The URL can be used to link to this page

2018-455-Minutes for Meeting August 27,2018 Recorded 11/1/2018BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541) 388-6570 Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2018-455 Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 11/01/2018 3:11:54 PM 121111111111111 rvr, .., 1 n iv.l vrvu 111111110111 BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES 10:00 AM MONDAY, August 27, 2018 BARNES & SAWYER ROOMS Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Phil Henderson and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel; and Sharon Keith, Board Executive Assistant. No identified representatives of the media were in attendance. This meeting was audio and video recorded and can be accessed at the Deschutes County Meeting Portal website http://deschutescountyor.iqm2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT: None was offered. Board Presentation: The Board presented a longevity plaque to County Administrator Tom Anderson, for twenty years of service with Deschutes County. BOCC BUSINESS MEETING AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 5 CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. BAN EY: Move approval of the Consent Agenda. HENDERSON: Second. VOTE: BAN EY: Yes. HENDERSON: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried Consent Agenda Items: 1. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-536, an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of La Pine for Management of the Wickiup Park and Ride. 2. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-607, Deed of Dedication 3. Consideration of Signature of Letter ReAppointing Donna Smith to the Four Rivers Vector Control District 4. Consideration of Signature of Letter Thanking Dennis Palisch for Service on the Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority, Housing Works Board 5. Consideration of Signature of Letter Appointing Wayne Purcell to the Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority, Housing Works Board 6. Approval of Minutes of the July 18, 2018 Work Session 7. Approval of Minutes of the July 25, 2018 Business Meeting 8. Approval of Minutes of the July 25, 2018 Work Session 9. Approval of Minutes of the July 30, 2018 Work Session ACTION ITEMS 10.PUBLIC HEARING: Appeals of a Hearings Officer Decision for a Conditional Use and Site Plan Review for Father's House Church Cynthia Smidt, Community Development Department outlined the hearing procedures. Hearing no conflicts or challenges, Commissioner DeBone opened the public hearing. Ms. Smidt presented the staff report. BOCC BUSINESS MEETING AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 2 OF 5 Wendie Kellington attorney representing the applicant for the Father's House gave testimony and raised an issue on County Code with the requirement to prepare a transcript of the hearing's officer hearing and she stated the applicant did but the appellants did not. Randy Wills is the pastor of Father's House and presented their proposal for expansion. Matt Williams Engineer with CA Rowles Engineering & Design presented the site plan development. Charley Rowles, principal engineer presented the design concept. Commissioner DeBone noted the time for the applicant's testimony. Bob Pardine presented testimony on behalf of the church and congregation. Mario Mendoza presented testimony on behalf of the church. Lee Respine presented testimony on behalf of the church. Sheila Wells, associate pastor presented testimony on behalf of the church. Zach Neeman presented testimony on behalf of the church. He explained on behalf of law enforcement how the church has effected the community. Gill Miller presented testimony on behalf of the church. Jonathan Henderson pastor of Solid Rock Community Church presented testimony on behalf of the church. Phil Harris presented testimony on behalf of the church. Pastor Willis gave a slide presentation. Copy is attached to the record. RECESS: A short recess was taken at 12:11 p.m. and reconvened at 12:24 p.m. BOCC BUSINESS MEETING AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 3 OF 5 Ms. Kellington presented information on Conditional Use Permit standards as proposed with the application of Father's House. Commissioner DeBone noted the time for the appellant's testimony. Will Van Vactor attorney representing the applicant Julie Naslund presented the criteria they find as issues with the application. Mr. Van Vactor requested the record be left open to allow for response to new testimony provided today. Julie Naslund and John Schafer presented their testimony and noted they are not against the church but are against the building that is completely above scale and is not compatible or harmonious with the area. A presentation was made to the Board. Ms. Naslund invited the Board to come to the neighborhood to look at the property. Tom Lomax presented testimony and requests the Board to look at the property geographically. Karen Rodgers presented testimony as a neighboring property. The applicant provided rebuttal. Ms. Kellington stated the hearing's officer did not make a finding the church was not harmonious. Commissioner Baney suggested any further materials for the record should be placed in writing. The Board supports the standard record period of 7-7-7. Considering the Labor Day holiday would fall on the first timeframe deadline, County Counsel suggested changing the timeframe to 8-8-8 of dates September 4, 12, and 20. Ms. Kellington requested information to be copied on submitted materials. Commissioner DeBone closed the oral portion of the hearing. BOCC BUSINESS MEETING AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 4 OF 5 OTHER ITEMS: None were offered. ADJOURN Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:54 p.m. DATED this Commissioners. ATTEST: Day (70/44/of RECODING SECRETARY BOCC BUSINESS MEETING 2018 for the Deschutes County Board of ANTHONY DEBONE, CHAIR PHILIP G.(j,-EN©ERSON, VCE CHAIR TAMMY BANEY, C ISSIONER AUGUST 27, 2018 PAGE 5 OF 5 G to 2 Q -< Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - www.deschutes.org BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 AM, MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2018 Barnes Sawyer Rooms - Deschutes Services Center - 1300 NW Wall Street - Bend This meeting is open to the public. To watch it online, visit www.deschutes.org/meetings. Business Meetings are usually streamed live online and video recorded. Pursuant to ORS 192.640, this agenda includes a list of the main topics that are anticipated to be considered or discussed. This notice does not limit the Board's ability to address other topics. Meetings are subject to cancellation without notice. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CITIZEN INPUT This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Please complete a sign-up card (provided), and give the card to the Recording Secretary. Use the microphone and clearly state your name when the Board Chair calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing not being conducted as a part of this meeting will NOT be included in the official record of that hearing. If you offer or display to the Board any written documents, photographs or other printed matter as part of your testimony during a public hearing, please be advised that staff is required to retain those documents as part of the permanent record of that hearing. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-536, an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of La Pine for Management of the Wickiup Park and Ride. Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Monday, August 27, 2018 Page 1 of 3 2. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-607, Deed of Dedication 3. Consideration of Signature of Letter ReAppointing Donna Smith to the Four Rivers Vector Control District 4. Consideration of Signature of Letter Thanking Dennis Palisch for Service on the Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority, Housing Works Board 5. Consideration of Signature of Letter Appointing Wayne Purcell to the Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority, Housing Works Board 6. Approval of Minutes of the July 18, 2018 Work Session 7. Approval of Minutes of the July 25, 2018 Business Meeting 8. Approval of Minutes of the July 25, 2018 Work Session 9. Approval of Minutes of the July 30, 2018 Work Session ACTION ITEMS 10. PUBLIC HEARING: Appeals of a Hearings Officer Decision for a Conditional Use and Site Plan Review for Father's House Church - Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner OTHER ITEMS These can be any items not included on the agenda that the Commissioners wish to discuss as part of the meeting, pursuant to ORS 192.640. At any time during the meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; ORS 192.660(2)(b), personnel issues; or other executive session categories. Executive sessions are closed to the public; however, with few exceptions and under specific guidelines, are open to the media. ADJOURN Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541) 617-4747. Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Monday, August 27, 2018 Page 2 of 3 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 Business Meeting Agenda Monday, August 27, 2018 Page 3 of 3 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St, Bend, OR 97703 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - https://www.deschutes.org/ AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board of Commissioners Business Meeting of August 27, 2018 DATE: August 20, 2018 FROM: Cynthia Smidt, Community Development, 541-317-3150 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Appeals of a Hearings Officer Decision for a Conditional Use and Site Plan Review for Father's House Church RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED: Hold a de novo public hearing and make a decision based on the existing record and written and oral testimony. BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Before the Board of County Commissioners ("Board") are two appeals of the Hearings Officer's decision approving a conditional use permit for a church but denying the site plan review. Father's House Church and Julie Naslund et al. appealed the Hearings Officer's decision. The Board accepted review of the Hearings Officer's decision on August 15, 2018 via Order No. 2018-055. Based on the Order adopted by the Board, the appeal will be heard de novo. See attached staff memo for further background information. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None ATTENDANCE: Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner DATE: August 20, 2018 RE: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Public Hearing on Appeals of Hearings Officer Decision of a Conditional Use and Site Plan Review for Father's House Church (247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247- 18-000624-A, and 247-18-000643-A) The Board of County Commissioners (Board) will hold a public hearing to consider two appeals, one filed by the applicant, Father's House Church/Church of God Cleveland (Father's House) and the other by Julie Naslund, et al.'. The two appeals were submitted in response to a Deschutes County Hearings Officer's (HO) decision approving the conditional use permit for the church but denying the site plan review. The Board accepted review of the Hearings Officer's decision on August 15, 2018 via Order No. 2018-055. Based on Order No. 2018-055, the appeal will be heard de novo. I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.04. Title, Purpose and Definitions Chapter 18.32. Multiple Use Agricultural Zone Chapter 18.116. Supplementary Provisions Chapter 18.124. Site Plan Review Chapter 18.128. Conditional Uses Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 215 — County Planning; Zoning; Housing Codes 1 Several parties join Julie Naslund on this appeal including Michael, Miles and Isabel Nevill, John Schaeffer, Patti Bailey, James and Janet Lake, Gary and Karen Rogers, Tom and Beth Lomax, and Kirman and Tracey Kasmeyer. 1"I 7 NVV Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, 00 97708-6005 (541) 388-6575 @ cdd@desdhin_e .org rrniw.0eschutes.org/cd II. BACKGROUND Father's House Church submitted a request for a Conditional Use and Site Plan review for a church2. The 4.28 -acre subject property is located at 21420 Stevens Road and at the intersection of Stevens Road and Thunder Road (Attachment 1). The Bend Urban Growth Boundary is located directly south, across Stevens Road. To the west of the property approximately 1,400 feet is urban density single-family residential subdivisions such as Westbrook Village that are within the city limits of Bend. The request includes establishing a 14,560 square foot church building and converting the existing single-family dwelling to a parsonage house for a member of the church clergy. The church building will include a sanctuary to accommodate up to 325 seats, offices, a meeting space, Sunday school classrooms, bathrooms, and storage. The applicant proposes parking and maneuvering area and designated landscaped areas. The zoning of the property is Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). III. HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION The HO approved the church use through review of the conditional use permit (file no. 247 -18- 000061 -CU) finding the proposal will be compatible with existing and projected uses on surrounding properties based on its site, design, and operating characteristics. However, the HO denied the site plan review (file no. 247 -18 -000062 -SP) based on the applicant's failure to demonstrate that they made reasonable efforts to propose development that will relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features including views and topographical features (Attachment 2). IV. FATHER'S HOUSE CHURCH APPEAL The applicant/appellant, Father's House, appeals the HO decision because of the improperly applied and interpreted sections of DCC 18.124.060(A) and 18.116.030(F) (Attachment 3)3 For reference, DCC 18.124.060 reviews a proposed develop, a church in this case, and its impact on the subject property and surrounding natural and developed environment. In general, the criteria include an assessment of the existing landscape, topography, built environment, vehicle parking and maneuvering, pedestrian access, surface drainage, storage areas, utilities, lighting, and transportation access. The HO denied the proposed church based on DCC 18.124.060(A), which states the following: A. The proposed development shall relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features including views and topographical features. 2 The applicant also requested a Lot of Record Verification, County file no. 247 -18 -000064 -LR. The Hearings Officer approved the verification, which became final on August 13, 2018. 