommends that, if the application is approved, a condition of any approval be added to ensure compliance. Hearings Officer: As noted above, I have denied the field lighting. It also is argued that the field lighting improperly exceeds the 30' height limit for structures. DCC 18.04.030 broadly defines "structure" as "something constructed or build having a fixed base on, or fixed connection to, the ground or another structure." It clearly is different from and broader than a "building". Without conceding that the height limit applies, the applicant notes that an exception up to 36' is available under DCC 18.120.040 C. I find that lighting higher than 30' is not permitted under this section but as discussed below, an exception to 36' likely could be justified if lighting were to be approved. 4. Section 18.16.070. Yards. A. The front yard shall be a minimum of 40 feet from a property line fronting on a local street, 60 feet from a property line fronting on a collector street, and 100 feet from a property line fronting on an arterial street. FINDING: The property has frontage on Neff Road and Hamby Road to the south and west, respectively. Both Neff Road and Hamby Road are classified as rural arterial roads. The required front yard setback from both roads is 100 feet. According to the applicant, any new structures and the trails proposed as part of the park modification will be setback over 100 feet from property lines adjacent to the two roadways. The proposal complies with the setback standards of the EFU Zone. 16 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision B. Each side yard shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with side yards adjacent to property currently employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the side yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with a rear yard adjacent to property currently employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the rear yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. FINDING: Based on the shape of the property and the adjacent roadways, staff finds the northerly eastern property boundary is considered the rear property line and thus the remaining property boundaries to the east, west, and north are considered side property lines. The County Code requires minimum yards of 25 feet from side and rear property lines. According to the applicant, any new structures proposed as part of the park expansion will be setback over 100 feet from property lines. The proposal complies with the setback standards of the EFU Zone. D. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. FINDING: Staff is not aware of any greater setback required by applicable building or structural codes. However, the Building Division will determine if any greater setbacks are required during building permit review. B. CHAPTER 18.80. AIRPORT SAFETY COMBINING ZONE 1. Section 18.80.020. Application of Provisions. The provisions of DCC 18.80.020 shall only apply to unincorporated areas located under airport imaginary surfaces and zones, including approach surfaces, transitional surfaces, horizontal surfaces, conical surfaces and runway protection zones. While DCC 18.80 identifies dimensions for the entire imaginary surface and zone, parts of the surfaces and/or zones do not apply within the Redmond, Bend or Sisters Urban Growth Boundaries. The Redmond Airport is owned and operated by the City of Redmond, and located wholly within the Redmond City Limits. Imaginary surface dimensions vary for each airport covered by DCC 18.80.020. Based on the classification of each individual airport, only those portions (of the AS Zone) that overlay existing County zones are relevant. Public use airports covered by DCC 18.80.020 include Redmond Municipal, Bend Municipal, Sunriver and Sisters Eagle Air. Although it is a public -use airport, due to its size and other factors, the County treats land uses surrounding the Sisters Eagle Air Airport based on the ORS 836.608 requirements for private -use airports. The Oregon Department of Aviation is still studying what land use requirements will ultimately be 17 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision applied to Sisters. However, contrary to the requirements of ORS 836.608, as will all public -use airports, federal law requires that the FAA Part 77 surfaces must be applied. The private -use airports covered by DCC 18.80.020 include Cline Falls Airpark and Juniper Airpark. FINDING: The subject property lies within the Conical Surface of the Bend Municipal Airport. Therefore, the provisions of this chapter apply. 2. Section 18.80.028. Height Limitations. All uses permitted by the underlying zone shall comply with the height limitations in DCC 18.80.028. When height limitations of the underlying zone are more restrictive than those of this overlay zone, the underlying zone height limitations shall control. (ORS 836.619; OAR 660-013-0070] A. Except as provided in DCC 18.80.028(B) and (C), no structure or tree, plant or other object of natural growth shall penetrate an airport imaginary surface. [ORS 836.619; OAR 660-013-0070(1)] B. For areas within airport imaginary surfaces but outside the approach and transition surfaces, where the terrain is at higher elevations than the airport runway surfaces such that existing structures and permitted development penetrate or would penetrate the airport imaginary surfaces, a local government may authorize structures up to 35 feet in height. FINDING: The subject property is situated under the Conical Surface associated with the Bend Municipal Airport. This surface is at least 100 -feet above the subject property and no penetrations of this surface are included in this proposal. This criterion is met. C. Other height exceptions or variances may be permitted when supported in writing by the airport sponsor, the Department of Aviation and the FAA. Applications for height variances shall follow the procedures for other variances and shall be subject to such conditions and terms as recommended by the Department of Aviation and the FM (for Redmond, Bend and Sunriver.) FINDING: No height exceptions or variances are sought by this application; therefore, this criterion does not apply. 3. Section 18.80.044. Land Use Compatibility. Applications for land use or building permits for properties within the boundaries of this overlay zone shall comply with the requirements of DCC 18.80 as provided herein. When compatibility issues arise, the Planning Director or Hearings Body is required to take actions that eliminate or minimize the incompatibility by choosing the most compatible location or design for the boundary or use. Where compatibility issues persist, despite actions or conditions intended to eliminate or minimize the incompatibility, the Planning Director or Hearings Body may disallow the use or 18 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision expansion, except where the action results in loss of current operational levels and/or the ability of the airport to grow to meet future community needs. Reasonable conditions to protect the public safety may be imposed by the Planning Director or Hearings Body. [ORS 836.619; ORS 836.623(1); OAR 660-013-0080] A. Noise. Within airport noise impact boundaries, land uses shall be established consistent with the levels identified in OAR 660, Division 13, Exhibit 5 (Table 2 of DCC 18.80). Applicants for any subdivision or partition approval or other land use approval or building permit affecting land within airport noise impact boundaries, shall sign and record in the Deschutes County Book of Records, a Declaration of Anticipated Noise declaring that the applicant and his successors will not now, or in the future complain about the allowed airport activities at the adjacent airport. In areas where the noise level is anticipated to be at or above 55 Ldn, prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of a noise sensitive land use (real property normally used for sleeping or as a school, church, hospital, public library or similar use), the permit applicant shall be required to demonstrate that a noise abatement strategy will be incorporated into the building design that will achieve an indoor noise level equal to or less than 55 Ldn. NOTE: FAA Order 5100.38A, Chapter 7 provides that interior noise levels should not exceed 45 decibels in all habitable zones.] FINDING: The proposed project is not within the noise impact boundary of the Bend Municipal Airport. This criterion is not applicable. B. Outdoor lighting. No new or expanded industrial, commercial or recreational use shall project lighting directly onto an existing runway or taxiway or into existing airport approach surfaces except where necessary for safe and convenient air travel. Lighting for these uses shall incorporate shielding in their designs to reflect light away from airport approach surfaces. No use shall imitate airport lighting or impede the ability of pilots to distinguish between airport lighting and other lighting. FINDING: The applicant is proposing to expand the existing public park, which is a recreational use, on the subject property. The proposal does include exterior lighting. The applicant indicates the outdoor lighting "will be designed to minimize generation of ambient light and trespass onto adjacent properties." Furthermore, the park facility is approximately two (2) miles southwest of the existing runway and 1.4 miles west of the closest airport approach surface. A condition of any approval will be added to ensure compliance. C. Glare. No glare producing material, including but not limited to unpainted metal or reflective glass, shall be used on the exterior of structures located within an approach surface or on nearby lands where glare could impede a pilot's vision. FINDING: Based on the materials submitted, the proposed structures will be open-air shade structures with wood support posts and beams and metal roofing finished in an earth tone colored. Although the structures will minimize visual impacts and will not 19 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision include glare -producing material, staff recommends, and I agree that a condition of any approval be added to ensure compliance. D. Industrial emissions. No new industrial, mining or similar use, or expansion of an existing industrial, mining or similar use, shall, as part of its regular operations, cause emissions of smoke, dust or steam that could obscure visibility within airport approach surfaces, except upon demonstration, supported by substantial evidence, that mitigation measures imposed as approval conditions will reduce the potential for safety risk or incompatibility with airport operations to an insignificant level. The review authority shall impose such conditions as necessary to ensure that the use does not obscure visibility. FINDING: The proposal is a recreational use, and does not include any industrial, mining, or similar use. E. Communications Facilities and Electrical Interference. No use shall cause or create electrical interference with navigational signals or radio communications between an airport and aircraft. Proposals for the location of new or expanded radio, radiotelephone, and television transmission facilities and electrical transmission lines within this overlay zone shall be coordinated with the Department of Aviation and the FAA prior to approval. Approval of cellular and other telephone or radio communication towers on leased property located within airport imaginary surfaces shall be conditioned to require their removal within 90 days following the expiration of the lease agreement. A bond or other security shall be required to ensure this result. FINDING: The proposed development will not cause or create electrical interference with navigational signals or radio communications between an airport and aircraft. F. Limitations and Restrictions on Allowed Uses in the RPZ, Approach Surface, and Airport Direct and Secondary Impact Areas. For the Redmond, Bend, Sunriver, and Sisters airports, the land uses identified in DCC 18.80 Table 1, and their accessory uses, are permitted, permitted under limited circumstances, or prohibited in the manner therein described. In the event of conflict with the underlying zone, the more restrictive provisions shall control. As used in DCC 18.80.044, a limited use means a use that is allowed subject to special standards specific to that use. FINDING: The proposed development will be located under the Conical Surface and not within the RPZ, Approach Surface, Airport Direct, or Secondary Impact Areas. This criterion is not applicable. 20 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision 4. Section 18.80.054. Conditional Uses. Uses permitted conditionally shall be those identified as conditional uses in the underlying zone with which the AS Zone is combined, and shall be subject to all conditions of the underlying zone except as provided in DCC 18.80.044. FINDING: The applicant is proposing an expansion of the existing public park on the subject property. Public parks are permitted conditionally in the EFU Zone. Therefore, the applicant's proposal is also permitted conditionally in the AS Zone. In addition, DCC 18.80.044 does not prohibit the proposed use. C. CHAPTER 18.128. CONDITIONAL USE 1. Section 18.128.015. General Standards Governing Conditional Uses. Except for those conditional uses permitting individual single-family dwellings, conditional uses shall comply with the following standards in addition to the standards of the zone in which the conditional use is located and any other applicable standards of the chapter: A. The site under consideration shall be determined to be suitable for the proposed use based on the following factors: 1. Site, design and operating characteristics of the use; FINDING: The applicant is proposing to expand an existing park on the subject property. The property is approximately 95.31 acres and has level to varying topography. Vegetation includes introduced landscaping throughout the property mixed with native vegetation consisting of juniper trees, shrubs, and grasses. The existing park is developed with play fields, BMX track, off -leash dog park, and other park -related facilities. Located in the southwestern region of the property is a former fire station building, which is proposed to be converted into a park maintenance facility, and a cell tower. An irrigation canal and its access road cross the property in the northern half of the parcel and then form the southeastern boundary in the southern half. The property also includes another canal right-of-way and access road in the eastern side of the property. Neff Road and Hamby Road are adjacent to the southern and parts of the western boundary, respectively. Primary access to the property is from the south and Neff Road. There are three other minor access points in the southwestern corner, near the intersection of Hamby Road and Neff Road, for the former fire station and the existing cell tower. The park modifications are proposed throughout the property but be primarily in the middle and northern regions of the park. The proposed expansion will include several park facilities such as pedestrian and bicycle trails, R/C vehicle track, "naturehood" area, support facilities, additional parking areas, and new entrance along Hamby Road. Removal of vegetation will only occur within the development area. Otherwise, mature juniper trees and other vegetation and existing topography throughout the property will be retained. The project will include establishing a parking and maneuvering area adjacent to the BMX 21 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18-000164-5P Hearings Officer Decision and R/C tracks. Introduced landscaping beds will also be provided around and throughout the park and parking areas. A new shared access from Hamby Road will be established for both the park and neighboring school. Two minor access points to the former fire station and cell tower will be abandoned or removed along Neff Road. According to the applicant, the park use will occur at a variety of times but no later than 10 p.m. The areas proposed for expansion are currently undeveloped. There is sufficient area for parking, pedestrian access, and adherence to setbacks for each proposed use. The design of the expansion will allow convenient access to new parking areas and provide pedestrian walkways to the new uses. For these reasons, the proposed site under consideration is suitable for the proposed park expansion considering its size, design, and the operating characteristics of the use. 2. Adequacy of transportation access to the site; and FINDING: The property is adjacent to Neff Road to the south and Hamby Road to the west. Currently, the primary access to the park is taken from Neff Road. Three minor access points to the former fire station and cell tower are located along Neff Road and Hamby Road, two of which will be abandoned or removed with this proposal. The applicant is proposing to establish a new access on Hamby Road that will be shared with the neighboring elementary school4 (the southernmost access to the school will then be removed or abandoned). Hearings Officer: The County Road Department and Senior Transportation initially determined that the transportation report was incomplete and sought additional information. After a series of communications, County staff concluded that the analysis provided by the applicant was complete and proposed several conditions of approval to which the applicant does not object. Opponents raised general concerns about the potential additional traffic generated by expanded park uses. Some suggested that tying access into the existing school site would be better than a new shared access. Several alleged that the intersection of Hamby and Highway 20 already is a problem. Concerns were raised about noncompliance with speed limits. Questions were raised about sight distances, including park for visitors southbound on Hamby turning into the new entrance. No expert testimony was presented contesting the traffic engineer reports or staff's analysis of those reports. The applicant initially relied on the current ITE Manual to conclude that no significant number of new trips would be generated. Staff, correctly challenged that and ultimately settled on more realistic assumptions, including actual counts coinciding with a Targe weekend event. The July 5, 4 Staff noted that a similar example of this type of shared access is the Pine Nursery Park located at 63100 Purcell Boulevard, Bend in which the park and neighboring elementary school share a primary access off Purcell Boulevard. Both the park and school also have separate access points from Yoeman Road. The County originally approved Pine Nursery Park in 2006, through file nos. CU -06-61 and SP -06-23 and received a subsequent approval in 2015 (file nos. 247 -14 -000438 -SP and 247 -15 -000058 -MA) before becoming part of the Urban Growth Boundary in 2017. 22 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision 2018 Transight Consulting report indicates no significant crash history and concludes that no safety or operational issues are identified. Staff recommended conditions closing certain accesses and limiting one access on Neff Road to service access only. The expert analysis is credible and appears reasonably thorough. In the absence of any comparable contrary evidence, I find that this criterion is met subject to the conditions recommended by staff. 3. The natural and physical features of the site, including, but not limited to, general topography, natural hazards and natural resource values. FINDING: The proposed park expansion, including any structures and parking and maneuvering areas, will be in an area that has relatively level terrain. Vegetation on-site includes native grasses and shrubs with a few juniper trees. In addition, non-native landscaping has been established throughout the park. The property is developed with an existing public park including access driveway, parking areas, and support facilities. There are no known natural hazards, except for wildfire, or distinguishing natural resource values on property. Based on this information, the site suitable based on those features listed in this criterion. B. The proposed use shall be compatible with existing and projected uses on surrounding properties based on the factors listed in DCC 18.128.015(A). FINDING: The existing uses on surrounding properties are a mix of uses consisting of farm - zoned parcels, rural residential properties, an elementary school and fire station, and a newly established solar energy facility. The urban reserve area associated to the City of Bend is located approximately 0.25 miles to the west while the Urban Growth Boundary and city limits are just beyond that at approximately 0.35 miles. Adjacent to the south and west property boundaries is Neff Road and Hamby Road, respectively. The closest residential development is adjacent to the park's northern boundary in the Eastmont Estates subdivision. Across Hamby Road to the west is the Quail Ridge residential subdivision. The closest farm use is located to the north on a parcel that touches the park's northwest property corner. To the east are developed farm -zoned properties but do not appear to be in active farm use. However, one property has an approved horse and dog training and testing trial facility. Adjacent to the northeastern boundary is a newly established solar energy facility. The vegetation and topography on the subject property is similar throughout the surrounding area with native and introduced vegetation. The projected land uses based on the current zoning will likely be similar to those already established such as single-family dwellings, agricultural uses, public and utility facilities, and urban density development. Big Sky / Luke Damon Sports Complex is a well- established use in the area as it has been in existence since approximately 1991. Hearings Officer: Although not referenced by staff, it should be noted that County hearings officers generally have concluded that this criterion is intended to address whether the proposal would preclude or substantially interfere with the continuation of existing uses or development of projected uses on surrounding lands. Its focus does not include impacts limited to the "enjoyment" or "quality" of those uses. Terms such as "compatible" are notoriously subjective and 23 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision difficult to apply consistently. While one can argue that the historic interpretation is too crabbed, it provides a relatively clear guidepost and has not been repudiated by the Board of Commissioners. It also provides a basis to distinguish this criterion from the "relate harmoniously" criterion addressed below. As staff notes, the proposed expansion will not change the public park use of the property. But it does add uses and intensifies others. In particular, opponents raise concerns about noise, dust, traffic, lighting, trespass and general interference with the rural character of the area. None of the objections provide substantial evidence that any of the modifications, with the proposed mitigation measures, will preclude or substantially interfere with the use of nearby properties for uses allowed in their respective zones. Many of the alleged potential impacts could adversely affect the current level of enjoyment of their properties to some degree but there is no indication that those properties would not be able to continue to be used for their existing uses or would not be purchased or improved for allowed uses. Setbacks are greater than the required minimums. Traffic impacts are within acceptable norms and mitigated by conditions. The lighting proposed is modern technology that is dark sky compliant and will not spill onto other properties. Some testimony indicated that the park is an amenity for nearby residents in some respects such as dog walking, hiking and biking that would be lost if the park property was in agricultural production or otherwise developed. I find that this criterion is met for the entire proposal, including field lighting. But see discussion under DCC 18.120.060A. C. These standards and any other standards of DCC 18.128 may be met by the imposition of conditions calculated to insure that the standard will be met. Hearings Officer: To the extent compatibility is an issue, the conditions imposed or recommended adequately mitigate impacts. 3. Section 18.128.040. Specific Use Standards. A conditional use shall comply with the standards of the zone in which it is located and with the standards and conditions set forth in DCC 18.128.045 through DCC 18.128.370. FINDING: The use as proposed complies with the requirements of the EFU Zone as discussed above. The use is subject to the standards and conditions contained in DCC 18.128.060 that are discussed below. 4. Section 18.128.090. Medical Clinic, Veterinary Clinic, Club, Lodge, Fraternal Organization, Community Center, Grange Hall, Golf Course. Horse Stable and Horse Events Requiring Conditional Uses, Grounds and Buildings For Games or Sports, Country Club, Swimming, Boating, Tennis Clubs and Similar Activities, Government Structures and Land Uses, Parks, Playgrounds. 24 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision In considering the above, the Planning Director or Hearings Body may authorize the conditional use after it has been determined that the following will be provided: A. Access from principal streets subject to Deschutes County Road Department standards. Hearings Officer: Big Sky / Luke Damon Sports Complex has direct access from Neff Road, a designated arterial. The applicant is proposing a new access from Hamby Road that will be shared by the neighboring elementary school. Neff Road and Hamby Road are built to County standards. Existing accesses will be closed and the access on Neff Rd 375' east of Hamby will be limited to service use only. The County Road Department has identified a need for additional right-of-way along the property's frontage to Neff Road and Hamby Road to provide the minimum standard arterial right-of-way width of 40 feet from centerline pursuant to DCC 17.48, Design and Construction Specifications, and DCC 18.124.080 and recommended further conditions. The applicant has agreed to these conditions. See July 16, email from Cody Smith. This criterion is met with conditions of approval. B. Off-street parking subject to DCC 18.116.030. FINDING: The applicant proposes approximately 250 new parking spaces, maneuvering area. Existing and proposed roads are designed for either one-way or two-way traffic. The proposed expansion will have enough space to accommodate expected vehicle usage to the site. The off-street parking standards are addressed in more detail below. C. Building and site design provisions, including landscaping, that will effectively screen neighboring uses from noise, glare, odor and other adverse impacts. FINDING: The proposed expansions will be throughout the property but primarily in the middle of the park near the existing BMX track and in the northern region. The property is approximately 95.13 acres with native vegetation consisting of trees, shrubs, and grasses and introduced landscaping. It may be necessary to remove vegetation within the development footprint only; otherwise, all other vegetation will be retained thus preserving the landscape and existing topography. The design and materials used for the building will match existing structures in the park. The proposed park expansion will meet or exceed the EFU Zone setback requirements. Hearings Officer: This criterion also is addressed under Section 18.124.060 A, below. D. Playgrounds, recreation facilities and community centers in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone are subject to the provisions of DCC 18.88. FINDING: The subject property is not within the WA zone. This criterion is not applicable. D. CHAPTER 18.124. SITE PLAN REVIEW 1. Section 18.124.030. Approval Required. 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision 25 A. No building, grading, parking, land use, sign or other required permit shall be issued for a use subject to DCC 18.124.030, nor shall such a use be commenced, enlarged, altered or changed until a final site plan is approved according to DCC Title 22, the Uniform Development Procedures Ordinance. B. The provisions of DCC 18.124.030 shall apply to the following: 1. All conditional use permits where a site plan is a condition of approval; 2. Multiple family dwellings with more than three units; 3. All commercial uses that require parking facilities; 4. All industrial uses; 5. All other uses that serve the general public or that otherwise require parking facilities, including, but not limited to, landfills, schools, utility facilities, churches, community buildings, cemeteries, mausoleums, crematories, airports, parks and recreation facilities and livestock sales yards; and 6. As specified for Flood Plain Zones (FP) and Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zones (SMIA). FINDING: The proposed use is a park that serves the public. The provisions of this chapter are applicable. 2. Section 18.124.060. Approval Criteria. Approval of a site plan shall be based on the following criteria: A. t shall relate harmoniously to natural envirnnment f'1. The proposed JII aI1 IGIaa ► ar►► vuu►Jr the and existing development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features including views and topographical features. FINDING: The subject property is approximately 95.13 acres. The site has relatively level topography. The park includes a mixture of native and introduced landscaping. An irrigation canal crosses the property in the northern half of the parcel and forms the southeastern boundary in the southern half. Neff Road and Hamby Road abut the property to the south and west, respectively. Currently, access to the property is taken from Neff Road. The area surrounding the subject property consists of a mix of uses including farm -zoned parcels, rural residential properties, an elementary school and fire station, and a newly established solar energy facility. Rural residential properties are to the north and west of the property, including Eastmont Estates and Quail Ridge, respectively. The urban reserve area, Urban Growth Boundary, and city limits associated to the City of Bend are located approximately 0.25 to 0.35 miles to the west. An approved horse and dog training and testing facility is located to the east approximately 0.20 miles and the newly established solar energy facility is adjacent to the park's northeastern boundary. The closest farm use in the area abuts the park property at the park's northwestern corner, near Eastmont Estates. 26 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision Hearings Officer: The proposed expansion includes a bike starter tower and bike tracks in the western portion of the site, south of the school and across Hamby Road from Quail Ridge. A significant network of pedestrian and bicycle trails is proposed including near the perimeter in the northeast area. The R/C vehicle track would be between the fire station and existing BMX track. Most parking is located between the fields and the BMX track. As conditioned, two existing access points would be eliminated and one access to Neff Rd. limited to service use only. The existing school access from Hamby Rd will be shifted and shared with the park. The applicant is proposing to remove native vegetation in the development footprint only and introduce landscaping in and around the parking area and other areas. Native vegetation will be retained throughout the property. No other impacts to landscape and existing topography are proposed. The applicant proposes exterior lighting for some play fields, if funding allows. According to the applicant, the park use will occur at a variety of times but no later than 10 p.m. Several nearby residents raised concerns about adverse impacts. The Browns, who live to the east across from the tower and pump track express concerns about dust, noise, lighting and traffic. They are concerned about illumination of the slope tower. They also are concerned about noise from the R/C vehicle track. Similarly, Jeffrey Druitman objects to the 30 tower "directly across the street" from his residence, together with lighting and amplified sounds. There was mixed testimony regarding amplified sound with some persons indicating that previous issues largely had been resolved and others indicating amplified sound at the BMX track remains an issue. Ms. Henry lives in Eastmont to the north expresses concerns about lighting and trespass from the new bike trails near her property. Mr. Less lives in the same vicinity and shares those concerns, together with amplified noise. Mr. Rupprecht, stating that is speaking for several neighbors north of Big Sky Park, objects to an "unsupervised CycleCross Racing Course" within what is alleged to be a 250' natural buffer area. He states that the course will include competitions and fans. Other commenters also state that they were led to believe that there would be an undisturbed natural area in the northern portion of the park. There also were concerns raised about dogs running at large and dogs in the COID pond. "Relate harmoniously" is not defined. It has been described as "highly subjective" and hearings officers, including me, find it difficult to apply. In general, I have concluded that it imposes a somewhat higher burden than "compatibility". It generally means a "minimum of conflict, discord or similar impacts on existing development and the environment". In most cases, the primary, but not exclusive, focus is on layout, design, location and similar factors. 1. RIC vehicle track. The primary allegation is that this use will create noise impacts. The applicant did not include this use in its noise study and there is very little information about this use in the record. The closest point appears to be about 300' east of Hamby Road, and farther still to residential uses. This is a significant distance for what, logically, would seem to be a fairly low impact use. The problem I have is that there is so little information in the record. Accordingly, given that the applicant has the burden, I think I must err on the side of the objectors. This does not mean that the use should be denied, however. Rather, it seems clear that a fence along the 27 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision western boundary of the track area should be adequate to minimize any disruption caused by noise. The fence must be a minimum of 6' feet and constructed of wood or other material forming a solid face to reduce sound. No details as to the size or exact location of the track were provided so it is difficult to know exactly how much fence is needed. I think that a fence that extends at least 20' in both directions (NE/SW) beyond any area where R/C cars are operated should be sufficient, up to a maximum of 120' which appears to be the approximate western boundary of the R/C area. 2. Starting tower/bike park/pump track/trials course. The tower is proposed to be no higher than 30'. It is located approximately 250' from the nearest residence. The applicant clarified that it will have no starting gate, amplified sound or lighting. It will not be used for organized events. I have analogized it to a large play structure which are common uses in parks. The closest bike trail heading from the tower is well over 200' from Hamby Road and the trails are internal to the site. It certainly has fewer potential impacts than the existing BMX track. Given the clarifications from the applicant, which shall be imposed as conditions of approval, I find that the applicant has met its burden and this criterion is met. 3. Single-track trail/bike park east. As noted above, the applicant provided little detail about the proposed use of these trails. Generally, they are described as biking and hiking trails. But there is a reference to use by high school cross-country teams and the application references a "bike park with cyclocross/running trails. The noise, traffic and similar studies reference the BMX area and ball field events but not events associated with these trails. The applicant states that there are many user generated trails in the area and the hope is that developed trails will minimize those impacts. It notes that the perimeter trail will be 103 feet from the property line with Eastmont and 172 ft from Quail Ridge. The single bike trail will be 121 ft. from Eastmont. All of these exceed the minimum setbacks. Opponents contend that a portion of the bike park is within a buffer area that they were guaranteed would not be developed. As the applicant notes, however, the cited references to the 250' buffer and limit of 425' of expansion are not conditions of approval. Rather, they are cited in support of the staff determination that the uses proposed in CU-03-14/SP-03-11 would be compatible with nearby residential uses. Similarly, the 1996 letter from Paul Stell is not a permanent commitment much less binding. On the other hand, the discussion in CU-03-14/SP- 03-11 provides historical context for evaluating how the park relates to nearby uses. Testimony and photos submitted by opponents in the Eastmont area show that bicyclists clearly are visible and can be heard from their properties. See, e.g. photos from Ronald and Gayle Rupprecht. Bike and hiking trails are common features of parks, including rural parks. I find nothing that indicates that maintained trails for normal, causal pedestrian and biking use in their proposed location is disharmonious with rural residences. The distance from the residences is significant and some sightings of bicyclists or runners does not create disharmony. 28 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision But use of the trails for organized events with many runners or bikers, perhaps noisy fans and dust from hard use creates a significant likelihood of adversely impacting normal enjoyment of rural residential uses. Having a competitive race track near one's property may be an accepted norm in urban or suburban settings but is inconsistent with the intent and purpose of EFU and rural residential zones. The applicant has done little to assuage those concerns, largely not providing information about the number, size, management or other aspects of such events or how impacts would be addressed. The applicant in its final rebuttal opened the door to fencing but I do not have enough information about where that would go or how long it needs to be to be effective. Depending on placement it could adversely impact views of adjoining properties. The effectiveness of fencing also is unclear on this record. Like the decision on the BMX park, I find that a significant buffer is needed to minimize the impacts from organized events, races and similar uses associated with cyclocross. Accordingly, I find that the same considerations present in the prior conditional use approval warrant continued implementation of a buffer, with some modification. The perimeter and single-track trails as outlined in sheet TD -100 are allowed, provided, however, that no trail within 250' of the northern boundary of the subject property may be used for organized events, including but not limited to cross-country team practices or competitions and organized cyclocross practices or competitions. The applicant may prohibit such use of the trail system as laid out in the plans or the applicant may redesign the connections and layout so that any trail to be used for organized events is no less than 250' from the northern boundary. Further, there shall be no direct connection between the cyclocross trail and the perimeter trail along the northern boundary adjacent to Eastmont Estates. Further, to help minimize trespass, the applicant must post signs, at least every 100' demarcating the park boundary and directing persons to not enter onto private property. To avoid future confusion, I want to stress that this is not necessarily a guaranteed permanent buffer. The applicant may in the future submit further modifications and seek approvals for uses in that area based on compliance with the standards then in effect. 4. Lighting. The applicant has stated that it no longer proposes lighting for the BMX track, tower, bike parks or R/C track. It proposes typical lighting for the parking areas, restrooms nd so on to which there is no significant objection. I have denied the field lighting and limited it to 30'. It would seem likely that the applicant could justify an exception under 18.120.040 C as lower lights probably would have fewer impacts than the 60'-80' lights proposed but there is nothing in the record to substantiate that assumption. The applicant did not seek an exception or address this standard for 36' high lights. This criterion is met for all other lighting, such as for the parking areas and restrooms. No lighting of the BMX track, bike parks or, R/C vehicle track is permitted. 29 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision 5. Dust. Concerns were raised about dust emanating from various proposed uses. The applicant states that it will use clay or other materials for dust suppression. There is little if anything in the record about current dust problems. Moving event use of trails to 250' away from the northern boundary also should mitigate any dust impacts. 6. Amplified noise. The applicant states that no "permanent" amplified sound will be permitted. I have addressed noise from the R/C vehicle track. Mr. Brown testified that sound has not been an issue since the noise enforcement proceeding relating to the BMX track. Others testified that it is an on-going issue or expressed concerns about future problems. I do find anything in the code that authorizes me to regulate portable sound equipment that is associated with uses that already have been approved, e.g. the BMX track and ball fields. I am not evaluating those uses for whether they are harmonious, only the newly proposed uses. Installation of any permanent amplified sound system, however, is a modification and within my purview. Consistent with the applicant's statements, a condition is imposed barring installation of any permanent amplified sound system. The applicant indicates it has no plans to use any form of amplified sound for the new uses such the pump track and related facilities or the R/C track. It is less clear whether the applicant proposes to use portable amplified sound for cyclocross, cross-country or similar events on the single-track trails. If so, there is no explanation as to how, when or where such equipment would be used. I find that the applicant has not met its burden of demonstrating that use of amplified sound, whether permanent or not, in association with any of the new uses is harmonious with surrounding residential uses. Accordingly, a condition prohibiting use of any amplified associated with the tower, pump track, R/c vehicle track and bike park east is imposed. Nothing in this decision, however, prohibits use of amplified sound in case of an emergency. Related to noise is the issue of operating hours for organized events. The applicant states that lights out will be at 10:00 p.m. with the intent that this would give people time to leave before then. But I find that ambiguous, especially in the absence of field lighting. I think it appropriate to impose a condition that all organized events, games, matches etc. end no later than 9:30 p.m. so that disturbances associated with people leaving games and events should be over by 10:00 p.m. I acknowledge that this is slightly more restrictive than provided in DCC 8.08 Noise, DCC 18.16.020 Events and DCC 5.10 Lighting, but I think that is appropriate under the Code standards and given that this is a park in the rural area. 7. Dogs. It is not clear that expansion of the dog park is a regulated use. Dog parks basically are just off leash areas that may or may not be fenced. The existing issues with dogs in the pond, trespass, running at large are enforcement issues largely appear to be beyond the scope of my review. The applicant submitted a proposal, Exhibit 13 to First Supplemental Burden of Proof, for either a 4.86 -acre total or 7.91 -acre total fenced dog park. No specific objections were raised. To the extent the expansion is at issue, however, it seems clear that the proposal to fence a fairly large area represents a significant positive step toward containing dogs and minimizing the identified impacts. Accordingly, enlarging the fenced dog area is approved and the applicant may choose which size to implement. 30 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision 8. Transportation, access and parking. Transportation impacts and access are addressed above and, as conditioned, do not violate this criterion. The applicant is proposing approximately 250 additional parking spots. Staff's analysis indicates that this should address even heavy -use days, such as during special events. It certainly will help mitigate existing problems. Several commenters suggested that Hamby and/or Neff be marked no parking. I can find nothing from the county, which has jurisdiction over those roads, consenting to such signage and am not willing to impose it as the ultimate responsibility falls on the county not the applicant. It may be that the county will implement such a program, but I cannot impose it based on this record. None of the other proposed improvements generated any significant comments or concerns and all seem relatively minor normal and customary accouterments to the previously approved uses or those approved by this decision. B. The landscape and existing topography shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible, considering development constraints and suitability of the landscape and topography. Preserved trees and shrubs shall be protected. FINDING: The applicant is proposing to expand the existing park on the property. The site includes varying topography with introduced landscaping throughout the property mixed with native vegetation of juniper trees, shrubs, and grasses. The applicant indicates that those areas intended to be developed consist of native sandy soils with surface rock and rock outcroppings with juniper tree cover. The proposal includes removal of vegetation will only occur within the development area. Otherwise, mature juniper trees and other vegetation, including the native vegetation buffer surrounding the park, and existing topography throughout the property will be retained. No other impacts to landscape and existing topography are proposed. This criterion will be met. C. The site plan shall be designed to provide a safe environment, while offering appropriate opportunities for privacy and transition from public to private spaces. FINDING: Big Sky / Luke Damon Sports Complex, with its day use areas and trails, is a park and recreation facility that serves the public. The proposed expansion of the park will also serve the public. The proposed site plan design provides a safe environment while offering appropriate opportunities for privacy and transition from public to private spaces. This includes setbacks and landscaping that will lend to a safe transition from public to private spaces. The design provides a good separation between automobiles and pedestrians based on the submitted site plan. The applicant proposes a pedestrian walkway for access to and from the parking area and proposed recreation areas and to Neff Road and Hamby Road. This criterion is satisfied. Submitted comments from residents in the Eastmont Estates subdivision to the north expressed concern over trespass to/from park property and Eastmont Estates properties via the COID canal access road. Although not a typical design standard reviewed when looking at appropriate opportunities for privacy and transition from public to private 31 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18-000164-5P Hearings Officer Decision spaces, staff understands the correlation and presents the comments in this section. The applicant noted that the access road for the canal is an easement in which the park district "cannot gate or otherwise inhibit access to that road." However, the park district could post a no trespassing sign at the park boundary with the potential to mitigate the impacts. Hearings Officer: I concur with staff. Some degree of trespass is inevitable with a park but moving the event use of trails farther from the northern boundary, fencing the dog park and posting signs will mitigate those problems. D. When appropriate, the site plan shall provide for the special needs of disabled persons, such as ramps for wheelchairs and Braille signs. FINDING: According to the site plan, approximately 10 ADA accessible parking spaces will be provided as part of the expanded parking area. The County Building Safety Division will review specific ADA requirements during building permit review. Staff recommends, and I concur, this be made a condition of any approval if the application is approved. E. The location and number of points of access to the site, interior circulation patterns, separations between pedestrians and moving and parked vehicles, and the arrangement of parking areas in relation to buildings and structures shall be harmonious with proposed and neighboring buildings and structures. FINDING: Existing access to the property is taken from Neff Road, which is adjacent to the southern property boundary. There are three other minor access points in the southwestern corner, near the intersection of Hamby Road and Neff Road, for the former fire station and the existing cell tower. The proposal includes maintaining the existing park entrance from Neff Road. In addition, the applicant proposes a new access from Hamby Road, which will be shared by the neighboring elementary school. The shared access along Hamby Road will result in the school removing or abandoning the southernmost access on their property. Regarding the minor access points to the former fire station and cell tower, the proposal includes maintaining the access point from Hamby Road but removing or abandoning the two points along Neff Road. On the property, the proposed location and design of the pedestrian walkways will provide adequate separation between pedestrians and moving and parked vehicles. The drive aisles will provide adequate vehicular circulation on-site and convenient access to the many park facilities. Furthermore, the proposed setbacks and landscaping allow for the parking areas, buildings, and walkways to be sufficiently buffered and screened such that they will be harmonious with neighboring buildings and structures. The proposed improvements as discussed have been designed to be harmonious with proposed and neighboring buildings and structures. Hearings Officer: I concur that this criterion is met with the conditions recommended by County staff. 32 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision F. Surface drainage systems shall be designed to prevent adverse impacts on neighboring properties, streets or surface and subsurface water quality. FINDING: The proposed expansion of the park will not significantly increase impervious surface area on the subject property. The submitted site plan shows the subject property has been designed, graded, and improved to direct the flow of stormwater to landscaped areas located throughout the property. Additionally, many of the new features will not be paved, which will allow stormwater to infiltrate on-site. The existing and proposed design prevents adverse impacts on the neighboring properties, streets, and surface and subsurface water quality. G. Areas, structures and facilities for storage, machinery and equipment, services (mail, refuse, utility wires, and the like), loading and parking and similar accessory areas and structures shall be designed, located and buffered or screened to minimize adverse impacts on the site and neighboring properties. FINDING: The submitted site plan illustrates that accessory areas have been designed and will be located to minimize adverse impacts on the site and neighboring properties. The proposal includes an additional enclosed refuse/garbage area and a storage building in the park. The design and materials used for the maintenance building will match the existing development on the subject property. Additional landscaping will be introduced around the proposed development to minimize impacts from the road and neighboring properties. No adverse impacts are anticipated on the site or adjoining properties. This criterinn is met. H. All above -ground utility installations shall be located to minimize adverse visual impacts on the site and neighboring properties. FINDING: Utilities necessary for this project, including sewer, water, and electricity will be located underground or otherwise screened to minimize adverse visual impacts. 1. Specific criteria are outlined for each zone and shall be a required part of the site plan (e.g. lot setbacks, etc.) FINDING: Each zone affecting the subject property is identified in this decision. The applicable criteria for each zone are addressed in the findings above. J. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off-site. FINDING: The applicant states that any new lighting will be shielded so that direct light does not project off-site and this approval is so conditioned. K. Transportation access to the site shall be adequate for the use. 33 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision 1. Where applicable, issues including, but not limited to, sight distance, turn and acceleration/deceleration lanes, right-of-way, roadway surfacing and widening, and bicycle and pedestrian connections, shall be identified. 2. Mitigation for transportation -related impacts shall be required. 3. Mitigation shall meet applicable County standards in DCC 17.16 and DCC 17.48, applicable Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) mobility and access standards, and applicable American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards. Hearings Officer: Transportation impacts have been addressed by multiple professional studies submitted by the applicant. County staff have obtained additional information, evaluated the proposal and proposed conditions of approval. As discussed above, with those conditions, this criterion is met. 3. Section 18.124.070. Required Minimum Standards. 8. Required Landscaped Areas. 1. The following landscape requirements are established for multi family, commercial and industrial developments, subject to site plan approval: a. A minimum of 15 percent of the lot area shall be landscaped. b. All areas subject to the final site plan and not otherwise improved shall be landscaped. FINDING: The proposed park is not considered commercial, industrial, or multi -family development. Therefore, these criteria are not applicable. 2. In addition to the requirement of DCC 18.124.070(B)(1)(a), the following landscape requirements shall apply to parking and loading areas: a. A parking or loading area shall be required to be improved with defined landscaped areas totaling no less than 25 square feet per parking space. FINDING: The proposed park expansion will add 250 new parking spaces, as noted below in this decision. Therefore, the parking area shall be required to be improved with an additional 6,250 square feet of landscaping to meet this criterion (250 * 25 = 6,250). The applicant proposes to retain native and existing vegetation throughout the property and in other areas not intended for development. In addition, the applicant proposes at least 2.4 acres of landscaping throughout the parking area. This exceeds the 6,250 square foot requirement and thus meets this criterion. b. In addition to the landscaping required by DCC 18.124.070(8)(2)(a), a parking or loading area shall be separated from any lot line adjacent to a roadway by a landscaped strip at least 10 feet in width, and from any other lot line by a landscaped strip at least five feet in width. 34 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision FINDING: The proposal does not include a parking area adjacent to a roadway. Nevertheless, the landscape plan shows landscaping areas over 10 feet in width adjacent to roadways and other property lines. The plan shows the landscaping strip containing proposed vegetation. This criterion is met. c. A landscaped strip separating a parking or loading area from a street shall contain: 1) Trees spaced as appropriate to the species, not to exceed 35 feet apart on the average. 2) Low shrubs not to reach a height greater than three feet zero inches, spaced no more than eight feet apart on the average. 3) Vegetative ground cover. FINDING: According to the landscape plan, the proposed landscape strips will include retained trees, shrubs, and vegetative ground cover. This criterion will be met. d. Landscaping in a parking or loading area shall be located in defined landscaped areas which are uniformly distributed throughout the parking or loading area. e. The landscaping in a parking area shall have a width of not less than five feet. FINDING: Based on staff's review of the landscape plan, the landscaped areas will be in defined areas that are uniformly distributed throughout the parking area. All landscaped areas will he at least five feet in width. These criteria will be met. f. Provision shall be made for watering planting areas where such care is required. g. Required landscaping shall be continuously maintained and kept alive and attractive. FINDING: The applicant is proposing to remove native vegetation in the development footprint and introduce landscaping around the parking area. Some areas of the property will maintain native vegetation. The existing landscaped areas are in either naturally or defined areas and are uniformly distributed throughout the property. Care for the native landscaping is a naturally occurring process and is continuously maintained and kept alive and attractive. Care for the introduced landscaping is and will be provided by the park district. Staff recommends, and I concur, that a condition of approval be imposed requiring the applicant to maintain continuously and keep alive and attractive all landscaping on the subject property. h. Maximum height of tree species shall be considered when planting under overhead utility lines. FINDING: The applicant is not proposing to plant trees under overhead utility lines. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable. 35 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision C. Nonmotorized Access. 1. Bicycle Parking. The development shall provide the number and type of bicycle parking facilities as required in DCC 18.116.031 and 18.116.035. The location and design of bicycle parking facilities shall be indicated on the site plan. FINDING: Bicycle parking standards are addressed in DCC 18.116.031, below. Staff believes that the proposal met the exception criteria and thus no bicycle parking is required. Hearings officer: I concur and note that some bike parking is proposed. 2. Pedestrian Access and Circulation: a. Internal pedestrian circulation shall be provided in new commercial, office and multi family residential developments through the clustering of buildings, construction of hard surfaced walkways and similar techniques. FINDING: The existing park together with proposed expansions related to the park is not commercial, office, or multi -family development. This criterion does not apply. b. Pedestrian walkways shall connect building entrances to one another and from building entrances to public streets and existing or planned transit facilities. Onsite walkways shall connect with walkways, sidewalks, bikeways, and other pedestrian or bicycle connections on adjacent properties planned or used for commercial, multi family, public or park use. FINDING: The applicant proposes to expand the existing walkways throughout the park, which will connect buildings, parking areas, and other park facilities. There are no pedestrian walkways along the roads or adjacent to the site. No pedestrian or bicycle connections exist on adjacent properties, and staff is unaware of any are planned connections on adjacent properties. This criterion is met. c. Walkways shall be at least five feet in paved unobstructed width. Walkways which border parking spaces shall be at least seven feet wide unless concrete bumpers or curbing and landscaping or other similar improvements are provided which prevent parked vehicles from obstructing the walkway. Walkways shall be as direct as possible. FINDING: The proposed pedestrian walkways will be at least five feet in paved unobstructed width. Those walkways adjacent to parking spaces will be eight feet wide and will be separated from parking spaces by wheel stops. This criterion is met. d. Driveway crossings by walkways shall be minimized. Where the walkway system crosses driveways, parking areas and loading areas, the walkways 36 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision must be clearly identifiable through the use of elevation changes, speed bumps, a different paving material or other similar method. FINDING: The proposal includes walkways that cross driveways and parking areas. The applicant proposes to have these crossings clearly identifiable using striping or other similar method. This criterion is satisfied with a condition of approval. e. To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the primary building entrance and any walkway that connects a transit stop to building entrances shall have a maximum slope of five percent. Walkways up to eight percent slope are permitted but are treated as ramps with special standards for railings and landings. FINDING: Any required accommodations to comply with ADA standards will be addressed during building permit review. This criterion will be met. D. Commercial Development Standards... FINDING: The proposed park expansion is not a commercial development. These criteria do not apply. 4. Section 18.124.090. Right of Way Improvement Standards. Any dedications or improvements to the road right of way required under DCC 18.124 shall meet the standards for road right of way improvements set forth in DCC Title 17 and any standards for right-of-way improvements set forth in DCC Title 18 for the particular zone in question. FINDING: Big Sky / Luke Damon Sports Complex takes direct access from Neff Road. In addition, the applicant is proposing a new access from Hamby Road that will be shared with the neighboring elementary school. Although the two roads are built to County standards, the County Road Department requests that applicant dedicate additional right-of-way along the property's frontage to Neff Road and Hamby Road. The additional road right-of-way will provide the minimum standard arterial right-of-way width of 40 feet from centerline. The applicant has agreed to this dedication in the supplemental materials submitted April 23, 2018 and is conditioned accordingly. E. CHAPTER 18.116, SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS 1. Section 18.116.020. Clear vision areas. A. In all zones, a clear vision area shall be maintained on the corners of all property at the intersection of two streets or a street and a railroad. A clear vision area shall contain no planting, fence, wall, structure or temporary or permanent obstruction exceeding three and one-half feet in height, measured from the top of the curb, or, 37 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision where no curb exists, from the established street centerline grade, except that trees exceeding this height may be located in this area provided all branches and foliage are removed to a height of eight feet above the grade. B. A clear vision area shall consist of a triangular area on the corner of a lot at the intersection of two streets or a street and a railroad. Two sides of the triangle are sections of the lot lines adjoining the street or railroad measured from the corner to a distance specified in DCC 18.116.020(B)(1) and (2). Where lot lines have rounded corners, the specified distance is measured from a point determined by the extension of the lot lines to a point of intersection. The third side of the triangle is the line connecting the ends of the measured sections of the street lot lines. The following measurements shall establish clear vision areas within the County: 1. In an agricultural, forestry or industrial zone, the minimum distance shall be 30 feet or at intersections including an alley, 10 feet. 2. In all other zones, the minimum distance shall be in relationship to street and road right-of-way widths as follows: Right -of -Way Width Clear Vision 80 feet or more 20 feet 60 feet 30 feet 50 feet and less 40 feet FINDING: Based on the submitted site plan, no clear vision area will be obstructed by this proposal. This criterion is met. 2. Section 18.116.030. Off Street Parking and Loading. A. Compliance. No building or other permit shall be issued until plans and evidence are presented to show how the off-street parking and loading requirements are to be met and that property is and will be available for exclusive use as off-street parking and loading. The subsequent use of the property for which the permit is issued shall be conditional upon the unqualified continuance and availability of the amount of parking and loading space required by DCC Title 18 FINDING: The applicant is proposing to expand the existing park use, which includes both structural (e.g. maintenance/storage buildings, restrooms, picnic structures) and non-structural facilities (e.g. pathways, bike park, R/C track). In addition, the expansion includes adding 250 parking spaces to the park. According to the site plan data, the total parking on-site, existing and proposed, will be 511 spaces. The off-street parking requirements for the proposed use are addressed below. B. Off -Street Loading. Every use for which a building is erected or structurally altered to the extent of increasing the floor area to equal a minimum floor area required to provide loading space and which will require the receipt or distribution of materials 38 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18-000164-5P Hearings Officer Decision or merchandise by truck or similar vehicle, shall provide off-street loading space on the basis of minimum requirements as follows: 2. Restaurants, office buildings, hotels, motels, hospitals and institutions, schools and colleges, public buildings, recreation or entertainment facilities and any similar use which has agross floor area of 30,000 square feet or more shall provide off-street truck loading or unloading berths subject to the following table: Sq. Ft. of Floor Area No. of Berths Required Less than 30,000 0 30,000-100,000 1 100,000 and Over 2 3. A loading berth shall contain space 10 feet wide, 35 feet long and have a height clearance of 14 feet. Where the vehicles generally used for loading exceed these dimensions, the required length of these berths shall be increased. FINDING: A park is considered a recreation facility and, therefore, is subject to the off- street loading requirements detailed above. As indicated in a previous finding, the proposed park expansion includes both structural and non-structural facilities. The structures proposed will have a cumulative floor area of less than 30,000 square feet, which does not meet the size requirement for a loading berth based on the above noted table. For this reason, staff finds a loading berth is not required. C. Off -Street Parking. Off-street parking spaces shall be provided and maintained as set forth in DCC 18.116.030 for all uses in all zoning districts. Such off-street parking spaces shall be provided at the time a new building is hereafter erected or enlarged or the use of a building existing on the effective date of DCC Title 18 is changed. D. Number of Spaces Required. Off-street parking shall be provided as follows: 4. Places of Public Assembly. Use Requirements Library, reading room, museum, art gallery 1 space per 400 sq. ft. of floor area plus 1 space per 2 employees Other auditorium or meeting room 1 space per 4 seats or 8 feet of bench length. If no fixed seats or benches, 1 space per 60 sq. ft. of floor space. 39 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision 5. Commercial Amusements. Use Requirements Stadium, arena or theater 1 space per 4 seats or 8 feet of bench length Bowling alley 6 spaces per lane, plus 1 space per 2 employees Dance hall or skating rink 1 space per 100 sq. ft. of floor area, plus 1 space per 2 employees. 9. Other uses not specifically listed above shall be provided with adequate parking as required by the Planning Director or Hearings Body. The above list shall be used as a guide for determining requirements for said other uses. FINDING: The County Code includes several use categories for places of public assembly, as detailed above. However, none of these categories adequately captures a public park use. For this reason, staff addresses parking under subsection 9. The applicant is proposing to expand the existing park, which will include 250 additional parking spaces. The applicant indicates, and staff concurs, the county code does not have a specific parking requirement for the proposed expansion. Therefore, the applicant based the parking necessary for the expansion on current park usage. The submitted site plan provides the following analysis of existprupui, rd redevelopedparking spaces (including ADA spaces): Existing total parking space = 352 Existing parking spaces to remain = 306 Proposed parking spaces = 205 Total parking spaces post -development = 511 The applicant provides the following analysis (footnotes removed) regarding the required parking spaces necessary for the park expansion. As noted above, some of the existing spaces will be redesigned with the proposed expansion. The County's parking table does not include a parking requirement for parks. Parking requirements for unidentified uses are governed by DCC 18.116.030(D)(8), which provides that the hearings body determines the appropriate amount of parking. In CU- 96-84/DR-97-1, CU-03-14/SP-03-11, and SP -04-33, the County determined that 27 spaces for the BMX facility, 35 parking spaces per field, and 30 stalls for the off -lease dog area would satisfy the parking requirements for Big Sky Park respectively. With six fields, the required number of parking spaces for existing uses is 267. Applying Staff's preliminary finding that 140 additional spaces would be required for the new uses results in a parking requirement of 407 spaces. 40 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision There are a total of 511 parking stalls proposed for the site as shown on the Parking Stall Data table in the Overall Site Plan. As noted above, the 35 spaces per field covers 95% of anticipated uses. However, applicant is intentionally seeking to accommodate the parking needs of a worst-case scenario. Specifically, youth sport teams generally have 12-18 players per team, plus coaches, referees, field marshals, spectators, etc. Under a worst-case scenario (full use of fields without any carpooling) 45-50 cars per field is a reasonable estimate of parking demand. The proposed parking provides enough parking to accommodate all other uses in the park while still providing at least 50 spaces per field. While worst-case scenarios are infrequent, because of schedule management and because carpooling is common, the proposed parking is specifically proffered to avoid issues identified during periods of peak demand such as vehicles parking in the right-of-way and unauthorized parking within the park. Staff concurs with the applicant's analysis and I agree. This criterion is met. E. General Provisions. Off -Street Parking. 1. More Than One Use on One or More Parcels. In the event several uses occupy a single structure or parcel of land, the total requirement for off-street parking shall be the sum of requirements of the several uses computed separately. 2. Joint Use of Facilities. The off-street parking requirements of two or more uses, structures or parcels of land may be satisfied by the same parking or loading space used jointly to the extent that it can be shown by the owners or operators of the uses, structures or parcels that their operations and parking needs do not overlap at any point of time. If the uses, structures or parcels are under separate ownership, the right to joint use of the parking space must be evidence by a deed, lease, contract or other appropriate written document to establish the joint use. FINDING: The only use on the site will be public park use and its accessory uses. No other uses or businesses will be sharing the proposed off-street parking spaces. Therefore, these criteria are not applicable. 3. Location of Parking Facilities. Off-street parking spaces for dwellings shall be located on the same lot with the dwelling. Other required parking spaces shall be located on the same parcel or another parcel not farther than 500 feet from the building or use they are intended to serve, measured in a straight line from the building in a commercial or industrial zone. Such parking shall be located in a safe and functional manner as determined during site plan approval. The burden of proving the existence of such off -premise parking arrangements rests upon the applicant. FINDING: The parking and maneuvering areas for the proposed park expansion will be located on-site and within 500 feet of that particular park facility for which it is intended. The parking and maneuvering areas are located in a safe and functional manner, designed for operable passenger vehicles made available for service personnel only. 41 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision 4. Use of Parking Facilities. Required parking space shall be available for the parking of operable passenger automobiles of residents, customers, patrons and employees only and shall not be used for the storage of vehicles or materials or for the parking of trucks used in conducting the business or used in conducting the business or use. FINDING: To ensure compliance, staff recommends it be made a condition of approval that parking spaces are not used for storage of vehicles or materials or for the parking of trucks used in conducting the business or used in conducting the business or use. 5. Parking, Front Yard. Required parking and loading spaces for multi family dwellings or commercial and industrial uses shall not be located in a required front yard, except in the Sunriver UUC Business Park (BP) District and the La Pine UUC Business Park (LPBP) District and the La Pine UUC Industrial District (LPI), but such space may be located within a required side or rear yard. FINDING: The proposed park is not considered commercial, industrial, or multi -family development. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable. 6. On -Street Parking Credit. Notwithstanding DCC 18.116.030(G)(2), within commercial zones in the La Pine Planning Area and the Terrebonne and Tumalo unincorporated communities, the amount of required off-street parking can be reduced by one off-street parking space for every allowed on -street parking space adjacent to a property up to 30% of the required off-street parking.... FINDING: The applicant is not requesting off-street parking credit and therefore, this criterion is not applicable. F. Development and Maintenance Standards for Off -Street Parking Areas. Every parcel of land hereafter used as a public or private parking area, including commercial parking lots, shall be developed as follows: 1. Except for parking to serve residential uses, an off-street parking area for more than five vehicles shall be effectively screened by a sight obscuring fence when adjacent to residential uses, unless effectively screened or buffered by landscaping or structures. FINDING: The subject property is adjacent to residentially zoned Tots and uses to the north. However, the proposed parking is over 900 feet south of the north boundary. For reference, the residential uses (Quail Ridge subdivision) to the west of the property but are not adjacent because they are separated from the park property by Hamby Road. The proposal includes removal of vegetation will only occur within the development area including the pedestrian and bike trails proposed in the northern region of the property. However, mature juniper trees and other vegetation, including the native vegetation buffer surrounding the park, and existing topography throughout the property will be 42 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision retained. The existing landscaping on the property contributes to screening the existing and proposed development and thus no new fencing is required. 2. Any lighting used to illuminate off-street parking areas shall be so arranged that it will not project light rays directly upon any adjoining property in a residential zone. FINDING: The applicant is proposing lighting to illuminate off-street parking and maneuvering areas. The applicant indicates that the proposed lighting will not project onto any adjoining property in a residential zone. Several comments were received regarding proposed play field lighting. These concerns are addressed above. To ensure compliance, staff recommends this be made a condition of any approval if the application is approved and I concur. 3. Groups of more than two parking spaces shall be located and designed to prevent the need to back vehicles into a street or right of way other than an alley. FINDING: The area of the site that will accommodate parking and maneuvering of vehicles is located over 100 feet from Hamby Road and Neff Road. For this reason, vehicles will not be required to back onto a street or right-of-way. This criterion is met. 4. Areas used for standing and maneuvering of vehicles shall be paved surfaces adequately maintained for all weather use and so drained as to contain any flow of water on the site. An exception may be made to the paving requirements by the Planning Director or Hearings Body upon finding that: a. A high water table in the area necessitates a permeable surface to reduce surface water runoff problems; or b. The subject use is located outside of an unincorporated community and the proposed surfacing will be maintained in a manner which will not create dust problems for neighboring properties; or c. The subject use will be in a Rural Industrial Zone or an Industrial District in an unincorporated community and dust control measures will occur on a continuous basis which will mitigate any adverse impacts on surrounding properties. FINDING: According to the applicant, the areas of the property proposed for standing and maneuvering of vehicles will be paved surfaced with all-weather materials and will be sloped to allow for surface water drainage on-site to designated stormwater infiltration basins and landscape beds. This criterion is met. 6. Service drives to off-street parking areas shall be designed and constructed to facilitate the flow of traffic, provide maximum safety of traffic access and egress and maximum safety of pedestrians and vehicular traffic on the site. The number of service drives shall be limited to the minimum that will accommodate and serve the traffic anticipated. Service drives shall be clearly and permanently marked and defined through the use of rails, fences, walls or other barriers or 43 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18-000164-5P Hearings Officer Decision markers. Service drives to drive in establishments shall be designed to avoid backing movements or other maneuvering within a street other than an alley. FINDING: The proposed parking area, including service drives, has been designed to meet the design standards of the DCC 18.116. Access to the subject property is currently provided from Neff Road. The applicant is proposing another access along the western boundary from Hamby Road. The new access, along with all proposed drive aisles will have a width of 24 feet, allowing for two-way traffic. The existing service drive has been clearly marked with either split rail fencing or concrete curbing. The proposed service drive from Hamby Road will be designed in the same manner. The applicant also proposes landscaping in this area. The design of the existing and proposed drives and parking areas, with proper signage, will facilitate the safe flow of traffic and serve anticipated traffic. The design will also prevent vehicle -backing movements onto the road right-of-way. This criterion has been met. 7. Service drives shall have a minimum vision clearance area formed by the intersection of the driveway centerline, the street right of way line and a straight line joining said lines through points 30 feet from their intersection. FINDING: The primary access to the Big Sky/Luke Damon Sports Complex is currently provided from Neff Road. The applicant is proposing another access from Hamby Road along the western boundary, which will be shared with the neighboring elementary school. As proposed, the driveway will have a minimum vision clearance area that is formed by the intersection of the driveway and Hamby Road. This criterion is satisfied. 8. Parking spaces along the outer boundaries of a parking area shall be contained by a curb or bumper rail placed to prevent a motor vehicle from extending over an adjacent property line or a street right of way. FINDING: The proposed parking and maneuvering areas are located over 100 feet from the closest property boundary or right-of-way associated with Neff Road and Hamby Road. This criterion is not applicable. G. Off -Street Parking Lot Design. All off-street parking lots shall be designed subject to County standards for stalls and aisles as set forth in the following drawings and table: (SEE TABLE 1 AT END OF CHAPTER 18.116) 1. For one row of stalls use "C" + "D" as minimum bay width. 2. Public alley width may be included as part of dimension "D," but all parking stalls must be on private property, off the public right of way. 3. For estimating available parking area, use 300-325 square feet per vehicle for stall, aisle and access areas. 4. For large parking lots exceeding 20 stalls, alternate rows may be designed for compact cars provided that the compact stalls do not exceed 30 percent of the 44 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision total required stalls. A compact stall shall be eight feet in width and 17 feet in length with appropriate aisle width. FINDING: The County standards for stalls and aisles as set forth in Table 1. As designed, the parking lot and all parking spaces will satisfy the standards set forth in Table 1, including stall dimensions of 10 feet wide by 20 feet long for the related 90 -degree parking angle. 3. Section 18.116.031. Bicycle Parking. New development and any construction, renovation or alteration of an existing use requiring a site plan review under DCC Title 18 for which planning approval is applied for after the effective date of Ordinance 93-005 shall comply with the provisions of DCC 18.116.031. A. Number and Type of Bicycle Parking Spaces Required. 1. General Minimum Standard. a. All uses that require off-street motor vehicle parking shall, except as specifically noted, provide one bicycle parking space for every five required motor vehicle parking spaces. b. Except as specifically set forth herein, all such parking facilities shall include at least two sheltered parking spaces or, where more than 10 bicycle spaces are required, at least 50 percent of the bicycle parking spaces shall be sheltered. c. When the proposed use is located outside of an unincorporated community, a destination resort, and a rural commercial zone, exceptions to the bicycle parking standards may be authorized by the Planning Director or Hearings Body if the applicant demonstrates one or more of the following: i The proposed use is in a location accessed by roads with no bikeways and bicycle use by customers or employees is unlikely. ii. The proposed use generates less than 50 vehicle trips per day. iii. No existing buildings on the site will accommodate bicycle parking and no new buildings are proposed. iv. The size, weight, or dimensions of the goods sold at the site makes transporting them by bicycle impractical or unlikely. v. The use of the site requires equipment that makes it unlikely that a bicycle would be used to access the site. Representative examples would include, but not be limited to, paintball parks, golf courses, shooting ranges, etc. FINDING: The subject property is located outside of an unincorporated community. In addition, the property is accessed by Neff Road, which does not contain bikeways such as designated bike lanes. The proposal includes a new access from Hamby Road, which also does not contain bikeways. The applicant states the following regarding required bike parking: 45 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision While the park "is located outside of an unincorporated community, a destination resort, or a rural commercial zone"; estimating bike parking requirements for this community park is an inexact science. Much of the new development planned for the park is bicycle oriented, however, the remote location and lack of bicycle facility infrastructure on roads leading to the park makes it likely that a majority of users will continue to arrive by private vehicle. An exception to the bicycle parking standards is warranted since access to the site is via roads with no bikeways and bicycle use by customers or employees is unlikely. Based on this information, compliance with the exceptions criteria is met and no bicycle parking is required. Notwithstanding this exception, because the proposed park expansion includes bike staging areas and bike shelters, there is adequate bicycle parking on-site, if needed. IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above and the record herein, applications 247 -18- 000105 -CU and 247 -18 -000164 -SP are APPROVED except that the proposed modification /expansion to install field lighting is DENIED. These approvals are subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. No building or structure, including the start tower, shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30' in height. 2. All lighting on the subject property shall be required to comply with Chapter 15.10 of the Deschutes County Code, the Outdoor Lighting Control Ordinance. All exterior lights shall be sited and shielded so that no direct Tight projects off-site. All lighting shall be designed to minimize generation of ambient light and shall be shielded or otherwise designed and installed so that light does not trespass onto adjacent properties and shall be "dark sky" compliant. Bike park west, including the start tower, the R/C track area and bike park east shall not include lighting except to the extent required, if any, to comply with adopted building, fire, life or safety codes. 3. All lighting on the property shall comply with Chapter 15.10 of the Deschutes County Code, the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. All exterior lights shall be sited and shielded so that no direct light projects off site. Bike park west, including the start tower, the R/C track area and bike park east shall not include any lighting except typical path exit/entrance and additional lighting as may be required to comply with building, fire, life or safety codes. 