3 The referenced sections of the county code are available at the following links: https://weblink.deschutes.org/Public/O/doc/89195/Page1.aspx https://weblink.deschutes.org/public/O/doc/90426/Page1.aspx 247 -18 -000061 -CU and 247 -18 -000062 -SP Page 2 of 7 The following are summarized assignments of error submitted by Father's House. They are related to DCC 18.124.060(A) (footnotes removed) that are in their notice of appeal. 1. The Hearings Officer erred in deciding that Father's House Church had not demonstrated compliance with DCZO 18.124.060(A). Father's House Church proposal complies with this standard. The Hearings Officer stated the standard should be applied as follows: "Ultimately, I think this criterion asks whether the applicant has taken sufficient steps to ensure that impacts do not create any more disharmony than other uses allowed by right or conditionally in the MUA-10 zone or the existing uses." Father's House demonstrated compliance with this interpretation. Father's House Church does not create any "disharmony" at all and certainly demonstrated that it does not create more disharmony than other uses allowed outright and conditionally in the MUA zone.... The Hearings Officer erred in deciding that the proposed Father's House Church creates "more disharmony than other uses allowed by right or conditionally" in the MUA zone; or put another way, he erred in deciding that the Church failed to show it would not "create more disharmony than other uses allowed by right or conditionally" in the MUA zone. 2. The Hearings Officer erred in determining that Father's House Church had not complied with DCZO 18.124.060(A), as he interpreted it in the following passage: "the applicant had the burden to demonstrate reasonable efforts to consider alternatives that would better harmonize its proposal with existing residences in the area, particularly on this relatively small, flat parcel with no topographical, vegetative or other natural features to soften its impact. Cf SP -95-60 (Applicant submitted revised site plan to address this criterion.)" ... The Hearings Officer erred in deciding: "The applicant simply never really provided evidence or analysis demonstrating that that it had made reasonable efforts, including perhaps some trade-offs with its desires, to meet its needs the most harmonious way reasonably possible. This portion of the criterion is not met." 3. The Hearings Officer incorrectly interpreted DCZO 18.124.060(A) to deny the proposed Church and his interpretation is contrary to ORS 215.416(8) and LUBA law, as well as ORS 215.427. DCZO 18.124.060(A) does not by its terms require the submittal of serial site plans (or serial applications) until finally a hearings officer decides, in his discretion, with no standards to guide him and no standards that advise an applicant how to comply, that the proposed use "is the least impactful feasible proposal [that] would result in approval. "... To the extent the Hearings Officer is saying that a Church applicant must submit serial modification applications to meet the standard, his interpretation is contrary to ORS 215.427 which requires an application - here for a Church - to be capable of a final decision in 150 days. If a Church has to submit serial modifications applications in order to be approved, it is impossible for any given Church proposal to know that it can gain approval in any time period, let alone in 150 days as ORS 215.427 requires. 4. The Hearings Officer's denial of the proposed Church on the basis of the "harmonious" standard - DCZO 18.124.060(A) - violates ORS 215.441. 247 -18 -000061 -CU and 247 -18 -000062 -SP Page 3 of 7 a. DCZO 18.124.060(A) is not a "reasonable regulation" that concerns the physical characteristics of the proposed Church, but rather is in the nature of a highly subjective neighborhood compatibility type of standard, which is prohibited by ORS 215.441. The legislative history of ORS 215.441 is consistent with and supports the plain text reading that ORS 215.441(2) limits local review of church applications to reasonable regulations that regulate the physical characteristics of the church or to ensure that public facilities and services are adequate for the church. Neither are at issue in the disputed "harmonious"standard that the Hearings Officer used to deny Father's House Church. There is no dispute that the Church proposal meets all public facilities and services requirements. The legislative history for ORS 215.441 demonstrates that the legislature's omission of any provision allowing for review of church applications for being "harmonious" with the surrounding neighborhood, or to deny an application on such grounds, was intentional. The legislature was fully aware that it was withholding that authority from local governments when it enacted ORS 215.441 because local government organizations expressly stated that adoption of the bill would deprive them of that authority.... 5. DCZO 18.124.060(A) is contrary to RLUIPA. DCZO 18.124.060(A) is contrary to the federal Religious Land Uses and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) because: i. It is an unreasonable regulation, at least as how it was applied here. The Hearings Officer correctly points out that it is "'highly subjective' and difficult to apply". It is impossible for the Church to know how it would go about demonstrating compliance with this standard, as this case illustrates.... ii. The challenged decision is unlawful under RLUIPA because it imposes a substantial burden on the Church, without demonstrating a compelling state interest furthered by the least restrictive means.... The challenged decision is unlawful under RLUIPA's "exclusions and limits" clause because churches are not allowed outright anywhere in the County under the DCZO and, as interpreted here, the County has virtually standardless discretion to approve or deny Church proposals and as demonstrated in this case, in denying the proposed Church here. iv. For all of the above reasons that the challenged decision violates ORS 215.441 and RLUIPA, the challenged decision also violates the United States and Oregon Constitutions.... Staff Comment: The HO decision makes an unexpected finding regarding an applicant's obligation to demonstrate that the church shall relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development. Pursuant to DCC 18.124.060A), staff is obligated to determine if the proposed development is harmonious to the surrounding environment. However, the code does not require an applicant to provide an alternatives analysis (e.g. different building designs, layout, and landscaping) with the proposal. Therefore, staff reviews the development as proposed. In the Father's House Church decision, the HO found that the applicant did not demonstrate that they made a reasonable effort in considering alternative designs for the development in order for it to relate harmoniously to the surrounding environment. The HO finding could set a precedent by 247 -18 -000061 -CU and 247 -18 -000062 -SP Page 4 of 7 placing additional responsibility on staff and future applicants to determine what alternatives, if any, make a proposal harmonious. Together with DCC 18.124.060(A), the HO denied the church on DCC 18.116.030(F)(1), which is identified below. For reference, the criteria listed under DCC 18.116 generally addresses clear vision areas, off-street parking and loading, and bicycle and pedestrian access. 