4. The applicant shall obtain driveway access permits for any new or existing unpermitted driveway accesses to Neff Rd or Hamby Rd. pursuant to DCC 12.28.050, 17.48.210(A) and 18.124.060(K). 5. The existing access to Hamby Rd, located approximately 70 ft. north of the intersection with Neff Rd., and the existing westerly access to Neff Rd, located approximately 150 ft. east of the intersection shall be severed and removed from the public right of way. 46 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision 6. The existing access to Neff Rd. located approximately 375 ft. east of the intersection with Hamby Rd may be used as a service access road only. Applicant will post signs at the access indicating that the access is service only and not a public access. Further, applicant shall ensure that park visitor traffic on interior roads is restricted from using the access for egress by means of a gate, landscaping or other physical barriers. 7. Prior to commencing construction, the applicant shall dedicate to the public additional right of way along the subject property frontages on Neff and Hamby Roads to provide the minimum standard arterial right-of-way width of 40' from centerline. 8. Neither bike park west nor the R/C vehicle track shall be used for organized events, including races or competitions. 9. No trail closer than 250' from the northern boundary adjacent to Eastmont Estates shall be used for organized events, including but not limited to cross-country team practices or competitions and cyclocross races. No direct trail access from the single-track trails to the perimeter trail is permitted within the area adjacent to Eastmont Estates. The applicant may reconfigure the trails outlined in Sheet TD -100 to accommodate this condition. 10. The applicant shall install and maintain signs notifying of the park boundary along Eastmont Estates and directing that private property not be entered. The signs shall be a minimum of every 100' and shall comply with any applicable Code requirements. 11. There shall be no use of permanent amplified sound systems. No sound amplification shall be permitted for uses associated with bike park west or the R/C vehicle track. To the extent any other amplification is permitted under prior approvals or County Code, it shall comply with applicable DEQ and County standards and be used only as reasonably necessary to start and manage events (e.g. no play by play, promotional use). Nothing in this condition restricts or prohibits use of amplification in case of emergency. 12. All organized events, including but not limited to team practices and competitions shall end by 9:30 p.m. 13. At least the minimum number of ADA parking spaces shall be provided based on review by the County Building Safety Division (estimated at 10). 14. All required landscaping shall be maintained continuously and kept alive and attractive. 15. All walkways that cross driveways and parking areas shall be clearly identifiable using striping or similar method. 16. Required parking spaces shall not be used for storage of vehicles or materials of for parking trucks used in conducting park operations. 47 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18 -000164 -SP Hearings Officer Decision 17. Prior to use of the R/C vehicle track, the applicant shall erect a minimum 6' high solid fence that extends at least 20' in each direction (NE/SW) beyond the area in which such vehicles will operate to a maximum of 120', to provide a noise buffer for uses to the west of the park. Done and Dated this 28th day of August 2018 Dan R. Olsen Hearings Officer THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL TWELVE DAYS AFTER MAILING UNLESS TIMELY APPEALED 48 247 -18 -000105 -CU, 18-000164-5P Hearings Officer Decision c c 0) 00 a) 0 O m O tT K 0 C 0) m LI LID U 3M O ci 00 ri 0 0 ri O N N 01 CC 0 0) CO ❑ 0 (NI O n of 0 C 0) m O N N 1.3 xt ❑ 0) t + M (n N 7 co E Z v7 l0 ri m cI N m 1P1 ci ri N c I -3 LC, LO C a) S a) c L 0 0) E (0 0 -13 0 0 N 0 N N cc 0 -160) m 1850 SE Moorwood Ct. 0 0 N O N 0) ce 0 0 0) m 799 SW COLUMBIA ST. N 0 O L m T 0) 0 F- v w cc cS cc o_ c O 0C fa IW o 2 (nra Li) ❑ m m 0 to 4. 4.0 U LA 0 ci 00 ri 0 0 N 0 O1 O1 cc 0 'a C 0) CO 61077 SE Marble Mtn. Ln. 0) u i m 0) 00 c 0) m 0 0 N 0 N N 01 ce 0 0) m 19583 Aster Ln. CU 2 N 0) CO 0 3M 4. l0 U 3M co ri 00 ri 0 0 ri O N of cc 0 0) CO ro F- C (0 0 0 ri O 01 ce 0 C 0) m 2036 NE Veronica Ln. 0) E 0) O m 0 L/1 ri Lit O ri 00 ri 0 0 ci O N 01 cc 0 C 0) C0 1211 NE Revere Ave. 4-4 O 0 N N 0 0 u m 0 3M 0 LA 0 c-1 00 ci 0 0 N 0 N 01 OC 0 C 0) m 0 N 1.0 r-1 311 O ri 00 c -I 0 0 0 c O m 0 F- 0 u (a E U 0 Ln U O ri 00 ci 0 O x ri O 0 N 01 0 0 0) m -o cc 0) i 0 2 O 3- U1 l0 N 0_ Lo3M ci 3M O ri 00 r -I 0 0 m O n 01 0_ 0 'O C 0) co Bryant, Lovlien & Jarvis, PC 0 N U Lit 0 ci 00 c-1 0 0 ri O N 01 0 C a) m 1275 NE Shane Ln c .> O U 0 0 m 00 0o O n N 01 0 "O c 0) 00 PO Box 5833 0 0 x 0 M 0 n 01 O a) c0 0 C v E 0) Z (0 O 00 c ri 0 0 ci O n 01 ce 0 0 C 0) CO 21725 Eastmont Dr c 0) •C 0j (0 L J (0 00 g CU• U N —_ • ›. 0 N E L C > (6 U U U ❑ 0 0 ri O t� 0) OG 0 0 C 0) m 0 0 2 N O n N 01 0 0 C 0) CO cc > 00 7 c O 0 L 3M CO 000 0 chi 01 N ri CL N c-1 U Li) 0 ri 00 r1 0 0 O of 0 C 0) m 0 0 DESCHUTES CO. ASSESSOR 0 N d• Lo U Ln O ci 00 ri 0 0 Bend, OR 97702 61150 S.E. 27TH ST. DESCHUTES CO. ROAD DEPT. 0 N c -I U Lit O c-( 00 r -f 0 0 c 0 4-, 0) N LO U 0 c-1 00 ci 0 0 ri O t\ t` 0) cc 0 C 0) m a (/) LO ri Ln O ri 00 ri ❑ 0 ci O N 0) 0_' 0 C 0) C0 3110 NE Delmas 0 U1 3.0 3. i -I U Lit O c-4 00 r-1 0 0 O 0 N. of ce 0 0) m 64756 Saros Ln. 0 N U LA O ri 00 ri 0 0 O r O1 O 0 m 0 n of CC Ct 0 0 c c 0) 0) m m 1526 NW Ithaca Ave. U1 (0 ci 3M 0 ri 00 c-1 0 0 0 0 C31 CC 0 C 0) m 0 LO U 3M 0 c-1 00 ci ❑ 0 ri O r n 0) OC 0 C 0) m 0_ d• Lo ri 111 O ri 00 ri 0 0 ri O n 01 OC 0 01 CO 0 0 r1 O N 0 O1 cc 0 C 0) m a U7 C1' U Lit O c-1 00 ri 0 0 N L. L.0 c -I 3 U 3M O c -I 00 c-1 0 0 0 N Lo ri 3 Ln O ri 00 r -I ❑ 0 a N LO 3 U 0 cI 00 c-1 0 0 0 3M LID ri 3 U 3M O 00 c -I O 0 a 3M LO 3 U 3M 0 ri 00 ri 0 0 N. 0 0 of N m 00 CC h0 o^ 0 Q0 ui OI cn c O OC 0C OC t 0 0 0 a1 > "0 "O 0 (0 C C C 0) N a) 01 m CO CO CO T T Y4-3 0) til 5- <O0 4-, N ❑ L f6 (6 > 0 0 v v E `0 a O 0.> u rr w z °° W W Z N v❑ ra Z Z Z Z O .O N Z LA 4 ri ri 4 n O 0f of l�6 0 01 U1 U) - N M L0 1 N U) o M O a-1 O N N ri NH .4 lc -I C 0 O l0 .-1 NU) M N N (0 c ticc 0 N 0) 0 (0 (0 (0 0 ).- N -, f6 C (i F- N -0 0) (0 L ' L E l0 c L 3 0(0 ❑ w w LLL C7 Gearhart, Tama 0) 0) 0 u 2 W c a) C 'a 0 O l7 O ra U L C 0) PO Box 7914 0 0 0 0 m 0 N rn rn cc cc 0 0 D C C 0) 0) CO CO 713 NW Federal St. 0 0 0 0 ri 0 rn cc 0 0) m rn 0 c ,N N CU > 0 _ bA 0 E r1 0) (0 � 1n V1 "0 d' ri ra r, r 0 ri ri C 0 0 C0 CO i C C 0 61 O C 0 = 0) bA 0) 00c 0 J ri O r` rn cc 0 0) 00 62650 Montara Dr 0) L1 vi 0) -J 0 0 a N CO c-1 U Lrl O ri 00 ri 0 0 N o 0 rncc cc rn 0 0 C c 0) 0) CO CO 63216 Eastview Dr. co 00 0A Zr) 0) J CL V1 CD ri U Ln O r1 00 ri 0 0 m O N N. Ql cc 0 a) m 0) T (a 0) J 0 0 a) > 00 N v, 0) -o nl O 0 0 r1 O rn CC 0 C 0) m (0 V) 0) r0 T E 0) E c Q o 0) 06 v b O c ,(;..,/ 2 0 J J 0 0 ri O rn cc 0 -o 0) 00 (1) 0) 00 (0 Vt 0) 0) 0 Cr) l0 ri M l0 O 0) coE U U 0 0 0 r-1 O rn cc 0 a) m K - o• Q 02 c (0 a) 0 (0 Y - (0 ---1(3.A.,,7_C O WS n aJ y., 0 O a' d o CO W Z W • Z Z Z cr,C• C0 CO d' l00 0 Lfl Cfl CO 01 Lrl 00 N ON 01 01 01 d' 01 '.O L.1 c-1 N Ln ri N 0 0 rn m rn cc 0 0) c (0 J a v) c1 U 111 O ri 00 ri 0 0 N 0 rn cc 0 c a) m 0 0 r1 O 0 cc 0 c 0) CO 0 0 0 rn cc 0 -o C a) 00 0 0 m 0 N rn cc 0 0 v m 0 0 ri 0 rn cc 0 0) CO • a a 3 > 0 0) (0 a)' U c0 cO 0) _c 0 O 0 0 rn cc 0 C CU CO 525 NW York Dr. 0 w (0 4-0 0) cO N O 0) cc 0 c a) m 0 0 Q. V1 CO ri U Lfl o r1 00 r-1 0 0 0 rn cc 0 a C 0) CO 0) c c N O V1 O (0 c cO m 0 rn cc 0 a) m a Vl L0 D U Ln O ri 00 r -I 0 0 N O r` 0) cc 0 0) 00 4-) Vl 0_ O co ▪ C O J LL (0 n z o d' ri N ri N O a -I l0 T (0 O C .v CU = a E c0 c0 c0 G G G v ((00 0 Ul O CU z 0 0 r-1 0 0) cc 0 -o 0 a) 00 0 (0 roc0 00 00 00 N l0 ro Ln V) 0) ru .00 0) z 0 0 r -I O rn 0 0 0) m 20705 Nicolette Dr (0 0 0 W 0 i z 0 0 E 0 O 0 CL LO U Ln O ri 00 ri 0 0 a l0 ri U Lrl 0 00 c-4 0 0 CL L^ ri U Lrl O r-1 00 r -I 0 0 r1 r1 ri 0 N 0) rn 0) cc cc cc 0 0 0 0 0-o C C C CU 0) a) CO 00 CO ccu -p ) Y v - O 73 00 as 0 00 C l0 (0 h 0 a) 0 C CC 0 C 0) 0) 0) Q.. 0 0 0 E a-+ (0 LL1 0 N CO r1 N a) C (0 E 0) 0 a 21776 Eastmont Dr E O Z 0 a a a a a a a a a 0. a a v) cc,vl cn N vl vi m N u.")in cr •:r d d d d d d CO CO CO CO O O t0 t..0 lD l0 CO c--1 r-1 c-1 -I i --I c-•1 i -f a --I i --I c-1 i--1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LLALn Ln 0 Lfl Lfl L!1 Ln L!1 Lr1 31) 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ri r -I ri c-1 c-1 ri ri ri e -I c-1 71 00 00 00 00 00 11 00 00 00 00 00 c -I c-1 r -I r-1 r-1 c-1 ri ri -4 r -I r -I 0 0 2 0) Yc_ 0) E a) 0 0) a' 0 0 m O r\ 0) CC 0 c c 0) 00 0 0 N O r` cn rn cc 0 0 0) m L.: '6 0 CC N T O �1 < 0) Z 00 CO M ul Vl 0) N c-4 (0 l6 a) t (0 0 0 (0 a) 0 0 ri O 0) cc 0 0 a) m 1575 NE Tucson Way, #2 0 0 O 0) cc 0 0 0) m a) Q C 0) t L L.) -9 i-+ N C) 0A a 0 0 cc cc O 0 2 r-1 O rn CC 0 -o 0 CU CO 21795 Eastmont Dr. 0) >- (0 02$ 0 0 0 0 r1 O r` Ot 0 v 0 a) 00 1660 Lilac Ct. 0 0 M O rn cc 0 c a) m 0 0 N 0 0) cc 0 0 a) CO 61283 Kristen St. 0) O41 Y_ 2 a,- 0 0 ri O 0) z 0 0 a) m CC T _0 2 V1 VI (-4 to 0 0 r1 O rn 0 0 a) m ..O CO 0) 0 O d W z 0t O (-4 (0 T N L T L U _v a) (1) 0 N C L v 0) a) a) a E o 0- .c L L -5 0- t/1 N V) V1 V1 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 a U LA O ci 00 �--1 ❑ 0 O r-1 D U L() 0 00 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 S ❑ 0 0 Off) CT/ Ol Ql cc cc cc cc cc 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - - c c c c c a) a) 0) 0) a) m m 00 CO CO 6- d, J N v Ln cu 0t U cn O C a) ' Ln i Ci Lo ) -1 LO Z -0 ▪ Z CO CT/ LA m f0 v--1 a-1 CO 0 c-1 O N C 00 0 0) 0 u, O (0 0 c 0) 0) 0) CU 0) OC 0 CU L 62846 Mc ntara Dr. a v-1 Ln 0 00 ❑ 0 ❑ 0 2 m O 0l cc 0 0 CU m ❑ 0 O N N 0 cc 0 'O a) CO 0 - VI d' O U Lit O c-1 00 e-1 ❑ 0 r-1 O N N tT cc 0 a) m D_ N O c-1 U Ln 0 Oo ❑ 0 O N N tT 0 a) m ❑ 0 m O 0i 0 a) m m L.: 0 U Q O > d 0) L 0 00 ,� >i f0 C L3:0 C o E Z >Y • in 9.2 N U w w U Z Z O Z Z O Q) v-1 00 00 LA N O 0 0 LA i-1 v-1 O M 0 1 3 c-1 O 1n CO C O N, -I N N `-1 i--1 0 - VI) to O c-1 1n 0 .-i 00 ❑ 0 2 m O N a) cc 0 a) m 0- L0 O r -I Ln O a-1 ob c.4 ❑ 0 O N 0 c 0 0L) >, 0) O cc L 46 U p C O 'N 3 O C0 CU c>o c (O 11 0) c O 0 0) m a) Q. O U O ri 00 ❑ 0 O N N O 0 c a) Do 736 NW Trenton Ave. 0 0 al O N N 03 0 c 0) CO P.O. Box 2072 aJ c co n U N a 4 O ❑ 0 0 N N 0 0_' 0 C CU CO 19563 River Woods Dr. c c cu 0 0 ❑ 0 c-4 O n 0 ce 0 0 C 0) m 22835 Alfalfa Market Rd. E 0r 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 Work Session of September 17, 2018 DATE: September 11, 2018 FROM: Matthew Martin, Community Development, 541-330-4620 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Review of Potential Appeal of Marijuana Production Approval and Consideration of Order 2018-062 ATTENDANCE: Matthew Martin, Associate Planner SUMMARY: On September 5, 2018, planning staff issued an approval to allow Andrew Anderson to establish marijuana production at 63775 Diamond Forge Road, Bend. The 12 -day appeal period ends on September 17, 2018. Attached is Order 2018-062 that would allow the Board to review any timely filed appeal of file no. 247 -18 -000361 -AD. 1 ES STAFF MEMORANDUM Date: September 17, 2018 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Matthew Martin, AICP, Associate Planner Re: Administrative Decision (File No. 247 -18 -000361 -AD) to Hear Potential Appeal The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will conduct a work session on September 17, 2018 at 1:30 PM and will consider hearing a potential appeal of an administrative decision (File No. 247 -18- 000361 -AD) approving a marijuana production application. I. Application On April 18, 2018, an application was filed for an Administrative Determination (AD) to establish marijuana production at 63775 Diamond Forge Road, Bend. The subject property is located within the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. The proposed marijuana production consists of a maximum 5,000 square feet of mature marijuana plant canopy area. The record of this land use application is attached hereto. II. Decision On June 13, 2018, the application was deemed complete. The Planning Division issued an administrative decision without a public hearing on September 5, 2018, determining the applicant met the applicable criteria (Attachment 2). Notice of the decision was sent to neighboring property owners within 750 feet and those that provided comments. The decision becomes final if not appealed by 5:00 PM on September 17, 2018. III. Appeal Although no appeal has been filed yet, staff considers an appeal is probable based on public comments. IV. 150 -day Issuance of a Final Local Decision The 150 -day period for issuance of a final local decision is currently November 10, 2018. V. Board Options Section 22.28.050 of the Deschutes County Code authorizes the Board of County Commissioners to initiate review of any administrative action or a Hearings Body's decision within 12 days of the date of mailing of the final written decision of the Planning Director or lower Hearings Body. The 12th day following the mailing date of this decision is September 17, 2018. Attachment 1 is a Board Order to initiate a de novo review of this file, should a timely appeal be filed. Attachments: 1. Board Order to Initiate Review 2. Administrative Decision 3. Notice of Decision 4. Supplemental Application Materials 5. Incomplete Application Letter 6. Public Comments 7. Agency Comments 8. Notice of Application 9. Land Use Sign Affidavit 10. Prior Notice Email 11. Application Materials 247 -18 -000379 -AD Page 2 of 2 IES r, Mailing Date: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 FINDINGS & DECISION FILE NUMBER: 247 -18 -000361 -AD APPLICANT/ Andrew Anderson OWNER: 63775 Diamond Forge Road Bend, OR 97701 PROPOSAL: Administrative Determination to establish marijuana production in the Exclusive Farm Use zone. STAFF CONTACT: Matthew Martin, AICP, Associate Planner I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Title 18, Deschutes C o inty Inning Ordinance Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance II. BASIC FINDINGS A. LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 63775 Diamond Forge Road, Bend, and is identified on County Assessor Tax Map 17-14-11 as tax lot 500. B. LOT OF RECORD: The property is a legal lot of record as it was created as Parcel 2 of Partition Plat 2005-82. C. ZONING: The property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use - Alfalfa subzone (EFUAL) and is designated Agriculture on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. D. PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing marijuana production on the subject property in the EFU zone. The proposed marijuana production includes 5,000 square feet of mature plant canopy area. The proposed development includes: 1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 Qv (541) 388-6575 C9 cdd@deschutes .org www.deschutes.org/cd • 4 greenhouses (30'x96' each) • 3 storage containers (8'x45' each) • 2 water tanks • Perimeter fencing of marijuana production area E. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is rectangular in shape with frontage on Diamond Forge Road, a rural local road, in the northeastern corner of the property. Vehicular access is via a driveway off Diamond Forge Road. The topography of the property is relatively level throughout. Vegetation consists of scattered juniper trees, and native groundcover. Existing development includes a single-family dwelling in the western portion of the property and other ancillary improvements. Photo 1. Aerial photo of the subject property. (Source: Deschutes County DIAL) F. NOTICE OF APPLICATION: The Planning Division mailed a written notice of this application to property owners within 750 feet of the subject property and agencies on April 27, 2018. In addition, the applicant submitted a Land Use Action Sign Affidavit indicating a land use action sign was posted on the property on April 27, 2018. G. AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed a Notice of Application and received comments from the following agencies: 1. Deschutes County Building Division: NOTICE: The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code mandates that Access, Egress, Setbacks, Fire & Life Safety, Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. must be specifically addressed during the appropriate plan review process with regard to any proposed structures and occupancies. Accordingly, all Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure, occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review. 247-18-000361-AD/Anderson Page 2 of 20 2. Deschutes County Transportation Planner: I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247 -18 -000361 -AD for a marijuana production (growing) operation in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) at 63775 Diamond Forge Road, aka 17-14-11, Tax Lot 500. Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.330(8)(8) only requires proof of legal direct access to the property or access from a private easement for a grow of more than 5,000 square feet of mature canopy. The proposal states it is for less than 5,000 square feet, but both the site plan and odor control plan state there will be four greenhouses, each of which is 30 X 96 feet. Thus each greenhouse is 2,880 square feet (30 X 96) and the four total 11,520 square feet (2,880 X 4). 1 will defer to you if the access requirement does or does not apply. The applicant needs to provide a copy of their driveway permit to access Diamond Forge Road or make obtaining a driveway permit from the County a condition of approval to comply with DCC 17.48.210(A). The traffic study requirements of DCC 18.116.310 are not applicable for a marijuana production application as no site plan is required for this application. Thus no traffic study can be required. Board Resolution 2013-020 sets an SDC rate of $3,937 per p.m. peak hour trip. The County uses the most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual to assess SDCs. The ITE manual does not contain a category for marijuana production. In consultation with the Road Department Director and Planning staff, the County has determined the best analog use is Warehouse (Land Use 150) based on the storage requirements and employees of this activity. The ITE indicates Warehouse generates 0.32 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet. As discussed above, the applicant's materials indicates the four greenhouses used for production total 11,520 square feet. County SDCs are based on the total structural square footage related to cannabis production and support and not the square footage of the mature canopy. Thus the site would generate would generate 3.7 p.m. peak hour trips (11.52 X 0.32). The resulting SDC is $14,567 (3.7 X $3,937). The SDC is due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; if a certificate of occupancy is not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final. 3. Alfalfa Fire Department: The following is input from the Alfalfa Fire District, • Address should be clearly visible from the primary access road. • Access gate should be at least 20 feet wide to provide access to fire apparatus. • Access roads and driveways should be able to support fire apparatus in all types of weather. • Exit doors should be clearly marked and unobstructed. • Onsite firefighting water supply should be clearly marked and be accessible to firefighters at all times. 247-18-000361-AD/Anderson Page 3 of 20 • Portable fire extinguishers should be located throughout the building and location clearly marked. • Facility should have a fire safety plan including exit plan and employee accountability system. This plan should be practiced by all employees on a regular basis. • Material Safety Data Sheets for all onsite hazardous materials should be keep on site and be accessible to fire department personnel at all times. • All hazardous material storage areas, tanks and containers should be clearly marked. • Firefighters should be able to coordinate with facility managers a building walk through for the purpose of training and emergency planning. 4. Deschutes County Sheriff: Our concern lies in the odor, sights, sounds and set backs of the property in this type of request and how it affects the livability of our community members; in conjunction with the issue that marijuana is illegal on a federal level. In addition, we are finding the calls for service related to marijuana grow operations are increasing. 5. Central Electric Cooperative, Inc.: CEC requests the applicant apply for a new electrical service by calling Bob Fowler at 541- 312-7778 and provide electrical load and demand requirements for this activity. CEC will determine if capacity is available. STAFF COMMENT: As found below under DCC 18.116.330(B)(15), the applicant provided a letter from CEC dated April 11, 2018, that states CEC is "...willing and able to serve..." the proposed marijuana production. 6. The following organizations and agencies did not respond or had no comments: Central Oregon Irrigation District, Deschutes County Assessor, Deschutes County Environmental Soils, Deschutes County Road Department, Oregon Department of Agriculture - Land Use Planning Coordinator, Oregon Liquor Control Commission, Oregon State Fire Marshal, Oregon Water Resource Department, and Watermaster - District 11. H. PUBLIC COMMENTS: As of the date of this decision, staff received three letters (1 signed by 5 parties) expressing concerns with and opposition to the application. The opposition and concerns identified include: 247-18-000361-AD/Anderson Page 4 of 20 1. Odor 7. Traffic 2. Light 8. Workers 3. Noise 9. Greenhouse emissions 4. Water 10. Youth in the area 5. Waste disposal 11. Property values 6. Fencing STAFF COMMENT: Applicable criteria and standards of the Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 18, County Zoning, are addressed below. The DCC section pertaining specifically to marijuana production does not include approval criteria or standards related to the issue areas listed in items 7-11 above. For this reason, staff does not address those issues in this decision. REVIEW PERIOD: The application was submitted on April 18, 2018. Because the application was missing essential information, staff mailed the applicant a letter on May 18, 2018, notifying them that their application was incomplete and requested the necessary items. The Planning division received the requested items and deemed the application complete on June 13, 2018. Based on this information, the 150th day upon which the county must issue a final local decision is currently November 10, 2018. III. FINDINGS Title 18 DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE, COUNTY ZONING A. CHAPTER 18.16. EXCLUSIVE FARM ZONE 1. Section 18.16.020. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright: S. Marijuana production, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330. FINDING: The applicant is proposing to establish marijuana production on the subject property, a use permitted outright subject to compliance with the applicable provisions of DCC 18.116.330. Compliance with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330 is addressed below. 2. Section 18.16.060. Dimensional Standards. E. Building height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040. FINDING: The proposed greenhouses will be 18.5 feet and storage containers will be 9.5 feet in height, respectively. This criterion is met. 247-18-000361-AD/Anderson Page 5 of 20 3. Section 18.16.070. Yards. A. The front yard shall be a minimum of: 40 feet from a property line fronting on a local street, 60 feet from a property line fronting on a collector street, and 100 feet from a property line fronting on an arterial street. B. Each side yard shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with side yards adjacent to property currently employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the side yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with a rear yard adjacent to property currently employed in farm use, and receiving special assessment for farm use, the rear yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet. D. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. FINDING: The front property line of the subject property is adjacent to Diamond Forge Road, a local street. The proposed use is not a nonfarm dwelling. As shown on the submitted plot plan, all of the proposed structures will be no less than 130 feet from any property line. These criteria are met. B. CHAPTER 18.116. SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS 1. Section 18.116.330, Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing. A. Applicability. Section 18.116.330 applies to: 1. Marijuana Production in the EFU, MUA-10, and RI zones. FINDING: The applicant is proposing to establish marijuana production in the EFU Zone. This section applies. B. Marijuana production and marijuana processing. Marijuana production and marijuana processing shall be subject to the following standards and criteria: 1. Minimum Lot Area. a. In the EFU and MUA-10 zones, the subject legal lot of record shall have a minimum lot area of five (5) acres. FINDING: The subject property is approximately 10 acres. This criterion is met. 2. Indoor Production and Processing. a. In the EFU zone, marijuana production and processing shall only be located in buildings, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures. 247-18-000361-AD/Anderson Page 6 of 20 b. In all zones, marijuana production and processing are prohibited in any outdoor area. FINDING: The applicant is proposing the use of greenhouses for marijuana production. Thus, the proposed operation will be indoor production as described above. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: As an ongoing condition of approval, marijuana production is prohibited in any outdoor area. 3. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size. In the EFU zone, the maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall apply as follows: a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet. b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres to less than 20 acres in lot area: 5,000 square feet. The maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants may be increased to 10,000 square feet upon demonstration by the applicant to the County that: i. The marijuana production operation was lawfully established prior to January 1, 2015; and ii. The increased mature marijuana plant canopy area will not generate adverse impact of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy or access greater than the impacts associated with a 5,000 square foot canopy area operation. c. Parcels equal to or greater than 20 acres to less than 40 acres in lot area: 10,000 square feet. d. Parcels equal to or greater than 40 acres to less than 60 acres in lot area: 20,000 square feet. e. Parcels equal to or greater than 60 acres in lot area: 40,000 square feet. FINDING: The applicant is proposing 5,000 square feet of mature marijuana plant canopy area. As previously found, the subject property is 10 acres. This criterion is met. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall not exceed 5,000 square feet at any time. 4. Maximum Building Floor Area. In the MUA-10 zone, the maximum building floor area used for all activities associated with marijuana production and processing on the subject property shall be: a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet. b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres: 5,000 square feet. 247-18-000361-AD/Anderson Page 7 of 20 FINDING: The subject property is zoned EFU, not MUA-10. Therefore, these standards are not applicable. 5. Limitation on License/Grow Site per Parcel. No more than one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana production or Oregon Health Authority (OHA) registered medical marijuana grow site shall be allowed per legal parcel or lot. FINDING: The applicant is proposing to associate one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) marijuana production license with the subject property. This criterion is met. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Only one OLCC license shall be allowed per legal parcel for the marijuana production use. 6. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana production and processing areas and buildings: a. Minimum Yard Setback/Distance from Lot Lines: 100 feet. FINDING: The submitted plot plan identifies the areas and buildings used for the proposed marijuana production are setback no less than 100 feet from any property line. This criterion is met. b. Setback from an off-site dwelling: 300 feet. For the purposes of this criterion, an off-site dwelling includes those proposed off-site dwellings with a building permit application submitted to Deschutes County prior to submission of the marijuana production or processing application to Deschutes County. FINDING: The closest dwelling to the proposed marijuana production is located on the property abutting to the south (tax map/lot 17-14-11 600). Using the measuring tool on DIAL, the Deschutes County online property information system, staff found the off-site dwelling on tax lot 600 is approximate 275 feet from the north property of said property. This combined with 100 setback of the area used for the proposed marijuana production results in a setback from the closest off-site dwelling of approximately 375 feet. This criterion is met. c. Exception: Any reduction to these setback requirements may be granted by the Planning Director or Hearings Body provided the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access impacts. 247-18-000361-AD/Anderson Page 8 of 20 FINDING: This provision has been interpreted by the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") in the following decisions. A staff summary of the relevant part of the decision is also provided. 247-17-000962-A - The exception should be an attempt to seek balance between the proposal and the surrounding area whether in public or private ownership. However, having public lands adjacent to a subject property intended for marijuana production should not be a driving force or justification to allow such an exception. The Board collectively and generally agrees that the applicant did not demonstrate the reduced setbacks will afford equal or greater mitigation of the marijuana production facility to the surrounding public and private properties. The applicant is not requesting a setback exception. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. 7. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows: a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1000 feet from: i. A public elementary or secondary school for which attendance is compulsory under Oregon Revised Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; ii. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school, teaching children as described in ORS 339.030(1)(a), including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; iii. A licensed child care center or licensed preschool, including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the child care center or preschool. This does not include licensed or unlicensed child care which occurs at or in residential structures; iv. A youth activity center; and v. National monuments and state parks. b. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(8)(7), all distances shall be measured from the lot line of the affected properties listed in DCC 18.116.330(B)(7)(a) to the closest point of the buildings and land area occupied by the marijuana producer or marijuana processor. c. A change in use of another property to those identified in DCC 18.116.330(8)(7) shall not result in the marijuana producer or marijuana processor being in violation of DCC 18.116.330(8)(7) if the use is: i. Pending a local land use decision; ii. Licensed or registered by the State of Oregon; or Lawfully established. FINDING: The applicant indicates there are no schools, licensed child care centers, youth activity centers, national monuments, or state parks within 1,000 of the subject property. As the 247-18-000361-AD/Anderson Page 9 of 20 surrounding properties are zoned EFU, the above uses would require land use approval. Staff utilized DIAL, the Deschutes County online property information system, to verify the uses of properties within 1,000 feet of the use. Staff found there are 12 properties within 1,000 feet of the subject property, none of which have received approval for the above listed uses. This criterion is met. 8. Access. Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall comply with the following standards. a. Have frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed public, county, or state road; or b. Have access from a private road or easement serving only the subject property. c. If the property takes access via a private road or easement which also serves other properties, the applicant shall obtain written consent to utilize the easement or private road for marijuana production access from all owners who have access rights to the private road or easement. The written consent shall: i. Be on a form provided by the County and shall contain the following information; ii. Include notarized signatures of all owners, persons and properties holding a recorded interest in the private road or easement; iii. Include a description of the proposed marijuana production or marijuana processing operation; and iv. Include a legal description of the private road or easement. FINDING: The applicant is proposing 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants. The subject property has frontage on Diamond Forge Road, a public local access road. The existing driveway was approved via access -driveway permit SW6385. This criterion is met. 9. Lighting. Lighting shall be regulated as follows: a. Inside building lighting, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures, used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. b. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part. c. Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. 247-18-000361-AD/Anderson Page 10 of 20 FINDING: The submitted burden on proof statement indicates the only lighting used will be inside the greenhouses. The lighting will only be used between the hours of 7:OOam and 7:OOpm. The lighting fixtures will be fully shielded in compliance with subsection (b) above. Exterior lighting fixtures will comply with DCC 15.10. Record submittals question, "What system or action is proposed to eliminate the offensive light pollution emitting from translucent greenhouses created from grow lights, interior lights and exterior lighting uses after 7:OOpm to 7:00am?" As noted above, the applicant has indicated lighting will not be used from 7:OOpm to 7:OOam and exterior lighting will comply with DCC 15.10. Based on the information above, staff finds these criteria are met. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Inside building lighting used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part. The light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana growing lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. 10. Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(8)(10), building means the building, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing. a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. c. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable state statute. d. The odor control system shall: i. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM; or ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (i) above. e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. FINDING: This provision has been interpreted by the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA") in the following decisions. A staff summary of the relevant part of the decision is also provided. 247-18-000361-AD/Anderson Page 11 of 20 King v. Deschutes County- LUBA No. 2017-126 - The "report" as required in DCC 18.116.330(B)(10)(b) does not have to include an "as built" or "site-specific demonstration." Instead, the "report" may "rely on the opinion of an expert licensed mechanical engineer" to determine "that the proposed odor control system 'will control' odor such that the odor does not unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use of their property." The applicant submitted an odor report by Rob James, P.E. of Colebreit Engineering, a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon (License #65108PE). The report states odor will be mitigated as follows for the proposed building: The greenhouses will use high pressure fog for odor mitigation purposes. This system is designed to manage any odor to not unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. This system consists of Bio -World or Fogco ring -type foggers installed at the exhaust fan outlet. The pump for the fogger will be interlocked with the exhaust fans, such that when the fans are running, the fogger will be operating. This insures that all exhaust air leaving the building will be treated for odor control. Record Submittals express general concern with odor but do not challenge the effectiveness of the proposed system to mitigate odor. Based on this information, if the system described above is constructed within the guidelines and maintained per the manufacturer's recommendations, the odor control system will control odor so as to not unreasonably interfere with neighbors use and enjoyment of their property. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The proposed odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. 11. Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply with the following: a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. b. Sustained noise from marijuana production is exempt from protections of DCC 9.12 and ORS 30.395, Right to Farm. Intermittent noise for accepted farming practices is permitted. FINDING: The applicant submitted a noise report by Rob James, P.E. of Colebreit Engineering, a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon (License #65108PE). The report states noise will be mitigated as follows for the proposed building: 247-18-000361-AD/Anderson Page 12 of 20 The exhaust fans will not run at night between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am. Thus, there will be no noise generated from the greenhouses between 10 pm and 7 am. Record submittals express concern with noise but do not identify how the proposal does not comply with the noise criteria. Based on the report provided by Mr. James, the operation of the mechanical equipment will comply with this standard. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. 12. Screening and Fencing. The following screening standards shall apply to greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non -rigid structures and land areas used for marijuana production and processing: a. Subject to DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone approval, if applicable. b. Fencing shall be finished in a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape and shall not be constructed of temporary materials such as plastic sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc., and shall be subject to DCC 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone, if applicable. c. Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or colored a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape. d. The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. FINDING: The subject property is not located in the Landscape Management Combining Zone. The applicant indicates the proposed fencing will be a wood panel fence that is 7 feet in height. Any parts of the fence will be finished in a natural wood finish that is a muted earth tone to blend in with the farm landscape around it. The fence will not be constructed of any temporary materials. The applicant also indicates the existing tree and shrub screening will be maintained to the maximum extent possible to protect privacy of both the rights of way and adjacent properties. This criterion is met. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Fencing and retention of existing tree and shrub cover shall comply with the fencing and screening standards of DCC 18.116.330(B)(12). 247-18-000361-AD/Anderson Page 13 of 20 13. Water. The applicant shall provide: a. A copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other water use authorization from the Oregon Water Resource Department; or b. A statement that water is supplied from a public or private water provider, along with the name and contact information of the water provider; or c. Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to be used is from a source that does not require a water right. FINDING: This provision has been interpreted by the Land Use Board of Appeals ("LUBA") in the following decisions. A staff summary of the relevant part of the decision is also provided. King v. Deschutes County- LUBA No. 2017-126 - LUBA implicitly determined that a water hauler can be a "water provider," and that a letter from a water hauler satisfies the "plain language of DCC 18.166.330(B)(13)" requiring "a statement that water is supplied from a ... private water provider, along with the name and contact information of the water provider." Second, LUBA confirmed that the only code at issue is DCC 18.116.330(B)(13)(b), and the County thereby is not required "to apply any provision of the generically -described 'Oregon Water Law' to intervenors' application for an administrative decision from the county and determine whether intervenors' application is consistent with state laws governing water use." The submitted burden of proof indicates Bend Water Hauling will provide irrigation water and the application includes a will serve letter from Bend Water Hauling dated April 9, 2018. The will serve letter specifies the water is from either municipal or quasi -municipal sources (Avion Water Company) and the account includes delivery of 4,000 gallons of potable once a week for farming and agricultural use. The water will be stored in two 2,500 gallon holding tanks located within the fences enclose of the marijuana production area. The applicant noted there would be no comingling of this water with domestic well water. Record submittals express concern with the use of and commingling with ground water to serve the proposed use. As found above, water will be delivered and ground water is not proposed to be used for the proposed marijuana production. Based on the above information, staff finds the above standard is met. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The use of water from any source for marijuana production shall comply with all applicable state statutes and regulations including ORS 537.545 and OAR 690-340- 0010. 14. Fire protection for processing of cannabinoid extracts. Processing of cannabinoid extracts shall only be permitted on properties located within the boundaries of or under contract with a fire protection district. FINDING: The processing of cannabinoid extracts is not proposed. Therefore, this criterion does not apply. 247-18-000361-AD/Anderson Page 14 of 20 15. Utility Verification. A statement from each utility company proposed to serve the operation, stating that each such company is able and willing to serve the operation, shall be provided. FINDING: This provision has been interpreted by the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") in the following decisions. A staff summary of the relevant part of the decision is also provided. 247-17-000038-A - A utility statement simply identifying the property location and not identifying the proposed operation, or operational characteristics such as required electrical load and timing of such electrical loads is not sufficient evidence to approve the application. The applicant provided a "will serve" letter from Central Electric Co -Operative (CEC), Inc. dated April 11, 2018. The letter states the following: Central Electric Cooperative has review the provided load information (400 amp, 277 Single phase service) associated with the submitted Cannabis Grow Facility and is willing and able to serve this location in accordance with the rates and policies of Central Electric Cooperative. This criterion is met. 16. Security Cameras. If security cameras are used, they shall be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC or the OHA. FINDING: The submitted burden of proof statement indicates the security cameras required by the state will be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way. This criterion is met. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Security cameras shall be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC. 17. Secure Waste Disposal. Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee or OHA Person Responsible for the Grow Site (PRMG). FINDING: The submitted burden of proof indicates any marijuana waste on site will be secured in one of the dry box storage containers with lockboxes and commercial locks. The receptacles will be under camera monitoring and the possession of the OLCC licensee. Record submittals question how waste will be handled but do not challenge how the method of disposal specified above complies with this criterion. Based on this information, staff finds this criterion is met. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion. 247-18-000361-AD/Anderson Page 15 of 20 CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The marijuana waste receptacle shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee at all times. 18. Residency. In the MUA-10 zone, a minimum of one of the following shall reside in a dwelling unit on the subject property: a. An owner of the subject property; b. A holder of an OLCC license for marijuana production, provided that the license applies to the subject property; or c. A person registered with the OHA as a person designated to produce marijuana by a registry identification cardholder, provided that the registration applies to the subject property. FINDING: The subject property is not in the MUA-10 Zone. These criteria do not apply. 19. Nonconformance. All medical marijuana grow sites lawfully established prior to June 8, 2016 by the Oregon Health Authority shall comply with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(8)(9) by September 8, 2016 and with the provisions of DCC 18.116.330(8)(10-12, 16, 17) by December 8, 2016. FINDING: The subject property was not a lawfully established medical marijuana grow site. This criterion does not apply. 20. Prohibited Uses. a. In the EFU zone, the following uses are prohibited: i. A new dwelling used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; ii. A farm stand, as described in ORS 215.213(1)(r) or 215.283(1)(o), used in conjunction with a marijuana crop; A commercial activity, as described in ORS 215.213(2)(c) or 215.283(2)(a), carried on in conjunction a marijuana crop; and iv. Agri -tourism and other commercial events and activities in conjunction with a marijuana crop. c. In the EFU, MUA-10, and Rural Industrial zones, the following uses are prohibited on the same property as marijuana production: i. Guest Lodge. ii. Guest Ranch. iii. Dude Ranch. iv. Destination Resort. v. Public Parks. vi. Private Parks. vii. Events, Mass Gatherings and Outdoor Mass Gatherings. 247-18-000361-AD/Anderson Page 16 of 20 viii. Bed and Breakfast. ix. Room and Board Arrangements. FINDING: The proposal does not include any of the listed prohibited uses nor are any currently present on the subject property. It shall be an ongoing condition of approval to emphasize the importance of compliance with this criterion. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The uses listed in DCC 18.116.330(B)(20) shall be prohibited on the subject property so long as marijuana production is conducted on the site. D. Annual Reporting 1. An annual report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department by the real property owner or licensee, if different, each February 1, documenting all of the following as of December 31 of the previous year, including the applicable fee as adopted in the current County Fee Schedule and a fully executed Consent to Inspect Premises form: a. Documentation demonstrating compliance with the: i. Land use decision and permits. ii. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and laws. iii. State of Oregon licensing requirements. b. Failure to timely submit the annual report, fee, and Consent to Inspect Premises form or to demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.116.330(C)(1)(a) shall serve as acknowledgement by the real property owner and licensee that the otherwise allowed use is not in compliance with Deschutes County Code; authorizes permit revocation under DCC Title 22, and may be relied upon by the State of Oregon to deny new or license renewal(s) for the subject use. c. Other information as may be reasonably required by the Planning Director to ensure compliance with Deschutes County Code, applicable State regulations, and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. d. Marijuana Control Plan to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department. e. Conditions of Approval Agreement to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department. f. This information shall be public record subject to ORS 192.502(17). FINDING: Compliance with the annual reporting obligation of this section is required. Compliance with this requirement shall be a condition of approval. CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The annual reporting requirements of DCC 18.116.330(D) shall be met. 247-18-000361-AD/Anderson Page 17 of 20 IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing findings, staff concludes that the proposed marijuana production can comply with the applicable standards and criteria of the Deschutes County zoning ordinance if conditions of approval are met. V. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES (SDCs) Board Resolution 2013-020 sets an SDC rate of $3,937 per p.m. peak hour trip. The County uses the most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual to assess SDCs. The ITE manual does not contain a category for marijuana production. In consultation with the Road Department Director and Planning staff, the County has determined the best analog use is Warehouse (Land Use 150) based on the storage requirements and employees of this activity. The ITE indicates Warehouse generates 0.32 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet. As discussed above, the applicant's materials indicates the four greenhouses used for production total 11,520 square feet. County SDCs are based on the total structural square footage related to cannabis production and support and not the square footage of the mature canopy. Thus the site would generate would generate 3.7 p.m. peak hour trips (11.52 X 0.32). The resulting SDC is $14,567 (3.7 X $3,937). The SDC is due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; if a certificate of occupancy is not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final. VI. DECISION APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions of approval. VII. ONGOING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Use & Location: Marijuana production is conditionally approved inside the approved grow building. This approval is based upon the application, site plan, specifications, and supporting documentation submitted by the applicant. Any substantial change in this approved use will require review through a new land use application. B. Indoor Production: Marijuana production is prohibited in any outdoor area. C. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size: The maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall not exceed 5,000 square feet at any time. D. OLCC Licensee: Only one OLCC license shall be allowed per legal parcel for the marijuana production use. 247-18-000361-AD/Anderson Page 18 of 20 E. Lighting: Inside building lighting used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part. The light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana growing lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. F. Odor: The proposed odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. G. Noise: Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. H. Screening: The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit the maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. 1. Water: The use of water from any source for marijuana production shall comply with all applicable state statutes and regulations including ORS 537.545 and OAR 690-340- 0010. J• Security Cameras: Security cameras shall be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC. K. Waste: The marijuana waste receptacle shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee at all times. L. Prohibited Uses: The uses listed in DCC 18.116.330(B)(20) shall be prohibited on the subject property so long as marijuana production is conducted on the site. M. Annual Reporting: The annual reporting requirements of DCC 18.116.330(D) shall be met. N. Permits: The applicant shall obtain any permits required through the Deschutes County Building Division and Environmental Soils Division. 247-18-000361-AD/Anderson Page 19 of 20 VIII. DURATION OF APPROVAL The applicant shall complete all conditions of approval and initiate the use within two (2) years of the date this decision becomes final, or obtain an extension of time pursuant to Section 22.36.010 of the County Code, or this approval shall be void. This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date of mailing, unless appealed by a party of interest. DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION Written by: Matthew Martin, AICP, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager 247-18-000361-AD/Anderson Page 20 of 20 18 -361 -AD BEND, OR 97701 63775 DIAMOND FORGE RD ANDREW ANDERSON NOTICE OF DECISION Mailing Date: Wednesday, September 05, 2018 The Deschutes County Planning Division has approved the land use application(s) described below: FILE NUMBER: LOCATION: APPLICANT/OWNER: SUBJECT: STAFF CONTACT: DOCUMENTS: APPLICABLE CRITERIA: 247 -18 -000361 -AD The subject property has an assigned address of 63775 Diamond Forge Road, Bend, and is identified on County Assessor Tax Map 17-14-11 as tax lot 500. Andrew Anderson The Deschutes County Planning Division has approved an Administrative Determination to establish marijuana production (growing) in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. The marijuana production includes 5,000 square feet of mature marijuana plant canopy area. Matthew Martin, AICP, Associate Planner E-mail: matt.martin@deschutes.org; Telephone: 541-330-4620 Can be viewed and downloaded from: www.buildingpermits.oregon.gov and http://dial.deschutes.org The Planning Division reviewed this application for compliance against criteria contained in Chapters 18.16 and 18.116 in Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code (DCC), the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, as well as against the procedural requirements of Title 22 of the DCC. DECISION: Staff finds that the application meets applicable criteria, and approval is being granted subject to the following conditions: 11 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 e (54,1) 388-6575 @a cdd@deschutes .org www.deschutes.org/cd CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Use & Location: Marijuana production is conditionally approved inside the approved grow building. This approval is based upon the application, site plan, specifications, and supporting documentation submitted by the applicant. Any substantial change in this approved use will require review through a new land use application. B. Indoor Production: Marijuana production is prohibited in any outdoor area. C. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size: The maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall not exceed 5,000 square feet at any time. D. OLCC Licensee: Only one OLCC license shall be allowed per legal parcel for the marijuana production use. E. Lighting: Inside building lighting used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part. The light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana growing lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. F. Odor: The proposed odor control system must at all times prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. The odor control system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. G. Noise: Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air conditioning, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. H. Screening: The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit the maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. I. Water: The use of water from any source for marijuana production shall comply with all applicable state statutes and regulations including ORS 537.545 and OAR 690-340-0010. Security Cameras: Security cameras shall be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OLCC. K. Waste: The marijuana waste receptacle shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee at all times. J• 247 -18 -000361 -AD Page 2 of 3 L. Prohibited Uses: The uses listed in DCC 18.116.330(6)(20) shall be prohibited on the subject property so long as marijuana production is conducted on the site. M. Annual Reporting: The annual reporting requirements of DCC 18.116.330(D) shall be met. N. Permits: The applicant shall obtain any permits required through the Deschutes County Building Division and Environmental Soils Division. This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date mailed, unless appealed by a party of interest. To appeal, it is necessary to submit a Notice of Appeal, the appeal fee of $250.00 and a statement raising any issue relied upon for appeal with sufficient specificity to afford the Hearings Body an adequate opportunity to respond to and resolve each issue. Copies of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. Copies can be purchased for 25 cents per page. NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIEN HOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. This Notice was mailed pursuant to Deschutes County Code Chapter 22.24. 247 -18 -000361 -AD Page 3 of 3 File No. 247 -18 -000361 -AD 63775 Diamond Forge Road, Bend DIAMOND r'ORG JOHNSON RANCH RD Deschutes County GIS, Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a a a a a a a a a a a - -, :a LO LO LO LO LO LO LO LOL.0 LO LD LO m m m m m m m m m m m m -O 00 CO00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 u ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1x--1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 ,1 v ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 25889 ALFALFA MARKET RD 0 N G 0 z 0 00 LL c w 00 = co O BEND, OR 97708 PO BOX 8042 >- 0 O � o2S u w ❑ ❑ Z W a Z WQ 0 w 00 J W a ❑ O a a O n Ql 00 0 ❑ Z W 07 63775 DIAMOND FORGE RD ANDREW ANDERSON n O1 K 0 ❑ Z 0 2 ❑ W 00 P.O. BOX 846 CENTRAL ELECTRIC CO-OP Bend, OR 97701 63333 HWY 20 WEST SHANE NELSON DESCHUTES CO. SHERIFF BEND, OR 97701 63790 JOHNSON RANCH RD 63650 JOHNSON RANCH RD MILTENBERGER, JEANNE R TRUSTEE J 1- W H v) Z Z a 00 w w 00 (7 a u 0 w W J J 2 >w w U ❑ K Q v Z ❑ ❑ 63780 DIAMOND FORGE RD BEND, OR 97701 63760 DIAMOND FORGE RD EUGENE, OR 97408 2750 SHADOW VIEW DR #424 J V) W W J Z a 06 w N ❑ c a ❑ v) O w J 00 W a u = Z 2 g Q 2 m NJ g W U BEND, OR 97701 ❑ 00 u z K 63595 JOHNSON MILTENBERGER, KEN BEND, OR 97701 64040 JOHNSON RANCH SCHWAB, SHARON RENE TRUSTEE SHARON RENE SCHWAB REVOCABLE TRUST Matt Martin From: Plantae Group <plantaegroup@outlook.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 3:24 PM To: Matt Martin Subject: File No: 247 -18 -000361 -AD -Response to incomplete application Attachments: Diamond forge farms Deschutes county Lucs response to incomplete application may 15 2018.docx; Diamond forge farms Deschutes LUCS boundary sketchmap 2018.pdf; Diamond forge farms map for deschutes application 2.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hey Matt, See my attached maps and responses. What kind of timeframe is it for a response? I hope all is well. Thanks in advance, Andrew Anderson Pl ntaegroup(i) utlook.com Deschutes County Farm Bureau Board Member Upper Deschutes Local Water Advisory Committee Member OFB Production Committee Board Member Alfalfa Valley Farms-CEO/Owner Plantae Cannabis-CEO/Owner DH Wholesale -Owner Plantae Extracts -Owner Happy and Baked -Owner @ al fal fav al l eyfarm s @Plantaehealth **NOTICE** This E-mail and the material attached with it constitute privileged and proprietary information. It is intended for the exclusive use of the person indicated above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this electronic information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please reply to alert me and then kindly delete the email. I do not waive any privilege by misdelivered email, On May 25, 2018, at 12:22 PM, Matt Martin -< Matt.Martini"cdeschutes.org> wrote: Hi Andrew - Attached are both a .pdf and .doc versions of the letter as requested. Matthew Martin, AICP I Associate Planner cO uNTy 117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bund, Oregon 97703 <image001.png> PO Box 6009 I fiend, Oregon 97708 el: (511) 330-46201 w,yk desral is.ortyc I <image002.png> <image003.png> <irnage004.png> Discloirner: Please note drat the information in this email is on informal statement rnau'e in accordance with 00 22,20.005 and shall not he deemed to consahute final County action effecting 0 change in the status of a person's property or can/err/Irr$ an9 riOrs, inclaci, / coy relionce rights, 00 any person, From: Plantae Group <plantaeproup@outlook.com> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 12:09 PM To: Matt Martin <Matt.Martin@cieschutes.org> Subject: Can you email me the incomplete application? File No: 247 -18 -000361 -AD 2 Hey Matt, I wanted to address all the issues on the incomplete administrative determination. Can you email it to me? I only received a hard copy in the mail. I greatly appreciate it! Thanks in advance, Andrew Anderson Plantaegropp&gutlopk.c m Deschutes County Farm Bureau Board Member Upper Deschutes Local Water Advisory Committee Member OFB Production Committee Board Member Alfalfa Valley Farms-CEO/Owner Plantae Cannabis-CEO/Owner DH Wholesale -Owner Plantae Extracts -Owner Happy and Baked -Owner @alfalfava.lieyfarms ©Plantaehealth **NOTICE** This E-mail and the material attached with it constitute privileged and proprietary information. It is intended for the exclusive use of the person indicated above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this electronic information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email by mistake, please reply to alert me and then kindly delete the email. I do not waive any privilege by misdelivered email. <image005.jpg> <18 -361 -AD Incomplete letter.pdf><18-361-AD Incomplete letter.docx> 3 Diamond forge farms Deschutes county LUCS response to Incomplete May 18th 2018 File No. 247 -18 -000361 -AD Hey Matt, Here's the response to your letter dated May 18th 2018. Thanks in advance, Andrew Anderson May 17, 2018 Andrew Anderson 63775 Diamond Forge Road Bend, OR 97701 Re: File No. 247 -18 -000361 -AD Mr. Anderson: I am reviewing the request for an Administrative Determination to establish a marijuana production operation. The application was submitted on April 18, 2018. Staff finds that the application is incomplete because it lacks information related to land use approval criteria under the Deschutes County Code (DCC) sections identified below. Chapter 18.16. EXCLUSIVE FARM USE ZONES Section 18.16.020. Uses Permitted Outright. S. Marijuana production, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330. Staff Comment: The submitted application form indicates the request is for Marijuana Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS). The noted LUCS is a requirement for Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) marijuana production licensing but is not, in and of itself, a land use action requiring land use review. The County completes review of a LUCS with the submission of a Permit Sign Off application. The submitted supporting materials appear to address a request for an administrative determination for marijuana production. Staff requests clarification of the request made with this application. CHAPTER 18.116. SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS Section 18.116.330. Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing B. Marijuana production and marijuana processing. Marijuana production and marijuana processing shall be subject to the following standards and criteria: 3. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size. In the EFU zone, the maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall apply as follows: a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet. b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres to less than 20 acres in lot area: 5,000 square feet. The maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants may be increased to 10,000 square feet upon demonstration by the applicant to the County that: 1. The marijuana production operation was lawfully established prior to January 1, 2015; and ii. The increased mature marijuana plant canopy area will not generate adverse impact of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy or access greater than the impacts associated with a 5,000 square foot canopy area operation. c. Parcels equal to or greater than 20 acres to less than 40 acres in lot area: 10,000 square feet. d. Parcels equal to or greater than 40 acres to less than 60 acres in lot area: 20,000 square feet. e. Parcels equal to or greater than 60 acres in lot area: 40,000 square feet. Staff Comment: The submitted information does not specify the proposed maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants. Staff requests information specifying the proposed maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants. Response: The proposed mature canopy area is 5,000 sq ft as what is allowed by Deschutes county code. 6. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana production and processing areas and buildings: a. Minimum Yard Setback/Distance from Lot Lines: 100 feet. b. Setback from an off-site dwelling: 300 feet. For the purposes of this criterion, an off-site dwelling includes those proposed off- site dwellings with a building permit application submitted to Deschutes County prior to submission of the marijuana production or processing application to Deschutes County. c. Exception: Any reduction to these setback requirements may be granted by the Planning Director or Hearings Body provided the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access impacts. Staff Comment: The submitted plot plan does not specifically identify the area and buildings used for marijuana production and it does not appear to be drawn to scale. Further, the submitted information does not identify the distance from nearby off-site dwellings. For a property of this size, a scaled plan is not required but all setbacks shall be identified. Staff notes that, based on the identified 100 -foot setback and assuming the identified rectangle is the extent of the area used for marijuana production, it appears the southeast corner of the rectangle does not meet the 100 -foot setback requirement. Staff requests a plot plan that specifically identifies the areas and buildings to be used for the proposed marijuana production use that either is drawn to scale and/or identifies setbacks from all property lines. Additionally, staff requests information identifying the distance from nearby off-site dwellings. The distance from off-site dwellings can be provided on the requested plot plan. Response: I'm attaching an updated map. https://weblink.deschutes.org/cdd/DocView.aspx?id=60739 Shows the neighboring property to the south. It shows on there plot map they are 300' to the residence form the property/fence line. Both south corners of the licensed premises (the rectangle) are 100' from the property line. Meaning there is 400' from the proposed license premises to the closest neighboring residence, Setbacks are shown on the map. 7. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows: a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1000 feet from: i. A public elementary or secondary school for which attendance is compulsory under Oregon Revised Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; Response: We are not within 1000 ft of any public elementary or secondary school for which attendance is compulsory under Oregon Revised Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; ii. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school, teaching children cis described in ORS 339.030(1)(a), including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; Response: We are not within 1000 ft of any private or parochial elementary or secondary school, teaching children as described in ORS 339.030(1)(a), including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; A licensed child care center or licensed preschool, including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the child care center or preschool. This does not include licensed or unlicensed child care which occurs at or in residential structures; iv. A youth activity center; and v. National monuments and state parks. Response: We are not within 1000 ft of any licensed child care center or licensed preschool, including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the child care center or preschool. This does not include licensed or unlicensed child care which occurs at or in residential structures or A youth activity center; or any National monuments and state parks. b. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(8)(7), all distances shall be measured from the lot line of the affected properties listed in DCC 18.116.330(8)(7)(a) to the closest point of the buildings and land area occupied by the marijuana producer or marijuana processor. c. A change in use of another property to those identified in DCC 18.116.330(8)(7) shall not result in the marijuana producer or marijuana processor being in violation of DCC 18.116.330(8)(7) if the use is: i. Pending a local land use decision; ii. Licensed or registered by the State of Oregon; or iii. Lawfully established. Staff Comment: The submitted information does not address the separation standards above. Staff requests information addressing these standards. 9. Lighting. Lighting shall be regulated as follows: a. inside building lighting, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures, used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. b. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part. c. Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. Staff Comment: The submitted information does not address the lighting standards above. Staff requests information addressing these standards. Response: We will only have lighting inside the greenhouses. The light will only be between the hours of lam and 7pm. Lighting fixtures will be fully shielded to meet standard 9b. Exterior lighting fixtures will comply with DCC 15.10. 12. Screening and Fencing. The following screening standards shall apply to greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non -rigid structures and land areas used for marijuana production and processing: a. Subject to DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone approval, if applicable. b. Fencing shall be finished in a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape and shall not be constructed of temporary materials such as plastic sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc., and shall be subject to DCC 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone, if applicable. c. Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or colored a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape. d. The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right- of-way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. Staff Comment: The submitted information does not address the screening and fencing standards above. Please provide information addressing these standards. Response: Our Fence will be 7' wood panel fence. It will be finished in a natural wood finish that's a muted earth tone to blend in with the farm landscape around it. Any part of the fence will be a muted earth tone. It's not constructed•of any temporary materials. Our existing tree and shrub screening will be maintained to the maximum extent possible to protect privacy of both the right of ways and adjacent properties. 13. Water. The applicant shall provide: a. A copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other water use authorization from the Oregon Water Resource Department; or b. A statement that water is supplied from a public or private water provider, along with the name and contact information of the water provider; or c. Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to be used is from a source that does not require a water right. Staff Comment: The submitted information includes a letter from Bend Water Hauling identifying where and how much water will be provided to the use. The submitted information does not identify where or how the water will be stored onsite and how comingling with the domestic water use on the property will be prevented. Staff requests information identifying where and how the hauled water will be stored and how comingling with the domestic water will be prevented. Response: Bend water hauling will bring the water in and fill two 2.500 tanks. They are on the updated plot map in the southeast corner of the licensed premises. The water will be stored here onsite. There's no comingling of water with domestic water possible here. 17. Secure Waste Disposal. Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee or DHA Person Responsible for the Grow Site (PRMG). Staff Comment: The submitted information does not completely address this standard. The provided information only indicates all marijuana waste will be stored in a secured waste receptacle. Please provide information identifying how it will be secured, where it will be secured, and in the possession of and under the control of whom. Response: Any Marijuana waste on site will be secured one of the drybox containers (that will be a neutral color) with lockboxes and commercial locks. They will be under camera monitoring and the possession of the OLCC licensee. Completeness Determination Your application will be determined to be complete in accordance with ORS 215.427 when you have submitted in writing one (1) of the following: 1. All of the missing information; 2. Some of the missing information and a written notice to the County that no other information will be provided; or 3. Notice that none of the missing information will be provided. If you submit one of the items noted in 1, 2 or 3, above, within 180 days from the date the application was first submitted, approval or denial of the application will be based upon the standards and criteria that were applicable at the time the application was first submitted. If you fail to respond within 180 days, the application will be void on the 181st day after being submitted, pursuant to ORS 215,427(4). No refund is available on applications which become void. As noted in ORS 215.427, the total period for the County to issue a final decision on your application may be extended for a specific period of time by submittal of a written request from you. However, the total extension of time approved for a final decision shall not exceed 215 days. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns about this matter at (541) 541-330-4620 or matt.martin@deschutes.org. Sincerely, DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION Matthew Martin, AICP Associate Planner / 8 x.15 8 x 45' x 45' rI ONP.617:_‘,1 Matt Martin From: Plantae Group <Plantaegroup@outlook.com> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 4:09 PM To: Matt Martin Subject: Re: Plot Plan Clarification File No. 247 -18 -000361 -AD (MJ Production) Hey Matt, It's great to hear from you. The 3-8'x45' shipping containers that your talking about are for drying, curing, storage. Let me know if you need anything else. hope all is well. Thanks in advance, Andrew Sent from my iPhone On Aug 27, 2018, at 4:29 PM, Matt Martin <Matt.Martin@deschutes.org> wrote: Hi Andrew - I am working on the decision for the above referenced file an have a question. The plot plan identifies 3 objects that are 8'x45'. Will you please clarify what these are? Thanks, Matthew Martin, AICP I Associate Planner DESCHOTES COUNTY' COMMUNE(Y VEL OPL 117 NW Lafayette Avenue l Bend, Oregon 97703 <Image001.On ;> PO Box 5005 1 (lend, Oregon 97708 Tel: (541) 330-46201 www deschutes,arg/cd <image002.png> <image003.png> <image004.png> Disclaimer: Please note that the information in this email is an informal statement made in accordance with 000 22.20.005 and shall nor be deemed to constitute final County action effecting o Ghon;e in the status of a person's property or conferring any rights, including any reliance rights, on any person. <18 -361 -AD Not P1an.pdf> 1 Matt Martin From: Plantae Group <Plantaegroup@outlook.com> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 4:26 PM To: Matt Martin Subject: Re: Building Height Information File No. 247 -18 -000361 -AD (MJ Production) Hey Matt, The greenhouses have 18.5' centers at the peak (highest point). The 3 -shipping containers are 9.5' tall. Thanks in advance, Andrew Sent from my iPhone On Aug 27, 2018, at 5:22 PM, Matt Martin <Matt.Martin@deschutes.org> wrote: Hi Andrew - Will you please provide elevation drawings and/or information regarding the height of both the green houses and shipping containers? This information is needed to verify compliance with the height limits of the EFU zone. Thanks, Matthew Martin, ACP 1 Associate Planner 117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bend, Oregon 97703 PO Box 6005 I Bend, Oregon 97708 Tel: (541) 330-46201 www.deschutes.org/cd 0 © <image004.png> 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. 1 May 17, 2018 Andrew Anderson 63775 Diamond Forge Road Bend, OR 97701 Re: File No. 247 -18 -000361 -AD Mr. Anderson: Mailing Date: Friday, May 18, 2018 I am reviewing the request for an Administrative Determination to establish a marijuana production operation. The application was submitted on April 18, 2018. Staff finds that the application is incomplete because it Tacks information related to land use approval criteria under the Deschutes County Code (DCC) sections identified below. Chapter 18.16. EXCLUSIVE FARM USE ZONES Section 18.16.020. Uses Permitted Outright. S. Marijuana production, subject to the provisions of DCC 18.116.330. Staff Comment: The submitted application form indicates the request is for Marijuana Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS). The noted LUCS is a requirement for Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) marijuana production licensing but is not, in and of itself, a land use action requiring land use review. The County completes review of a LUCS with the submission of a Permit Sign Off application. The submitted supporting materials appear to address a request for an administrative determination for marijuana production. Staff requests clarification of the request made with this application. CHAPTER 18.116. SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS Section 18.116.330. Marijuana Production, Processing, and Retailing B. Marijuana production and marijuana processing. Marijuana production and marijuana processing shall be subject to the following standards and criteria: 3. Maximum Mature Plant Canopy Size. In the EFU zone, the maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall apply as follows: a. Parcels from 5 acres to less than 10 acres in lot area: 2,500 square feet. b. Parcels equal to or greater than 10 acres to less than 20 acres in lot area: 5,000 square feet. The maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants may be increased to 10,000 square feet upon demonstration by the applicant to the County that: 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 j P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 (541) 388-6575 @ cod@deschutes .org ; www.deschutes.org/cd i. The marijuana production operation was lawfully established prior to January 1, 2015; and ii. The increased mature marijuana plant canopy area will not generate adverse impact of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy or access greater than the impacts associated with a 5,000 square foot canopy area operation. c. Parcels equal to or greater than 20 acres to less than 40 acres in lot area: 10,000 square feet. d. Parcels equal to or greater than 40 acres to less than 60 acres in lot area: 20,000 square feet. e. Parcels equal to or greater than 60 acres in lot area: 40,000 square feet. Staff Comment: The submitted information does not specify the proposed maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants. Staff requests information specifying the proposed maximum canopy area for mature marijuana plants. 6. Setbacks. The following setbacks shall apply to all marijuana production and processing areas and buildings: a. Minimum Yard Setback/Distance from Lot Lines: 100 feet. b. Setback from an off-site dwelling: 300 feet. For the purposes of this criterion, an off-site dwelling includes those proposed off-site dwellings with a building permit application submitted to Deschutes County prior to submission of the marijuana production or processing application to Deschutes County. c. Exception: Any reduction to these setback requirements may be granted by the Planning Director or Hearings Body provided the applicant demonstrates the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access impacts. Staff Comment: The submitted plot plan does not specifically identify the area and buildings used for marijuana production and it does not appear to be drawn to scale. Further, the submitted information does not identify the distance from nearby off-site dwellings. For a property of this size, a scaled plan is not required but all setbacks shall be identified. Staff notes that, based on the identified 100 -foot setback and assuming the identified rectangle is the extent of the area used for marijuana production, it appears the southeast corner of the rectangle does not meet the 100 -foot setback requirement. Staff requests a plot plan that specifically identifies the areas and buildings to be used for the proposed marijuana production use that either is drawn to scale and/or identifies setbacks from all property lines. Additionally, staff requests information identifying the distance from nearby off-site dwellings. The distance from off-site dwellings can be provided on the requested plot plan. 7. Separation Distances. Minimum separation distances shall apply as follows: a. The use shall be located a minimum of 1000 feet from: i. A public elementary or secondary school for which attendance is compulsory under Oregon Revised Statutes 339.010, et seq., including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; ii. A private or parochial elementary or secondary school, teaching children as described in ORS 339.030(1)(a), including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the school; 247 -18 -000361 -AD Page 2 of 5 A licensed child care center or licensed preschool, including any parking lot appurtenant thereto and any property used by the child care center or preschool. This does not include licensed or unlicensed child care which occurs at or in residential structures; iv. A youth activity center; and v. National monuments and state parks. b. For purposes of DCC 18.116.330(8)(7), all distances shall be measured from the lot line of the affected properties listed in DCC 18.116.330(B)(7)(a) to the closest point of the buildings and land area occupied by the marijuana producer or marijuana processor. c. A change in use of another property to those identified in DCC 18.116.330(8)(7) shall not result in the marijuana producer or marijuana processor being in violation of DCC 18.116.330(8)(7) if the use is: i. Pending a local land use decision; ii. Licensed or registered by the State of Oregon; or Lawfully established. Staff Comment: The submitted information does not address the separation standards above. Staff requests information addressing these standards. 9. Lighting. Lighting shall be regulated as follows: a. Inside building lighting, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures, used for marijuana production shall not be visible outside the building from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the following day. b. Lighting fixtures shall be fully shielded in such a manner that all light emitted directly by the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction, is projected below the horizontal plane through the lowest light -emitting part. c. Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. Staff Comment: The submitted information does not address the lighting standards above. Staff requests information addressing these standards. 12. Screening and Fencing. The following screening standards shall apply to greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non -rigid structures and land areas used for marijuana production and processing: a. Subject to DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone approval, if applicable. b. Fencing shall be finished in a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape and shall not be constructed of temporary materials such as plastic sheeting, hay bales, tarps, etc., and shall be subject to DCC 18.88, Wildlife Area Combining Zone, if applicable. c. Razor wire, or similar, shall be obscured from view or colored a muted earth tone that blends with the surrounding natural landscape. d. The existing tree and shrub cover screening the development from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties shall be retained to the maximum extent possible. This provision does not prohibit maintenance of existing lawns, removal of dead, diseased or hazardous vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act; or agricultural use of the land. 247 -18 -000361 -AD Page 3 of 5 Staff Comment: The submitted information does not address the screening and fencing standards above. Please provide information addressing these standards. 13. Water. The applicant shall provide: a. A copy of a water right permit, certificate, or other water use authorization from the Oregon Water Resource Department; or b. A statement that water is supplied from a public or private water provider, along with the name and contact information of the water provider; or c. Proof from the Oregon Water Resources Department that the water to be used is from a source that does not require a water right. Staff Comment: The submitted information includes a letter from Bend Water Hauling identifying where and how much water will be provided to the use. The submitted information does not identify where or how the water will be stored onsite and how comingling with the domestic water use on the property will be prevented. Staff requests information identifying where and how the hauled water will be stored and how comingling with the domestic water will be prevented. 17. Secure Waste Disposal. Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OLCC licensee or OHA Person Responsible for the Grow Site (PRMG). Staff Comment: The submitted information does not completely address this standard. The provided information only indicates all marijuana waste will be stored in a secured waste receptacle. Please provide information identifying how it will be secured, where it will be secured, and in the possession of and under the control of whom. Completeness Determination Your application will be determined to be complete in accordance with ORS 215.427 when you have submitted in writing one (1) of the following: 1. All of the missing information; 2. Some of the missing information and a written notice to the County that no other information will be provided; or 3. Notice that none of the missing information will be provided. If you submit one of the items noted in 1, 2 or 3, above, within 180 days from the date the application was first submitted, approval or denial of the application will be based upon the standards and criteria that were applicable at the time the application was first submitted. If you fail to respond within 180 days, the application will be void on the 181st day after being submitted, pursuant to ORS 215.427(4). No refund is available on applications which become void. As noted in ORS 215.427, the total period for the County to issue a final decision on your application may be extended for a specific period of time by submittal of a written request from you. However, the total extension of time approved for a final decision shall not exceed 215 days. 247 -18 -000361 -AD Page 4 of 5 Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns about this matter at (541) 541-330- 4620 or matt.martin@deschutes.org. Sincerely, DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION Matthew Martin, AICP Associate Planner 247 -18 -000361 -AD Page 5 of 5 0 Q M -a o0 u .-4 CC I- -J Q V >- Z 0 N V) BEND, OR 97701 63775 DIAMOND FORGE RD ANDREW ANDERSON May 3, 2018 Dear Matthew Martin, ' A - VZ-00016(--- We Z-000 6( -` We are writing to voice our concerns about Andrew Anderson who resides at 63775 Diamond Forge Rd, Bend Or 97701 and his application for growing marijuana at that address. These are our list of concerns: 1) Traffic -Our road a private road that consist of gravel that will not accept any additional traffic, which is required by each home owner to maintain the road per Road Maintenance Agreement. 2) Noise- there will be additional voice from fans blowing per greenhouse that we do not have now and do not want! 3) Water- The water that we all draw from comes from each homes private well that is fed from an Aguafer that he will be pulling additional water from. We don't want our wells drying up because he is using all the water to water his plants. Our wells are at 785 ft now. 4) Smell- the smell that comes from the marijuana grow operations is awful, it smells like a skunk, and we should not have to deal that 5) Workers- There will be a number of additional people that will be coming to work that we are not sure of their character and they will be coming and going and we are concerned about our property and kids. This is a private road that all the neighbors know one another and there will be additional traffic that we perceive 6) Garbage- Where is he going to get rid of his waste and excess materials? Burn it? RECEIVED 4-3 cschutas County CDD 7) Greenhouse emissions- Who is going to check on the Greenhouse emissions and how much is he putting into the environment that can harm our Ozone layer. 8) Small Children- There are small children in the area that do not need to smell or know what is going on next door. 2 live exactly next door and 3, ages 3,7 &9 comes to the property every weekend to stay with their mother who rents a room at the property where this marijuana grow is to take place. 9) Property Values- We do not want our property loosing value because we have a Marijuana grow operation next door. 10) Children on the Road- There are children walking from the school bus stop on the private road to their homes and there are no sidewalks so they have to walk on the gravel road. What we want to know is why when Mr. Anderson and his father already have an operation set up down the road at 62905 Johnson Ranch Road, Bend Or 97701 that consists of 8 working greenhouses in operation now and 2 additional that are framed up and just need the plastic, fan & ect. And at least 10 acres that they could expand on there, why they don't just keep it down there at "ONE" location? .3 77 S"" ba-1-74ou FcrGE- Thanks so much for considering our worries, concerns and needs. Rick & Carrie Dice 63790 Johnson Ranch Rd (Diamond Forge Rd) lend OR 97701 Todd & Denese Fitzmaurice 63760 Diamond Forge Rd Bend Or 97701 \ c`) Ken Miltenberger 63595 Johnson Ranch Rd Bend Or 97701 Matt Martin From: Randy E <wreck.randy@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2018 1:20 PM To: Matt Martin Subject: File #247 -18 -000361 -AD Attachments: DCPD grow response - Google Docs.pdf Please acknowledge the receipt of this correspondence with a return email. May 4, 2018 Attn: Matthew Martin, Associate Planner Deschutes County Planning Division P.O. Box 6005 Bend, OR 97708 RE: File #247 -18 -000361 -AD Dear, Matthew I am the property owner of 63780 Diamond Forge Road, the residence that shares the southern property border of the subject property listed for application. The following are my objections of the proposed application for Marijuana Production. My family has occupied our residence for over 12 years and have experienced firsthand that the allowance of marijuana crops in our neighborhood of Alfalfa have been unable to absolutely conform with written and intended regulations. We frequently experience the effects of ineffective odor control systems and light pollution from interior lighting used in translucent greenhouses from "grows" over two miles away. As mine is the closest dwelling located to this applicant and being downwind from the prevailing northerly and northwest winds, I request the following considerations for your application approval. It is my hope that this will avoid the frequency of my future complaints and legal action when compliance infractions occur. 1) The applicant has not indicated the exact east/west location of the placement of greenhouses. As presently indicated in the application site map the location is directly north of my dwelling (directly upwind) thus creating the maximum potential for odor and noise violations. I request that the greenhouses be as far east as possible on the applicant's property. It is my hope that this plan will maximize the effectiveness of the installed odor and noise control systems proposed. 2) What system or action is proposed to eliminate the offensive light pollution emitting from translucent greenhouses created from grow lights, interior lights and exterior lighting used after 7pm to 7am? 3) A diagram of a fenced enclosure is indicated on the applicants map; however, no written description is made of the design of the fenced enclosure of the greenhouses. The acknowledgement of a video camera security system is mentioned. What is the detailed written proposal for the adequate security of this crop and related operations? I feel it is important to inform your office that my wife and I are currently certified foster parents with the State of Oregon DHS Child Welfare. We have frequently had placement in our home of Page 2 RE: File #247 -18 -000361 -AD teens with marijuana addiction. Because of this the adequate security of this crop is one of our top concerns as it relates to these children and their potential access. 4) What is the location and description of the proposed water storage system? What guarantee is in place to ensure that domestic well water is not connected or utilized for this application? Please review that the subject property lists a domestic cistern installed beneath the outbuilding located to the north of the dwelling. It is my understanding that this cistern cannot be used for the intended growing operation. If the dwelling is intended to be used and approved for production, harvesting or packaging of marijuana please verify and provide proof that it is not within 100 feet of the lot boundary and that all odor, noise and lighting compliances are in place. 5) If harvest and packaging activities are not conducted inside the greenhouses or dwelling what additional building, structure or mobile vehicle is intended to conduct this activity and where is it's proposed location? To support my family's continued enjoyment of our property, I request that the Deschutes County Commision directly review this application and invite open public forum to hear arguments from the affected community prior to approval. I further request that the office of Planning Division provide for the review of the commissioners and community accurate and detailed aerial images of the subject property and how it relates to the adjoining properties. These images should include the verified measurements displaying the distances involved in relation to the affected dwellings. My family has enjoyed living next door to the Anderson household and find them to be a peaceful asset to our small neighborhood of Diamond Forge Road. It is my family's wish that this continues as Mr. Anderson pursues his farming venture. Thank you for your consideration of this issue. "Randy" William R. Eckerman 63780 Diamond Forge Rd. Bend, OR 97701 541-410-9049 Matt Martin From: Charlie Kimball <kimball.c j@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 5:14 PM To: Matt Martin Cc: Lisa Kimball Subject: Letter in opposition to marijuana grow operation at 63775 Diamond Forge Rd, Alfalfa, OR. May 15, 2018 Dear Matthew Martin, My wife and I own property that we are developing at 63740 Diamond Forge Rd, Alfalfa, OR. We are writing to voice our concerns about Andrew Anderson who resides at 63775 Diamond Forge Rd, Bend Or 97701 and his application for growing marijuana at that address. These are our list of concerns: 1) Traffic -Our road is a private road that consist of gravel that will not accept any additional traffic, which is required by each home owner to maintain the road Per Road Maintenance Agreement. 2) Noise- there will be additional noise from the fans blowing from greenhouses that we do not have now. 3) Water- the water that we all draw from comes from each homes private well that is fed from an Aquafer that he will be pulling additional water from. We don't want our wells drying up because he is using all the water to water his plants. As it is, wells in our area are over 750+ feet deep. The water table will continue to fall with the addition of high water use crops. 4) Smell- the smell that comes from the marijuana grow operations is awful, it smells like a skunk, and we should not have to deal with that. 5) Workers- there will be a number of additional people that will be coming to work that we are not sure of their character and they will be coming and going and we are concerned about our property and kids. This is a private road that all the neighbors know one another and there will be additional traffic that we perceive 6) Garbage- Where is he going to get rid of his waste and excess materials? Burn it? 7) Greenhouse emissions- Who is going to check on the greenhouse emissions and how much he is putting into the environment that is harmful to our Ozone. 8) Small Children- there are small children in the area that do not need to smell or know what is going on next door. 2 live exactly next door and 3, ages 3,7 & 9 come to the property every weekend to stay with their mother who rents a room at the property where this marijuana grow is to take place 9) Property Values- We do not want our property losing value because we have a Marijuana grow operations next door. 1 10) Children on the road- There are children walking from the bus stop on the private road to their homes and there are no sidewalks so they have to walk on the gravel road. 11) Lastly, we believe a commercial operation (exceeding 5,000 sq ft) will not meet the minimum requirements. While we don't yet know the size of the operation we suspect it will be in excess of 5,000 sq ft. ACCESS Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall comply with the following standards. 1. Have frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed public, county, or state road; 7.: Have access from a private road or easement serving only the subject property; nr 3. If the property takes access via a private road or easement which also serves other properties, the applicant shall obtain written consent to utilize the easement or private road for marijuana production access from all owners who have access rights to the private road or easement. What we want to know is why when Mr. Anderson and his father already have an operation set up down the road at 62905 Johnson Ranch Rd., Bend Or 97701 that consists of 8 working greenhouses in operation now and 2 additional that are framed up and just need the plastic, fans, & ect. and at least 10 acres that they could expand on there, why they don't just keep it down there at "ONE" location. We want his application to be DENIED for 63775 Diamond Forge Rd. Thanks so much for considering our worries, concerns and needs. Regards, Charlie and Lisa Kimball 2 Matt Martin From: Perkins, Parneli <pperkins@cec.coop> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 12:13 PM To: Matt Martin Subject: File Number: 247 -18 -000361 -AD Matt, CEC requests the applicant apply for a new electrical service by calling Bob Fowler at 541-312-7778 and provide electrical load and demand requirements for this activity. CEC will determine if capacity is available. Thank you Parnell Perkins m Central Electric Cooperative, Inc„ a Lands Specialist Office: 541,:3.1.1,7747 1 Fix: 541.923,3549 pperkins@cec.coop 2098 N Hwy 97, 00 Box 846, Redmond OR 97756 www.cec.coop This e-mail message contains information that may be confidential. Use by parties other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and prohibited. 1 Matt Martin From: Randy Scheid Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2018 12:52 PM To: Matt Martin Subject: 247 -18 -000361 -AD Matt, Please apply my standard comments on the AD referenced above. ............ Planning statement Buildi... Thanks, Randy. Randy Scheid I Building Official E:s cH1, .e 00 NTC tylMUN;.l.sf , V0 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97703 Tel: (541) 317-31337 DO 0 Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in o cost effective manner Every Time Standards We respond in a tirnely and courteous manner, identifying customer needs and striving for solutions We set honest and realistic expectations to achieve optimum results We provide knowledgeable, timely, profes.siona(, respectful service. We take ownership of customers' needs and follow throuoh. We value our customers and approach them with an open mind. NOTICE: The Deschutes County Building Safety Divisions code mandates that Access, Egress, Setbacks, Fire & Life Safety, Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. must be specifically addressed during the appropriate plan review process with regard to any proposed structures and occupancies. Accordingly, all Building Code required items will be addressed, when a specific structure, occupancy, and type of construction is proposed and submitted for plan review. Randy Scheid May 2, 2018 DESCHUTES COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE VION j,„c 0 Vi • (,:0 h' ilif Comment from Sheriff L. Shane Nelson: RECliiii„ 1:11., MAY 0 7 ZDIB Descht6es („...burity („3„11), Our concern lies in the odor, sights, sounds and set backs of the property in this type of request and how it affects the livability of our community members; in conjunction with the issue that marijuana is illegal on a federal level. In addition, we are finding the calls for service related to marijuana grow operations are increasing. Main Office 63333 W. Highway 20 Bend, OR 97703 541-388-6655 (11 1 M (y), IMailing Date: Friday, April 27, 2018 NOTICE OF APPLICATION The Deschutes County Planning Division has received the proposed land use application(s) described below: FILE NUMBER: 247 -18 -000361 -AD APPLICANT/OWNER: Andrew Anderson PROPOSAL: Administrative Determination for Marijuana Production (growing) in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. LOCATION: The subject property has an assigned address of 63775 Diamond Forge Road, Bend, and is identified on Assessor's Map 17-14-11 as tax lot 500. STAFF CONTACT: Matthew Martin, AICP, Associate Planner • Email: matt.martin@deschutes.org; Telephone: 541-330-4620 DOCUMENTS: Can be viewed and downloaded from: www.buildingpermits.oregon.gov and httpj/dial.deschutes.org STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Development Procedures Ordinance Copies of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. Copies can be purchased for 25 cents per page. The Planning Division is located in the Community Development Department Office at 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon. Any interested person may submit written comments on the proposed land use action. Your input is important to us. ALL WRITTEN TESTIMONY MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN TEN (10) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF MAILING. Notice of the decision will be provided by a separate mailing. For more information or to request copies of the findings and decision, contact the assigned planner. This Notice was mailed pursuant to Deschutes County Code Chapters 22.20 and 22.24. File No. 247 -18 -000361 -AD 63775 Diamond Forge Road, Bend • - • • "ft, . . • 4041.01-e '-i:3;4‘01 aGJD.Ini Matt Martin From: Peter Russell Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2018 2:34 PM To: Matt Martin; Chris Doty; Cody Smith Cc: Peter Russell Subject: MJ grow off Diamond Forge (18 -361 -AD) Matt, I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247 -18 -000361 -AD for a marijuana production (growing) operation in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) at 63775 Diamond Forge Road, aka 17-14-11, Tax Lot 500. Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.330(6)(8) only requires proof of legal direct access to the property or access from a private easement for a grow of more than 5,000 square feet of mature canopy. The proposal states it is for less than 5,000 square feet, but both the site plan and odor control plan state there will be four greenhouses, each of which is 30 X 96 feet. Thus each greenhouse is 2,880 square feet (30 X 96) and the four total 11,520 square feet (2,880 X 4). I will defer to you if the access requirement does or does not apply. The applicant needs to provide a copy of their driveway permit to access Diamond Forge Road or make obtaining a driveway permit from the County a condition of approval to comply with DCC 17.48.210(A). The traffic study requirements of DCC 18.116.310 are not applicable for a marijuana production application as no site plan is required for this application. Thus no traffic study can be required. Board Resolution 2013-020 sets an SDC rate of $3,937 per p.m. peak hour trip. The County uses the most recent edition of the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual to assess SDCs. The ITE manual does not contain a category for marijuana production. In consultation with the Road Department Director and Planning staff, the County has determined the best analog use is Warehouse (Land Use 150) based on the storage requirements and employees of this activity. The ITE indicates Warehouse generates 0.32 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet. As discussed above, the applicant's materials indicates the four greenhouses used for production total 11,520 square feet. County SDCs are based on the total structural square footage related to cannabis production and support and not the square footage of the mature canopy. Thus the site would generate would generate 3.7 p.m. peak hour trips (11.52 X 0.32). The resulting SDC is $14,567 (3.7 X $3,937). The SDC is due prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; if a certificate of occupancy is not applicable, then the SDC is due within 60 days of the land use decision becoming final. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks. Peter Russell 1 Senior Transportation Planner 117 NW Lafayette Avenue I Bend, Oregon 97703 90 Box -6005 1 Bend, Oregon 97708 Fel: (541) 383-6718 I www.deschutes.or;/cd DisciUPlease note that the information in this email is no inf urinal statement /505/e in s cco 4nllce with DCC 22.20.00 and shall not he deemed 10 CO ..ttJ:(. 1.o• t OJ;)'1 action effecting a change 15 the status of a person' property or conferring any 15. 15 1Flci d oj; 0;;y ; elion . e rights, on 0l7y person. 1 S Mailing Date: Friday, April 27, 2018 ` D ! .. `..t E L NOTICE OF APPLICATION The Deschutes County Planning Division has received the proposed land use application(s) described below: FILE NUMBER: 247 -18 -000361 -AD APPLICANT/OWNER: Andrew Anderson PROPOSAL: Administrative Determination for Marijuana Production (growing) in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. LOCATION: STAFF CONTACT: DOCUMENTS: The subject property has an assigned address of 63775 Diamond Forge Road, Bend, and is identified on Assessor's Map 17-14-11 as tax lot 500. Matthew Martin, AICP, Associate Planner Email: matt.martin@deschutes.org; Telephone: 541-330-4620 Can be viewed and downloaded from: www.buildingpermits.oregon.gov and http://dial.deschutes.org STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Development Procedures Ordinance Copies of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. Copies can be purchased for 25 cents per page. The Planning Division is located in the Community Development Department Office at 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon. Any interested person may submit written comments on the proposed land use action. Your input is important to us. ALL WRITTEN TESTIMONY MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION NO LATER THAN TEN (10) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF MAILING. Notice of the decision will be provided by a separate mailing. For more information or to request copies of the findings and decision, contact the assigned planner. This Notice was mailed pursuant to Deschutes County Code Chapters 22.20 and 22.24. 11 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 1,2(541) 388-6575 @cddgdeschutes .org ; ww.deschutes.org/cd File No. 247 -18 -000361 -AD 63775 Diamond Forge Road, Bend a aa a << a a a H H HI HI U) LD LO LO LO LC> L0 LO m m m m 0101 m m m m -0 00 00 W 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 L./ .1 .-i %1 .1 i1 a .1 HI .1 18 -361 -AD 0 0 O O a a axLI ,24 LO LO LO 010101 ob 00 00 00 18 -361 -AD 0 0 0 a a a 01 01 01 m m m 00 00 00 .-i .-1 ,1 18 -361 -AD 0 0 a %LI ‘2-, LO LO m m 00 00 Hi v a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 0-__0000000000000000000000 z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z O N al CC O- 0 0 >, z w U 00 N 0 (0 v O 63775 DIAMOND FORGE RD ANDREW ANDERSON BEND, OR 97701 25889 ALFALFA MARKET RD CHIEF RON THOMPSON ALFALFA FIRE DISTRICT Redmond, OR 97756 P.O. BOX 846 CENTRAL ELECTRIC CO-OP io O n o LO ci m 0 O O O 0 N 0 011 ^1 011 5 CC K 0 0 0 0 "O C C G G v N N K CO CO CO 1055 SW LAKE CT. CENTRAL OREGON IRRIGATION DIST. 20355 POE SHOLES RD., STE. 100 KEVIN SULLIVAN DEPUTY STATE FIRE MARSHAL 1300 NW WALL ST. DESCHUTES CO. ASSESSOR P.O. BOX 6005 DESCHUTES CO. BUILDING SAFETY Bend, OR 97708-6005 P.O. BOX 6005 DESCHUTES CO. ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS DIV. Ln O 0 LO HI N O O O O 0 m 01 01 C0 CP CC CC CC cc r 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 c Z J 0) N U) UJ < m CO 00 m N 61150 S.E. 27TH ST. DESCHUTES CO. ROAD DEPT. 63333 HWY 20 WEST SHANE NELSON DESCHUTES CO. SHERIFF P.O. BOX 6005 PETER RUSSELL DESCHUTES CO. SR. TRANS. PLANNER O c -i W h N UJ Z O r N W CC) 0 U F— LC, Lt1 a U m m m LO LARRY BROWN U U O JIM JOHNSON OR DEPT. OF AG LAND USE PLANING COORD. BEND, OR 97702 231 SW SCALEHOUSE LOOP - SUITE 103 WATERMASTER - DISTRICT 11 N c -i 0 0 0 Ona, Ol K CC CC 0 0 0 d Z z Z W W W m CO 00 231 SW SCALEHOUSE LOOP - SUITE 103 KYLE GORMAN OREGON WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 63650 JOHNSON RANCH RD 64040 JOHNSON RANCH W W W c I H cc K W W Z Z Z a CC LU Z W a (D_ N W Dori; z< H J cJ = C N DONALD W MILTENBERGER TRUST ET AL SHARON RENE SCHWAB REVOCABLE TRUST BEND, OR 97701 63760 DIAMOND FORGE RD EUGENE, OR 97408 2750 SHADOW VIEW DR #424 BEND, OR 97708 PO BOX 8042 BEND, OR 97701 63780 DIAMOND FORGE RD za LU to W J W J z a W U W N 00 0 (n w a 0°C J 0 CC Z w < < U z z J O < HH LL Y a W BEND, OR 97701 63790 JOHNSON RANCH RD z z K 0 o2S W > U C2 LLIU 0 Community Development Department Planning Division $Litdinrg Safety Division Environrneniat Soils Division P,0, Box 6085 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6085 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764 http://vwwv,des.chutes.or g/cd LAND USE ACTION SIGN AFFIDAVIT STATE OF OREGON ) ) ss. COUNTY OF DESCHUTES ) 1, Ankrol FILE NUMBER V17 -t S -09036i -A( , being first duly sworn, depose and state as follows: (name) I placed a Notice of Land Use Action sign on the Applicant's property on Air `1264� (date) 2017, where it can be clearly seen from 1i i" -6t/, id, (name of road) lithe land use sign notices a hearing, the hearing is to be held on , 2017. (date) 20 Dated this r day of _WI Subscribed and sworn to before me thi day of2,0-11(g)0,e OFFICIAL STAMP JUDY KAY I$ACKETT NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON COMMISSION NO. 948168 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 09, 2020 Notary P •Iic My Comrnissior Updated 1/17 Matt Martin From: Tracy Griffin Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 11:03 AM To: 'andrew@alfalfavalleyfarms.com' Cc: Matt Martin Subject: 247 -18 -000361 -AD Good morning Andrew Anderson; Your application has been received by the Deschutes County Planning Division and requires the posting of a Proposed Land Use Sign. Planning Staff will prepare the sign, which includes a brief description of the application, and it will be ready for pickup by Wednesday, April 25th, 2018. It is the applicant's responsibility to post this sign at least ten (10) days before the date set for receipt of comments. Please note the following information and refer to it when making any inquiries: Application Number: 247 -18 -000361 -AD Request: Administrative Determination for Marijuana Production (5,000 sf of mature canopy area) Planner Assigned: Matt Martin Sign Posting instructions: There will be a "Land Use Action Sign Affidavit" stapled to the sign attesting to the fact that this sign has been posted. This Affidavit can be notarized at our office and must be returned to Matt Martin. The sign should be posted so that it is clearly visible along the most traveled street. The sign should be mounted on a sturdy backing, such as plywood, and posted within ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet of the street so that it is visible from the street. Please do not attach the sign to a tree. It is advisable to cover the sign with protective material such as plastic wrap to protect it from inclement weather. It is the applicant's responsibility to post this sign at least ten (10) days before the date set for receipt of comments. Failure to post a sign will delay the review. Land Use Review Process: Your application is first being reviewed for completeness by staff. Notice of an incomplete application will be made within 30 days of submittal. A decision to review your application administratively or to send it to the Hearings Officer will be made within 30 days of the date the application is accepted as complete. Pursuant to state law, the County must take final action, including resolution of appeals, within 150 days after the application is deemed complete. If you have any questions or concerns, please call Matt Martin at 541-330-4620 or email, Matt.Martin@deschutes.org Tracy Griffin Administrative Assistant Q i_17 Niry' Lafayette Avenue I fiend, Oregon 97703 80 Box 0009 Bend, Oregon 97708 (941) 388 Ci;73 WWW deschu escrg cd 1)1Scfo e';er. /10070 note 11/01 the 1!/10110011011 N7 th s email /1 an Wort stCNt,me11t-101 constif(1ro ff001 County 00700 of (rig Q Cf;t.1070 in the 71"0/07 of 0 /20170/1'.5 C 100700(0 vitt}i OCC 22 20 00.) ono t1?01l 001 00 dt?E?.filed 10 rl17 C10 Jtf; !"1IS, inUt/C'11;g any [1'11(/"7 rights, 00 J1i770(700 File No. 247- t � U 00 -- (, t Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division P.0, Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 Phone: (541) 388-6575 Fax: (541) 385-1764 http:// ww.deschutes,org/cd LAND USE APPLICATION INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED 1. Complete the application form and provide appropriate original signatures. To ensure timely processing of your application, all materials must be submitted on single -sided, 8.5" x 11" paper. Do not use binders, tabs/dividers, staples or tape. 2. This application shall include one full-sized plan set (to scale) and one plan set reduced to no larger than 11" x 17". Include a plot plan that shows all property lines and existing and proposed structures, parking, landscaping, lighting, etc. 3. Include a copy of the current deed showing the property owners. 4. Attach correct fee. 5. Ali 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): Administrative Determination (AD) x_ Conditional Use (CU) Declaratory Ruling (DR) Partition (MP) Subdivision (TP) Temporary Use (TU) FEE: Site Plan (SP) Variance (V) Setback Exception (SE) Other Applicant's Name (print): A04'61,1) Mailing Address: G37417 j%j vlvt Applicant's Email Address: il4e,oi 4, ta (10 Olt 04/6 Phone: ('i qI ) / e 22'16 City/State/Zip: Property Owner/s Name (if different): 1e Phone: ( ) Mailing Address: 5itAvt City/State/Zip: 1. Request: ca. 'a,lllt,¢t t 14( 4-4 i4i,A14- 2. Property Description: Township Range ( Section Tax Lot �?�'- '', 5 -06 3. Property Zone(s): if 4. Lot of Record? (State reason): 5. Property Address: ia..4i4 Property Size (acres or sq. ft.): 6I) wt:e = (over) — Quality Services Performed re►itk Pride 6. Present Use of Property: .a ttn/Ce, 7. Existing Structures: / H) 8. Property will be served by: Sewer ,+ Onsite Disposal System 1/ 9. Domestic Water Source: al I +L f'i`f;i/,U�t ,) To the best of my knowledge, the proposal complies with all previous conditions of approval and all other applicable local, state, and federal laws. By signing this application, I acknowledge that Deschutes County planning staff may make a site visit(s) to the address(es) listed on this application in order to evaluate the property(ies) with the Deschutes County Code criteria applicable to the land use requests) submitted. Please describe any special circumstances regarding a potential site visit: Applicant's Signature: /7Ap Date: l aat8 Property Owner's Signature (if different)*: S&U►'tt Date: Agent's Name (if applicable): Phone: ( ) Mailing Address: City/State/Zip: Agent's Email Address: *if this application is not signed by the property owner, a letter authorizing signature by the applicant must be attached. By signing this application, the applicant understands and agrees that Deschutes County may require a deposit for hearings officers' fees prior to the application being deemed complete. If the application is heard by a hearings officer, the applicant will be responsible for the actual costs of the hearings officer. 6/16 1. Land use fee 2. A copy of the deed showing current ownership of the property 3. A written statement and other documentation that shows how all required standards will be met 4. A Plot Plan, which shows: o Property boundaries, road access, setbacks, location and size of existing and proposed buildings, septic system, well, exterior lighting and other Improvements o Special topographic features (Including rivers, streams or rimrock) o North arrow, scale APPENDIX 1- PRODUCTION STANDARDS ZONING Marijuana production is allowed in the following zones: EFU Exclusive Farm Use RI Rural Industrial (only near Deschutes Junction) MUA-10 Multiple Use Agriculture Marijuana Production is a permitted use in the EFU zone and a conditional use in the RI and MUA-10 zones. Before a commercial marijuana production use is established, an applicant needs to receive approval from Deschutes County and the Oregon Liquor Control Commission. Burden of Proof: My property is on 10 acres of EFU zoned exclusively for farming. LIMITATION ON LICENSE/GROW SITE PER PARCEL. No more than one (1) Oregon Liquor Control Commission (OLCC) licensed marijuana production or Oregon Health Authority (OHA) registered medical marijuana grow site shall be allowed per legal parcel or lot. Burden of Proof: I wont have more than one OLCC license on the property. MINIMUM LOT AREA 5 Acres in the EFU and MUA-10 zones. INDOOR PRODUCTION • In the MUA-10 zone, marijuana production shall be located entirely within one or more fully enclosed buildings with conventional or post framed opaque, rigid walls and roof covering. Use of greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non -rigid structures is prohibited. • In the EFU zone, marijuana production shall only be located in buildings, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar structures. • In all zones, marijuana production is prohibited in any outdoor area. Burden of Proof: We don't have any production outside, only in greenhouses and we are in the EFU zone. Page 11 In the MUA-10 zone, a minimum of one of the following shall reside in a dwelling unit on the subject property: 1. An owner of the subject property; or 2. A holder of an OLCC license for marijuana production, provided that the license applies to the subject property; or 3. A person registered with the OHA as a person designated to produce marijuana by a registry identification cardholder, provided that the registration applies to the subject property. Burden of Proof: My property Is 10 acres of EFU. SETBACKS The following setbacks apply to all marijuana production areas and buildings: • 100 feet from lot lines. • 300 feet from an off-site dwelling. Exception: Reductions to these setback requirements may be granted provided the applicant demonstrates that the reduced setbacks afford equal or greater mitigation of visual, odor, noise, lighting, privacy, and access impacts. Burden of Proof: My greenhouses will be atleast 100 feet from the property lines, or less than 300 feet from an off site dwelling. • Light cast by exterior light fixtures other than marijuana grow lights shall comply with DCC 15.10, Outdoor Lighting Control. ODOR • The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. • An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. • The odor control system shall: 1. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM; or Page 12 2. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by 1. Above. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. Burden of Proof: I have attached an Oregon engineers report detailing how we will meet the county odor requirement with an odor mitigation system from Bioworld. NOISE • Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. • Intermittent noise for accepted farming practices is permitted. Burden of Proof: I have attached an Oregon engineers report detailing how we will meet the noise requirement. SCREENING AND FENCING The following screening standards shall apply to greenhouses, hoop houses, and similar non- rigid structures and land areas used for marijuana production: • Subject to DCC 18.84, Landscape Management Combining Zone approval, if applicable. If security cameras are used, they shall be directed to record only the subject property and public rights- of-way, except as required to comply with requirements of the OHA. Burden of Proof: The security cameras required by the state will be directed to record only the subject property and public rights-of-way. SECURE WASTE DISPOSAL Marijuana waste shall be stored in a secured waste receptacle in the possession of and under the control of the OHA Person Responsible for the Grow Site (PRMG). Burden of Proof: All marijuana waste will be stored in a secured waste receptacle. Page 13 ACCESS Marijuana production over 5,000 square feet of canopy area for mature marijuana plants shall comply with the following standards. • Have frontage on and legal direct access from a constructed public, county, or state road; or • Have access from a private road or easement serving only the subject property. • If the property takes access via a private road or easement which also serves other properties, the applicant shall obtain written consent to utilize the easement or private road for marijuana production access from all owners who have access rights to the private road or easement. Burden of Proof: We wont have over 5,000 sq ft of mature canopy unless granted the ability to do so. In the vent we did, Diamond Forge road is a county road. My property has direct access to Diamond Forge Rd in the Northeast corner so no written consent is required. ANNUAL REPORTING An annual report shall be submitted to the Community Development Department, including the applicable fee, and a fully executed Consent to Inspect Premises form that includes: • Documentation demonstrating compliance with the: 1. Land use decision and permits. 2. Fire, health, safety, waste water, and building codes and laws. 3. State of Oregon licensing requirements. • Other information as may be reasonably required to ensure compliance with Deschutes County Code, applicable State regulations, and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. • Marijuana Control Plan to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department. • Conditions of Approval Agreement to be established and maintained by the Community Development Department. After recording return to: Order Number: 121224 Western Title &Escrow 360 SW Bond, Suite 100 Bend OR 97702 Grantee Nan�e(s} Andrew Anderson Jocelyn Anderson PO Box 5302 Bend, OR 97708 Until a change Is requested, all tax statements shall be sent to the following address: Same as Above Deschutes County Official Records 2016-030381 D -D Stn=0 PG 07/29/2016 09:17:14 AM $11.00 $21.00 $10.00 $6.00 $10.00 $58.00 I, Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk for Deschutes County, Oregon, certify that the instrument identified herein was recorded In the Clerk records. Nancy Blankenship - County Clerk Reserved for Recorder's Use STATUTORY WARRANTY DEED Sharon Rene Schwab, Trustee of the Sharon Rene Schwab Revocable Trust Grantor(s), convey and warrant to Andrew Anderson and Jocelyn Anderson, as tenants by the entirety, Grantee(s), the following described real property free of encumbrances except as specifically set forth herein. Parcel 2 of Partition Plat No. 2005-82, recorded November 21, 2005, being a portion of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter (E 1/2 SW 1/4) and the South Half of the Southeast Quarter (S 1/2 SE 1/4), Section 11, Township 17 South, Range 14 East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon. Account: 250860 Map & Tax Lot: 17141100 00500 This property is free of encumbrances, EXCEPT: All those items of record, If any, as of the date of this deed, including any real property taxes due, but not yet payable. The true consideration for this conveyance is ` (Here comply with requirements of ORS 93.030.) BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT THE PERSON TRANSFERRING FEE TITLE SHOULD INQUIRE ABOUT THE PERSON'S RIGHTS IF ANY, ANDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11 CHAPTER 424, OREGON LAWS 2007, SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17, CHAPTER 855, OREGON LAWS 2009 AND SECTIONS 2 TO 7 CHAPTER 8, OREGON LAWS 2010. THIS INSTRUMENT DOES NOT ALLOW U,SE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY THAT THE UNIT OF LAND BEING TRANSFERRED IS A LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED LOT OR PARCEL AS DEFINED IN ORS 92.010 OR 215.010, TO VERIFY THE APPROVED USES OF THE LOT OR PARCEL TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES, AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930, AND TO INQUIRE ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS, IF ANY UNDER ORS 195.300, 195.301 AND 195.305 TO 195.336 AND SECTIONS 5 TO 11, CHAPTER 424 OREGON LAWS 2007 SECTIONS 2 TO 9 AND 17, CHAPTER 855, OREGON LAWS 2009 AND SECTIONS 2 TO 7, CHAPTER 8, OREGON LAWS 2010. RETURN TO WESTERN TITLE & ESCROW Executed this day of July, 2016 T' / haron Rene S hwab Re ocable Trust By: Sharon Ren Its Trustee State of Oregon, County of Deschutes ) ss. This instrument was acknowledged before me on this OW day of July, 2016 by Sharon Rene Schwab, Trustee of The Sharon Rene Schwab Revocable Trust N "`a Public forte State of Oregon My commission expires: % / q ic?e7t1' ,.l At4 /a OFFICIAL SEAL LORRAINE SCHECHTER NOTARY PUBLIC -OREGON COMMISSION NO. 472425 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES NOVEMSER 09, 2016 c 9 CONTAINING 39.83 ACRES. MORE OR LESS. ?,1° '1V2,m6g514,q86 w'— 8 A Zzz 2-2T,m0 ,--z2a4•2 o5 qlf,141 T. _ 0/1 0 ri 0 —H T1100 4140,-,86 i;:x.06:1744ovo Fo.,°:u1) mAzmm,,%,6,21 C) .74 98 *-> Z 0 2 --E3 s 8 g zccn =I 0 2r4 z NS7'0314'W 1313.40' (RI,R2) S8 A2.55"E 1315.51' SW I/161H CORNER FD. 5/6' REhAR W/YEU.Ow PI.ASIIC CAP MARKED '6KRK 1S$642'. FENCE POST BEARS S46'26'36'E 1.24' 0 03 20' UD11IY AND (RNICA1ION PIPELINE uSEIiENT faR THE I OENEFIT OF PARCEL 2 �E" W 1324.47' N87402 5"W 1 29.82 AC (0.0 AC WATER) N0019'29"W-'' 47.37' 929.8 ^�- 8.00' -...! I bei ptiNa,, N� MrEro k 4ApAr z511 ppJ14 "pmI U J ° 4 ",.i g.4 �'y1nr lii} 3i 5a . �. .� Q M IIfOly ^l � Y1 A .;1 rid� L VE TABLE 1 fAN4R r f3EARNG_. yqqy��i 1 .5`` luyll ll«:: Rf�i4 ❑meg 7'+(i I!'f�}� , '.1 yy�0�n -oAi 4, y +1 ±1=H II�ppR Ki c}va .dd,2 }�++µ N0010'56' W 1324.44' (91) BASIS OF BEARING 11 0018'56' W 1324.47' 0 ON 1285.31' (91.112) 1283,93' 50019'29"9 1333.30. 110019.00'W 133330' (91,112) Al gp," d i CS16676 Deschutes County Property Information Zoning Map for account 250860 Basemap Layer Transparency: (35%) , 0 Print ID 2018 - Deschutes County. All rights reserved. Deschutes County GIS 1 USDA FSA,.r Deschutes County Property Information Development Summary for account #250860 The Deschutes County Community Development Department is responsible for land use and permits for properties in the County's jurisdiction. Contact this department if you need additional information or if you have questions. Account Information Mailing Name: ANDERSON, ANDREW & JOCELYN Map and Taxiot: 1 71 41 10000500 Account: 250860 Situs Address: 63775 DIAMOND FORGE RD, BEND, OR 97701 Tax Status: Assessable Pro•ert Details Subdivision: PP2005-82 Lot: PARCEL 2 Block: Acres: 10,00 Jurisdiction Planning Jurisdiction: Deschutes County Urban Growth Boundary: No Urban Reserve Area: No Zoning Designation Jurisdiction Zone Description Link to Zoning Code COUNTY EFUAL EXCLUSIVE FARM USE - ALFALFA SUBZONE View Document County Development Details Legal Lot of Record Contact Community Development Department for information Wetland (National or Local) Not Within a Mapped Welland Conservation Easement No Conservation Easement Recorded FEMA 100 Year Flood Plain Not Within 100 Year Flood Plain TDC/PRC Restrictive Covenant No TDC/PRC Restrictive Covenant Found Ground Snow Load 25 #Isq. ft, le Historic Designated NO 1 +E INFORMATION AND MAPS ACCESSED THROUGH THIS WEB SITE PROVIDE A VISUAL DISPLAY FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE. EVERY REAS )NABLE EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE 10 ASSURE THE ACCURACY OF THE MAPS AND ASSOCIATED DATA. DESCHUTES COUNTY MAKES NO WARRANTY, REPRESENTATION OR GUARANTEE, AS 10 THE CONTENT, SEQUENCE. ACCURACY. TIMELINESS OR COMPLETENESS OF ANY Or THE DATA PROVIDED HERE W. DESCHUTES COUNTY EXPLICITLY DISCLAIMS ANY I EPRESENVATIONS AND WARRANTIES, INCLUDING. WrTHour LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MITRCHANTADILIT I' AND FITNESS FORA PARTICULAR PURPOSE. DESCHUTES COUNTY SHAu. AITSLIME NO I.IA111LDY FOR ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OF HOW CAUSED, DESCIIUTES COUNTY ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY DECISIONS MADE OR ACTIONS TAKEN OR NOT TAKEN BY THE USER OF THIS INFORMATION OR DATA FURNISHEI HERE 55055 ® 2018 - Deschutes County. All rights reserved. Deschutes County Property Information - Dial Fire Tax District Map for account 250860 ALFALFA FIRE D ISTRIC T Deschutes County GIS, Sources Esrf, USGS, NOAA Deschutes County Property Information Service Providers for account # 250860 The information presented is intended to assist you In determining the likely providers of services. City information reflects current city boundaries. Other service district information is based on tax district boundaries effective July 1 of each year. Questions and confimation regarding whether a property is provided service by an individual district should be directed to the service districts. Account Information Mailing Name: ANDERSON, ANDREW & JOCELYN Map and Taxiot: 1714110000500 Account: 250860 Situs Address: 63775 DIAMOND FORGE RD, BEND, OR 97701 Tax Status: Assessable Service Providers for this property Service Service Provider Phone Address City/State Zip COUNTY SERVICES DESCHUTES COUNTY (541) 388-6570 1300 NW WALL ST BEND, OR 97703 POLICE SERVICES DESCHUTES COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE (541) 693-6911 63333 HIGHWAY 20 WEST BEND, OR 97703 SCHOOL DISTRICT REDMOND SCHOOL DISTRICT (541) 923-5437 145 SE SALMON AVE REDMOND, OR 97756 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AREA TUMALO COMMUNITY SCHOOL (541) 382-2853 19835 SECOND ST BEND, OR 97703 MIDDLE SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AREA OBSIDIAN MIDDLE SCHOOL (541) 923-4900 1335 SW OBSIDIAN REDMOND, OR 97756 HIGH SCHOOL ATTENDANCE AREA RIDGEVIEW HIGH SCHOOL (541) 504-3600 4555 SW ELKHORN AVE REDMOND, OR 97756 EDUCATION SERVICE TAX DISTRICT HIGH DESERT EDUCATION SERVICE DISTRICT (541) 693-5600 145 SE SALMON AVE REDMOND, OR 97756 COLLEGE TAX DISTRICT CENTRAL OREGON COMMUNITY COLLEGE (541) 383-7700 2600 NW COLLEGE WAY BEND, OR 97703 LIVESTOCK DISTRICT DESCHUTES COUNTY LIVESTOCK DISTRICT NUMBER 1 (541) 388-6623 1300 NW WALL ST BEND, OR 97703 IRRIGATION DISTRICT CENTRAL OREGON IRRIGATION DISTRICT (541) 548-6047 1055 SW LAKE CT REDMOND, OR 97756 GARBAGE & RECYCLING SERVICE BEND GARBAGE & RECYCLING (541) 382 - 2263 20835 NE MONTANA WAY BEND, OR 97709 1115 INI-0RMAI ION AND MAPS ACCESSED 1IIR000I 111115 WED SITE PROVIDE A VISUAL DISPLAY FOR YOUR CONVENIENC.F.. EVERY REASONAULE EFFORT 1 i5S 135EN MADE ID ASSURE Ti 1E- ACCURACY 05 THE MAPS AND AS11001 7 ED DATA DESCHUT ES COUNT Y MAKES NO WARRANT Y, REPRESENT AT ION 0H GUARANTEE AS TO THE (TJNTE'S) 500 501) /1000115011 TIMELINESS 0R COMPLETENESS OF A N1' OF THE DATA PROVIDEDHEREIN. 05 051)1 ES COUNTY EXPLIC ITLY D,80111 VAS ANY REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WI151001IJMITAT ON, THE IMPLIED WARRA(4IE5 OF MERCHANTABILITY ANI) FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAS PURPOSE DESCHUTES COUNT Y SHALL ASSUME NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS, OR INACCURACIES IN THE INFORMATION PROVIDED REGARDLESS OP HCW: CAUSED. DIi5011UTE5 COUNTY ASSUMES NO LIABILITY I°DR ANY DECISIONS MADE OR ACTIONS TAKEN OR NOT TAKEN BY THE N5ER OF THIS INFORMATION OR DATA FURNi5HEI HEREUNDER ® 2018 - Deschutes County. All rights reserved. Deschutes County Property Information Zoning Map for account 250860 Basemap Layer Transparency, (35%) 0 Print ® 2018 - Deschutes County. All rights reserved. Deschutes County Property Information Zoning Map for account 250860 Basemap Layer Transparency: (35%) : UBDIVISTON: s Print • View acco unt ormat(on fqr this taxiot zoom to P. © 2018 - Deschutes County. All rights reserved. Deschutes County;31S 1 Diglta1016 'etd ?Vali :.tee 22166 Nelson Road Bend, OR 97701-9790 04/09/18 Andrew Anderson Diamond Forge Farms 63775 Diamond Forge Farms Bend, Or. 97701 To whom it may concern: The water we haul as part of our delivery service is from either municipal or quasi- municipal sources. Our source of water for this customer is Avion Water Company. Diamond Ford Farms has set up an account for 4,000 gallons of potable water delivered once a week for farming and agricultural use. Sincerely, Kimberlee Nunez Manager/Member CENTRAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. www.cec.coop • P.O. Box 846, Redmond, OR 97756 • Office: 541.548 2144 • Fax: 541,548.0366 April 11, 2018 Andrew J Anderson 63775 Diamond Forge Rd Bend, OR 97701 RE: Will Serve Letter for 63775 Diamond Forge Rd Bend, OR. In response to your inquiry, please be advised that property located in T. I7S., R.14E., W.M., Section 11, Tax Lot 500, Deschutes County, Oregon, is within the service area of Central Electric Cooperative, Inc. Central Electric Cooperative has reviewed the provided Toad information (400 amp Single phase service) associated with the submitted Cannabis Grow Facility and is willing and able to serve this location in accordance with the rates and policies and of Central Electric Cooperative Sincerely, Robert E Fowler Engineering Service Rep April 5, 2018 RE: Odor and Noise Compliance Letter Diamond Forge Farms 63775 Diamond Forge Road Bend, Oregon 97701 Deschutes County To whom it may concern, Please see the following information regarding noise and odor mitigation for the project located at the above address. Qualifications: I am a licensed engineer in Oregon #65108P. Building Description: • This project consists of four 96' x 30' greenhouses. • Each greenhouse is ventilated with endwall exhaust fans. Odor Control Methodology: The Deschutes County code DCC 18.116.330(B)(10) reads: Odor. As used in DCC 18.116.330(B)(10), building means the building, including greenhouses, hoop houses, and other similar structures, used for marijuana production or marijuana processing. a. The building shall be equipped with an effective odor control system which must at all times prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. b. An odor control system is deemed permitted only after the applicant submits a report by a mechanical engineer licensed in the State of Oregon demonstrating that the system will control odor so as not to unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. c. Private actions alleging nuisance or trespass associated with odor impacts are authorized, if at all, as provided in applicable state statute. d. The odor control system shall: i. Consist of one or more fans. The fan(s) shall be sized for cubic feet per minute (CFM) equivalent to the volume of the building (length multiplied by width multiplied by height) divided by three. The filter(s) shall be rated for the required CFM or :OLEBREIT ENGINEERING 1030 NW Bond St., Suite 202 Bend, OR 97703 o: 541 728 3293 colebreit. corn BY DESIGN* ii. Utilize an alternative method or technology to achieve equal to or greater odor mitigation than provided by (i) above. e. The system shall be maintained in working order and shall be in use. The greenhouses will use high pressure fog for odor mitigation purposes. This system is designed to manage any odor to not unreasonably interfere with neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. This system consists of Bio -World or Fogco ring -type foggers installed at the exhaust fan outlet. The pump for the fogger will be interlocked with the exhaust fans, such that when the fans are running, the fogger will be operating. This insures that all exhaust air leaving the building will be treated for odor control. Providing odor control via foggers in the exhaust airstream, as described above, will satisfy the requirements of DCC 18.116.330(B)(10)(d)(ii), and prevent unreasonable interference of neighbors' use and enjoyment of their property. Noise Control Methodology: The Deschutes County code DCC 18.116.330(B)(11)(a) reads: Noise. Noise produced by marijuana production and marijuana processing shall comply with the following: a. Sustained noise from mechanical equipment used for heating, ventilation, air condition, odor control, fans and similar functions shall not exceed 30 dB(A) measured at any property line between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. the following day. The exhaust fans will not run at night between the hours of 10 pm and 7 am. Thus, there will be no noise generated from the greenhouses between 10 pm and 7 am. Therefore, the greenhouses will comply with DCC 18.116.330(8)(11)(a). Sincerely, Rob James, P.E. :OLEBREIT ENG INEER 1 N O ( EXPIRES 6/30119 1030 NW Bond St., Suite 702 Bend, 08 07703 o: 541 728 3233 colebreit..corn BY DESIGN• 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 Work Session of September 17, 2018 DATE: September 12, 2018 FROM: Peter Gutowsky, Community Development, 541-385-1709 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Non -Resource Lands / Draft Scope of Work RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Discussion item. TO: MEMORANDUM Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Peter Gutowsky, AICP, Planning Manager Nick Lelack, AICP, Director DATE: September 11, 2018 SUBJECT: Non -Resource Lands Project / Draft Scope of Work I. BACKGROUND During the Board of County Commissioners (Board) work session on August 29, staff outlined new naming conventions for Non -Resource Lands, drafted Comprehensive Plan policies, and provided options for initiating legislative amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.' Staff also highlighted a recent Douglas County decision and inaction at the State level that may warrant consideration of a different tact for initiating a Non -Resource Lands program. Last month, Douglas County withdrew their Non -Resource Lands plan amendment and zone change application due to procedural and substantive vulnerabilities raised by several State agencies and land use advocacy groups. This circumstance coupled with the Legislature's inaction and Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development's (DLCD) decision not to undertake rule making for non -resource lands in 2018 or 2019 means Deschutes County is entirely on its own for developing a legally defensible program. Recognizing the County's exposure, one strategy is to take an incremental approach to focus the Non - Resource Lands program in specific areas that are "relatively" uncontroversial. Deschutes County could tailor comprehensive plan policies and in subsequent phases, two new zones that exclusively address: (1) Platted subdivisions in the Exclusive Farm Use and Forest Use zones; and (2) Lands near the City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) that may be excellent candidates for future urbanization. Staff has identified five subdivisions that were platted prior to State enabling planning legislation that are resource zoned (Attachment 1). These properties, which are now committed to residential uses, are subject to strict resource zoning requirements, dictated by State law, for new dwellings, remodels, additions and accessory structures requiring conditional use permits and administrative determinations. A Non -Resources Lands zone that incorporates rural residential zoning standards that permit these uses outright would remedy this hardship. 1 http://deschutescountyor.igm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=1919&Inline=True Regarding lands near Bend's UGB, Deschutes County could establish a Non -Resource Lands zone that acts as a placeholder for an Urban Reserve Area (URA) designation with minimum parcel sizes and discrete land uses that ensure they remain as large parcels for future urbanization. If this two -phased incremental approach is successful, Deschutes County would possess a legal policy and zoning framework to potentially apply to other eligible areas in the rural county as part of a broader community conversation and robust public process. This last phase will undoubtedly generate the most engagement and opposition. II. INFORMAL FEEDBACK The Board directed staff to reach out to the Cities of Bend, La Pine, Redmond and Sisters, Central Oregon Builders Association, Central Oregon Realtors Association, DLCD, 1,000 Friends of Oregon, and Central Oregon Landwatch to gauge their interest in an incremental approach to Non -Resources Lands. All parties expressed general support for focusing a Non -Resources Lands program to resource zoned platted subdivisions and properties proximate to a UGB.2 City representatives supported a program that evaluated and potentially redesignated lands near their UGB as a place holder for an URA. It is important to note that only Bend and Redmond contain EFU lands that likely qualify for such a designation. In Redmond's case, eligible (non -irrigated) EFU zoned lands are already within an URA combining zone. Redmond's URA encompasses 3,362 acres; 60% percent consisting of 2,012 acres are zoned EFU. A reconnaissance survey of EFU zoned lands adjoining Redmond's URA are irrigated. Likewise, a reconnaissance survey of resource zoned lands proximate to La Pine and Sisters UGBs show forested land and irrigated EFU parcels, likely disqualifying them from consideration. Attachment Platted Resource Zoned Subdivisions 2 Staff spoke with everyone except Central Oregon Landwatch. A meeting with them is tentatively scheduled for Friday, September 14. -2- Haner Park (4, 220602.0030 „,....422 4C1t, 220004C.Ct0i3t 2 02d4CC00100,- 220202'eC0022,22 2:20.02t0t11.0 22000.,1,T0001,0 W042.0212 "S0206 62.32 , 2206002 200126 Meadow Crest Acres 4t4, -;*,-,..1 • LACKFEATHER LN • 7,59po3no- Section 36