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. The following summarizes the assignments of error in the Father's House notice of appeal that are related to DCC 18.116.030(F) (footnotes removed). 6. The challenged decision improperly applied DCZO 18.116.030(F)(1) to deny the proposal... This standard simply says that parking is to be "effectively screened * * * when "adjacent to residential uses." All parking areas on the Church's site plan are sited in the southern part of the property along Steven's Rd. The parking areas are not "adjacent" to any residential uses. Thus, because there is no "parking area" that is "adjacent" to any residential use, including in the "small area" that the Hearings Officer refers to, and that was the basis for his denial decision, he erred interpreting this standard as a basis for denial. The Hearings Officer also erred in that he did not explain how he interpreted this standard and it is not clear how he interpreted the standard, other than he said that the standard meant the Church proposal would be denied. 7. The denial of the Church proposal on the basis of DCZO 18.116.030(F)(1) violates ORS 215.441 because it is not a reasonable regulation, as ORS 215.441 requires.... Its application in this case is unreasonable because it is applies in a way that is not consistent with its express terms and in a way that is reasonably possible to know what it does mean. 8. The denial of the proposal on the basis of DCZO 18.116.0300(1) violates RLUIPA similarly because it is not a reasonable regulation as RLUIPA requires. The arguments for why the denial under DCZO 18.116.030(F)(1)) violates ORS 215.441 as an unreasonable regulation in Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by this reference. 9. The denial of the proposal on the basis of DCZO 18.116.030(F)(1), violates RLUIPA because it imposes a substantial burden on Father's House Church without demonstrating a compelling governmental interest furthered by the least restrictive means available. It imposes a substantial burden because it is unreasonably vague as explained above. Attempts to comply with this standard, when coupled with the attempts to comply with the Hearings Officer's view of the "harmonious" standard in DCZO 18.124.060(A) for additional designs and site plans and 247 -18 -000061 -CU and 247 -18 -000062 -SP Page 5 of 7 explanations of what works and what doesn't and why, means the Church is required to attempt to comply with vague standards that will create differing targets each time the Church makes any change in an effort to comply. This is a substantial financial burden and well as results in unreasonable delay in the Church's ability to resolve its serious space constraints which, as explained in the evidentiary record below, is significantly adversely affecting its religious mission. V. JULIE NASLUND ET AL. APPEAL Julie Naslund4, together with other neighboring property owners, appeals the HO decision and describes the assignments of error in their notice of appeal (Attachment 4). For reference, DCC 18.128.015 provides general standards that govern all conditional uses. In DCC 18.128.015(A), the standards are site specific and include review of the site, design, operating characteristics, transportation access, and natural and physical features (e.g. topography, natural hazards, and natural resources). Then, using the site, design, and operating characteristics of the proposal, the general standards extend beyond the subject property via DCC 18.128.015(B), which states the following: 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). The following summarizes the assignment of error in the Julie Naslund et al. notice of appeal that is related to DCC 18.128.015(B): 1. Incorrect Interpretation and Application of DCC 18.128.015(8) The Hearings Officer's adoption of the historic interpretation of DCC 18.128.015(B) is incorrect. DCC 18.128.015(B) states that the proposed use shall be compatible with existing and projected uses on surrounding properties based on factors listed in DCC 18.128.015(A), i.e. site, design and operating characteristics of use. The historic interpretation as explained in the staff report and adopted by the HO is that ':.. the existing and projected 'use' on surrounding lands will be allowed to continue'; that the proposal would not "preclude or severely impact whether surrounding properties may continue to be used for their existing use".... Julie Naslund et al. also appealed on a violation of due process. The following summarizes the assignment of error in the notice of appeal: 2. Violation of Due Process We also appeal the Hearings Officer's open record period re -set order as described in his Order dated May 22, 2018, and as clarified by his email to Adam Smith dated May 31, 2018. We believed, as did staff, that the Hearings Officer's order reset the open record period. See Mr. Van Vactor's 4 Individually, Julie Naslund is represented by Will Van Vactor, attorney. 247 -18 -000061 -CU and 247 -18 -000062 -SP Page 6 of 7 May 30, 2018 email. As explained in Mr. Van Vactor's June 1, 2018 email to the Hearings Officer, we were not afforded a meaningful opportunity to be put on a fair playing field. By way of background, the reset open record period was the result of the applicant using county resources not available to the public. Specifically, the applicant had a member of the church, who happens to be a senior planner, obtain info not publicly available. As a consequence of the Hearings Officer's unclear order and staffs interpretation (which we agreed with), we were not able to fully act on County Counsel's efforts to make the process fair and we have been substantially prejudiced. VI. HEARING TRANSCRIPT For the Board's reference and pursuant to DCC 22.32.024, the appellant (Father's House, in this case) provided a complete transcript of the HO hearing (Attachment 5). VII. NEXT STEPS At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board can choose one of the following options: 1. Continue the hearing to a date certain. 2. Close the hearing and begin deliberation. The 150`h day on which the County must take final action on this application is November 15, 2018, as extended by the applicant in their notice of appeal. Attachments 1. Maps of subject property 2. Hearings Officer's decision 3. Father's House Church appeal 4. Julie Naslund et al. appeal 5. Public Hearing Transcript 247 -18 -000061 -CU and 247 -18 -000062 -SP Page 7 of 7 Staff Memorandum Attachment 1 *** Maps of Subject Property H ?1101,014 TAR MI -IT DR 21420 Stevens Road 21420 Stevens Road 21420 Stevens Road Staff Memorandum Attachment 2 *** Hearings Officer's Decision FILE NUMBERS: APPLICANT/OWNER: PROPOSAL: STAFF CONTACT: Mailing Date: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 HEARINGS OFFICER DECISON 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR Father's House, Church of God Cleveland Randy Wills and Jack Miller 61690 Pettigrew Road Bend, Oregon 97702 The applicant requests a conditional use and site plan review to establish a church in the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone. The applicant also requests a Lot of Record Verification for the subject property. Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner HEARINGS OFFICER: Dan R. Olsen APPLICABLE CODE CRITERIA: Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.04. Chapter 18.32. Chapter 18.128. Chapter 18.124. Chapter 18.116. Title, Purpose and Definitions Multiple Use Agricultural Zone Conditional Uses Site Plan Review Supplementary Provisions Title 22, Deschutes County Procedures Ordinance II. BASIC FINDINGS: This decision incorporates the staff report, with minor edits except for sections labeled "Hearings Officer". A. LOCATION: The property is identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Map No. 18-12-02, as Tax Lot 1205 and has an assigned address of 21420 Stevens Road, Bend. B. ZONING: Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10). C. SITE DESCRIPTION: The property is approximately 4.98 acres and rectangular. The site has relatively level topography and is vegetated primarily with native grasses and shrubs and some juniper trees. It is developed with a 1967 single-family dwelling and a shed in the eastern region of the property. An irrigation canal crosses the northern half of the property. Stevens Road is adjacent to the southern property boundary. Thunder Road, a private access roadway, is adjacent to the eastern boundary. 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 in the immediate vicinity consists of small farm and rural and urban residential properties. Rural residential properties are located to the north, east, and west of the property and are either developed or vacant. Directly south across Stevens Road is a large parcel under State of Oregon ownership that is currently open space. The western region of the state-owned parcel together with Stevens Road is located within the Bend Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and the eastern region is currently under review for a plan amendment and zone change.' Approximately 1,400 feet to the west is urban density single-family residential subdivisions such as Westbrook Village that is within the city limits of Bend. Further to the northwest and east of the subject property are developed or vacant farm -zoned lands. Adjacent to the south and east property boundaries are Stevens Road and Thunder Road, respectively. Zoning in the area is a mixture of Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) and Multiple Use Agricultural and several zoning districts within the City of Bend such as Public Facility, Residential Standard Density (RS), and Urbanizable Area (UA). F. PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use and Site Plan review to establish a church on the property. The proposal includes a 14,560 -square foot church building and the use of the existing dwelling as a parsonage house for a member of the church clergy. The church building will include a sanctuary to accommodate up to 325 seats, offices, a meeting space, Sunday school classrooms, bathrooms and storage. The applicant proposes parking and maneuvering area and designated landscaped areas. The original parking plan showed 118 spaces. A revised preliminary site plan dated 5/4/18 (Open Record App. Exh. 6) reduced parking to 99 spaces with 4,879 sq. ft. of landscaping in the parking area. A revised landscape plan dated 5/4/18 also was submitted. The primary access will be from Stevens Road which will be relocated west, and the former access will be converted to a pedestrian pathway. The church use will occur primarily on Sunday. Other uses accessory to the church will occur on Sunday or other days of the week including Sunday school, youth group, Bible studies, weddings, and administrative meetings. Hearings Officer: Concerns were raised about whether the applicant intended to permit operation of a day care or preschool. The applicant clarified that such operations are not part of this application. My understanding is that a separate application would be required to expand the use in this manner. G. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice to several agencies and received the following comments: 1. Bend Fire Department: Comments were submitted by Larry Medina, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal on February 14, 2018. Mr. Medina's comments are below. FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS: • Approved vehicle access for fire fighting shall be provided to all construction or demolition sites. Vehicle access shall be provided to within 100 feet of temporary or permanent fire department connections. Vehicle access shall be provided by either temporary or permanent roads, capable of supporting vehicle loading under all weather conditions. Vehicle access shall be maintained until permanent access roads are available. 2014 OFC 3310.1 • Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of the exterior walls of the first story 1 A zone change and comprehensive plan amendment proposal is currently under review by the County through file numbers 247 -17 -000726 -PA and 247-17-000727-ZC. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 2 of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. 2014 OFC 503.1.1 • Fire apparatus roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet, exclusive of shoulders, except for approved security gates in accordance with Section 503.6, and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus road, the minimum width shall be 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders. Traffic calming along a fire apparatus road shall be approved by the fire code official. Approved signs or other approved notices or markings that include the words NO PARKING -FIRE LANE shall be provided for fire apparatus roads to prohibit parking on both sides of fire lanes 20 to 26 feet wide and on one side of fire lanes more than 26 feet to 32 feet wide. 2014 OFC 503.2.1, D103.1, 503.4.1, 503.3 • Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus (60,000 pounds GVW) and shall be surfaced (asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface) as to provide all weather driving capabilities. Inside and outside turning radius shall be approved by the fire department. All dead-end turnarounds shall be of an approved design. Bridges and elevated surfaces shall be constructed in accordance with AASHTO HB -17. The maximum grade of fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 10 percent. Fire apparatus access road gates with electric gate operators shall be listed in accordance with UL325. Gates intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed and installed to comply with the requirements of ASTM F 2200. A Knox® Key Switch shall be installed at all electronic gates. 2014 OFC D102.1, 503.2.4, FIRE PROTECTION WATER SUPPLIES: • An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to premises upon which facilities, buildings or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. • Fire flow requirements for buildings or portions of buildings shall be determined by an approved method. Documentation of the available fire flow shall be provided to the fire code official prior to final approval of the water supply system. • Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the fire code official. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies the distance requirement shall 600 feet. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet. Fire hydrants shall be provided along required fire apparatus roads and adjacent public streets. The minimum number of fire hydrants shall not be less than that listed in table C105.1 of the 2010 OFC. Existing fire hydrants on public streets are allowed to be considered as available. Existing fire hydrants on adjacent properties shall not be considered available unless fire apparatus access roads extend between properties and easements are established to prevent obstruction of such roads. The average spacing between fire hydrants shall not exceed that listed in table C105.1 of the 2010 OFC. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 3 OTHER FIRE SERVICE FEATURES: • New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum 4 inches high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch. Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole, or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be visible under low light conditions and evening hours. Provide illumination to address numbers to provide visibility under all conditions. Address signs are available through the Deschutes Rural Fire Protection District #2. An address sign application can be obtained from the City of Bend Fire Department website or by calling 541-388-6309 during normal business hours. • A KNOX-BOX® key vault is required for all newly constructed commercial buildings, facilities or premises to allow for rapid entry for emergency crews. A KNOX® Key Switch shall be provided for all electrically operated gates restricting entry on a fire apparatus access road. A KNOX® Padlock shall be provided for all manually operated gates restricting entry on a fire apparatus road and security gates restricting access to buildings. 2. Deschutes County Building Safety Division: Randy Scheid, Building Safety Director, submitted the following comments on February 9, 2018. The Deschutes County Building Safety Division code required Access, Egress, Setbacks, Fire & Life Safety, Fire Fighting Water Supplies, etc. will be specifically addressed during the plan review process for any proposed structures and occupancies. 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 Road Department: Cody Smith, County Engineer, submitted the following comments on February 20, 2018: I have reviewed the application materials for the above -referenced file numbers, proposing a church at 21420 Stevens Road, Bend. The subject property is bordered by Stevens Road to the south. Stevens Road is a County -maintained urban collector and currently meets the minimum road design standards for a rural collector road given in DCC 17.48A along the frontage to the subject property. Please note that DCC 17.48A does not provide a minimum design standard for urban collector roads outside of the Tumalo, Terrebonne, or La Pine unincorporated communities. Where it abuts the subject property, Stevens Road is within the Bend Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), making it subject to the requirements of the "Revised Joint Management Agreement Regarding the Area Within the Bend Urban Growth Boundary" (Commissioners Journal #DC 2017-423). Deschutes County Road Department requests that approval of the proposed land uses be subject to the following conditions: • Applicant shall meet the requirements for County roads within the Bend UGB in Section 7 of the "Revised Joint Management Agreement Regarding the Area Within the Bend Urban Growth Boundary" (Commissioners Journal #DC 2017-423). • If road improvements are required as a condition of approval based on City of Bend requirements for roads within the UGB: 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 4 o Applicant shall submit road improvement plans to Road Department for approval prior to commencement of construction pursuant to DCC 17.40.020, 17.48.060, and 18.124.080. o Design and construction of road improvements shall be according to City of Bend standards and applicable sections of DCC 17.48 pursuant to DCC 18.124.090. • Applicant shall obtain a driveway access permit for the proposed access to Stevens Rd pursuant to DCC 12.28.050, 17.48.210, and 18.124.080. 4. Deschutes County Transportation Planner: On February 14, 2018, Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner submitted the following comments. I have reviewed the transmittal materials for 247-18-000061-CU/062-SP/063-LR to develop a 14,560 -square -foot church on an approximately 5 -acre parcel in the Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA-10) zone at 21420 Stevens Road, aka 18-12-02, Tax Lot 1205. I agree with the methodology, analysis, conclusions, and recommendations of the applicant's traffic study, which complies with Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.116.310(C). The applicant should also obtain an access permit from the County to comply with DCC 17.48.210. Board Resolution 2013-020 sets a transportation system development charge (SDC) rate of $3,937 per p.m. peak hour trip. The Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation manual indicates a church (LU 560) generates 0.55 p.m. peak hour trips per 1,000 square feet. The church will generate 8 p.m. peak hour trips (14.560 X 0.55); therefore, the applicable SDC is $31,496 ($3,937 X 8). 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. 5. Deschutes County Property Address Coordinator: The parcel address may need to be adjusted depending on the final access point from Stevens Road. 6. The following agencies did not respond or had no comments: Avion Water Company, City of Bend Planning Department, City of Bend Public Works Department, Central Electric Cooperative, Central Oregon Irrigation District, Deschutes County Assessor, Deschutes County Environmental Health Division, Deschutes County Environmental Soils Division, Pacific Power and Light, and Watermaster — District 11. I. HEARING: Hearings Officer: A public hearing was conducted on April 24, 2018. I provided the statutorily required notices. I indicated that I had reviewed the materials on file but had received no ex parte contacts. I did, however, conduct a site visit. I indicated that I drove into the property from Stevens Road and observed its topography, size, vegetation and immediate vicinity. I drove along Thunder Road and observed the residences but did not enter any of those properties. There were no questions or concerns raised regarding the site visit. I indicated that I had no conflicts of interest. I indicated that I know Anthony Raguine as a Community Development staff member but understood that he was appearing as a representative of the church, in which he is a congregate. I asked for but received no procedural or other objections to my proceeding with this matter. The applicant was represented by Wendie Kellington. William VanVactor appeared as counsel for Julie Naslund. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 5 At the end of testimony, the applicant requested to leave the record open as follows, with the understanding that this tolls the 150 -day decision clock: May 8, 2018 May 22, 2018 June 5, 2018 Submission of new evidence and argument. Submission of evidence and argument responding to evidence provided during the first open record period. Applicant's final rebuttal (unless waived) but no new evidence. I noted that all submittals had to be received by County no later than the close of business on the due date. On May 18, I received an email from Adam Smith, Assistant Legal Counsel indicating that the applicant had requested that the open record period be reset. My understanding is that Mr. VanVactor had raised a concern regarding Mr. Raguine using county resources to provide copies of past hearings officer and Board of County Commissioner land use decisions to Ms. Kellington. (See below). To address this matter, the parties stipulated to a reset. I issued an order in which I noted that the applicant had agreed to further extend the 150 -day clock and that the open record period was re -set as follows: June 4, 2018 written comments, including new evidence and argument; June 18, 2018 for rebuttal evidence and arguments in response to written comments received during the first comment period; and July 2, 2018 for applicant's final argument (no new evidence). I indicated that items received during the original comment period need not be resubmitted, and are included in the record, subject to specific objections, if any. Apparently, there were some communications between Mr. VanVactor or other opponents and staff regarding the application of this re -set. I issued an email on May 31 explaining that the material submitted during the original open record period was to be treated as if it had been submitted at the hearing for purposes of the new open record period. Anyone could respond to that information during the new first open record period. There were no objections. The parties submitted a great deal of material during the new open record period, but I have not located any specific objections to the submittals. J. PROCEDURAL CONCERNS Hearings Officer: The record contains a series of emails regarding whether documents were timely and fully shared between the attorneys in accordance an agreement they apparently made. I received no objections regarding this issue. See e.g. Wendie Kellington June 11, 2018 email, Julie Naslund June 13, 2018 letter. A June 4, 2018 submittal signed by Julie Naslund and purporting to be on behalf of several other neighbors expresses "deepening concern around the fairness of this application process." They allege a "conflict of interest" arising from the "collaboration" of Mr. Raguine with the applicant and that the applicant derived an "unfair advantage" due to Mr. Raguine's deep knowledge of county records and procedures." They suggest that I consider whether the process should be allowed to continue. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 6 I am aware of nothing supporting a conclusion that the rights of the opponents have been substantially prejudiced. All documents obtained by Mr. Raguine were shared and the open record period extended per the stipulation of counsel for the applicant and Ms. Naslund. Mr. Raguine has submitted no testimony since the hearing. Staff did not make a recommendation on several of the more contested criteria and has not substantively commented on the application or submittals since the hearing. III. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Title 18, Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance A. CHAPTER 18.04. TITLE, PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS 1. Section 18.04.030. Definitions. As used in DCC Title 18, the following words and phrases shall mean as set forth in DCC 18.04.030. "Lot of Record" means: A. A lot or parcel at least 5,000 square feet in area and at least 50 feet wide, which conformed to all zoning and subdivision or partition requirements, if any, in effect on the date the lot or parcel was created, and which was created by any of the following means: 1. By partitioning land as defined in ORS 92; 2. By a subdivision plat, as defined in ORS 92, filed with the Deschutes County Surveyor and recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk; 3. By deed or contract, dated and signed by the parties to the transaction, containing a separate legal description of the lot or parcel, and recorded in Deschutes County if recording of the instrument was required on the date of the conveyance. If such instrument contains more than one legal description, only one lot of record shall be recognized unless the legal descriptions describe lots subject to a recorded subdivision or town plat; 4. By a town plat filed with the Deschutes County Clerk and recorded in the Deschutes County Record of Plats; or 5. By the subdividing or partitioning of adjacent or surrounding land, leaving a remainder lot or parcel. B. Notwithstanding subsection (A), a lot or parcel validated pursuant to ORS 92.176 shall be recognized as a lot of record. C. The following shall not be deemed to be a lot of record: 1. A lot or parcel created solely by a tax lot segregation because of an assessor's roll change or for the convenience of the assessor. 2. A lot or parcel created by an intervening section or township line or right of way. 3. A lot or parcel created by an unrecorded subdivision, unless the lot or parcel was conveyed pursuant to subsection (A)(3) above. 4. A parcel created by the foreclosure of a security interest. FINDING: The Planning Division has reviewed the information submitted with the application, as well as County records, and has made a decision that Tax Lot 1205 is one (1) legal lot of record. Deschutes County adopted its first zoning ordinance (PL -5) on November 1, 1972, which described minimum lot sizes for new parcels. This zoning ordinance was replaced in 1979 with PL -15. The subdivision ordinance of 1970, PL -2, regulated subdivisions less than 10 acres in 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 7 size but did not regulate partitions. The partition ordinance (PL -7) was adopted in 1977, which described the criteria under which parcels could be partitioned (divided). Tax Lot 1205 was first conveyed in its current configuration in a Quitclaim Deed dated September 29, 1972 and recorded in Volume 189, Page 495 at the Deschutes County Clerk's Office. At the time of the deed being recorded, there were no requirements for land partitions nor were there any used to regulate zoning and minimum lot sizes. Tax lot 1205 is 4.98 acres (216,928.8 square feet) in size and over 50 feet in width and thus meeting the definition of a lot of record above (at least 5,000 square feet in area and 50 feet wide). Based on these findings, Deschutes County recognizes tax lot 1205 as a legal lot of record. "Church" means an institution that has nonprofit status as a church established with the Internal Revenue Service. FINDING: The applicant proposes to establish a church on the subject property. According to the applicant, Father's House, a subordinate of Church of God Cleveland, has status as a religious nonprofit organization under 501(c)(3) with the Internal Revenue Service. Staff finds, and I concur, that the proposed use is a church as defined in DCC 18.04. B. CHAPTER 18.32. MULTIPLE USE AGRICULTURAL ZONE 1. Section 18.32.030. Conditional Uses Permitted. The following uses may be allowed subject to DCC 18.128. W. Churches, subject to DCC 18.124 and 18.128.080. FINDING: The applicant proposes to establish a church on the subject property. As noted previously, the proposed Father's House Church is a church as defined in DCC 18.04.030 and thus can be allowed pursuant to applicable approval criteria. Compliance with DCC 18.124, Site Plan Review, and DCC 18.128, Conditional Uses, is addressed below. 2. Section 18.32.040. Dimensional Standards. In an MUA Zone, the following dimensional standards shall apply: D. Building height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed by DCC 18.120.040. FINDING: The applicant provided elevation drawings illustrating that the proposed church building will be approximately 29.8 feet (29 feet, 10 inches), thus meeting the 30 -foot height limit. Comments submitted on March 8, 2018 by neighboring property owners, Julie Naslund and John Schaeffer express concern regarding the overall size of the proposed development in comparison to the surrounding residential development, projecting the proposal will encompass at least 50 percent of the subject property. As this relates to lot coverage criterion, staff notes that the MUA-10 Zone does not have a lot coverage requirement unlike the Rural Residential Zone, which limits coverage to 30 percent of the total lot area (DCC 18.60.060(A)). Concerns over the overall size impact to the surrounding area are addressed below. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 8 3. Section 18.32.050. Yards. A. The front yard setback from the property line shall be a minimum of 20 feet for property fronting on a local street right of way, 30 feet from a property line fronting on a collector right of way, and 80 feet from an arterial right of way unless other provisions for combining accesses are provided and approved by the County. FINDING: The subject property is adjacent to Stevens Road and Thunder Road to the south and east, respectively. Stevens Road is classified as an urban collector road and Thunder Road is classified as a local access road. The required front yard setback from Stevens Road is 30 feet and 20 feet from Thunder Road. The proposed church building will be setback approximately 95 feet north of Stevens Road and 165 feet west of Thunder Road. The existing single-family dwelling proposed to be a parsonage has setbacks of approximately 74 feet and 64 feet from Stevens Road and Thunder Road, respectively. The front yard setbacks for both the proposed church building and existing dwelling comply with the setback standards of the MUA-10 Zone. B. Each side yard shall be a minimum of 20 feet. For parcels or lots created before November 1, 1979, which are one-half acre or less in size, the side yard setback may be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet. For parcels or lots adjacent to property receiving special assessment for farm use, the adjacent side yard for a dwelling shall be a minimum of 100 feet. FINDING: Based on the shape of the property and the adjacent roadways, staff finds the northern property boundary is considered the side property line and the western boundary is the rear property line. The County Code requires minimum yards of 20 feet from side property lines. The proposed church building will have a side yard setback of approximately 40 feet from the north property boundary. The single-family dwelling proposed to be a parsonage has an existing side yard setback of over 170 feet from the northern boundary. The side yard setback for both the proposed church building and existing dwelling comply with the setback standards of the MUA-10 Zone. C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet. Parcels or lots with rear yards adjacent to property receiving special assessment for farm use, the rear yards for a dwelling shall be a minimum of 100 feet. FINDING: As indicated in the foregoing finding, staff finds the western property boundary to be considered the rear property line. The County Code requires minimum yards of 25 feet from rear property lines. The proposed church building will have a rear yard setback of over 300 feet from the west property boundary. The single-family dwelling intended to be the parsonage has an existing rear yard setback of over 480 feet from the western boundary. The rear yard setback for both the proposed church building and existing dwelling comply with the setback standards of the MUA-10 Zone. D. The setback from the north lot line shall meet the solar setback requirements in DCC 18.116.180. FINDING: The 29.8 -foot tall church will require a solar setback of 70.4 feet from the northern property boundary (the solar setback of 70.4 feet would translate to a perpendicular measurement from the northern property boundary of approximately 61.6 feet). As proposed, the proposed church building will observe a setback of 40 feet from the north property boundary. However, the ridge, which is used for the basis of solar setback measurements, will be setback 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 9 at least 65.6 feet from the north property boundary. Therefore, the proposal complies with solar setback standards of DCC 18.116.180(B). C. CHAPTER 18.128. CONDITIONAL USES 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 a church on the subject property. The property is approximately 4.98 acres and has relatively level topography. The vegetation on-site is primarily native grasses and shrubs and some juniper trees. The eastern portion of the site is developed with a single-family dwelling established in 1967 and shed. An irrigation canal crosses the property in the northern half of the property. Stevens Road is adjacent to the southern property boundary. Thunder Road, a private access roadway, is adjacent to the eastern boundary. Access to the property is taken from an existing point along Stevens Road. The proposed church will be centrally located on the property and west of the existing dwelling. It will be 14,560 square feet and able to accommodate up to 325 parishioners. The church building will also include offices, a Targe meeting area, Sunday school classrooms, bathrooms, and storage space. The existing dwelling will be converted to a parsonage intended for church clergy. 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. Parking is proposed in front of the building, facing Stevens Road. The western portion is the septic field, with a northern portion containing the reserve septic field. Introduced landscaping beds will also be provided around and throughout the parking area and around the back of the church. The primary driveway access from Stevens Road will be relocated west and the former access will be converted to a pedestrian pathway. According to the applicant, the church use will occur primarily on Sunday with uses accessory to the church occurring on Sunday or other days of the week. The accessory uses include Sunday school, youth group, Bible studies, weddings, and administrative meetings. Hearings Officer: Opponents contend that the site is not suitable due to its size, topography, location and other factors in relation to this specific proposal. The site itself is suitable for a church and parsonage. It is large enough to accommodate the proposed church and has no topographical or other physical constraints. It has access to a collector street with good site distance. Whether the proposed church is suitable for this site in the sense of being compatible or relating harmoniously or with other uses and properties or otherwise complies with applicable standards is discussed below. 2. Adequacy of transportation access to the site; and FINDING: The subject property is adjacent to Stevens Road to the south and Thunder Road to the east. The access to the property is taken from Stevens Road, a "collector". The applicant is proposing to relocate the existing driveway access west based on conversations with the Senior Transportation Planner and County Road Department. The old access point will be converted to 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 10 a pedestrian pathway while the new access will have a width of approximately 35 feet, allowing for two-way traffic with an outbound right turn and left turn, and inbound lane. The applicant provided a January 15, 2018 Site Traffic Report (STR) dated January 15 and prepared by Transight Consulting, LLC. that "found no indication of crash history on adjacent roadways and no sight distance conflicts or impediments at the existing access point." In addition, the County Road Department and Senior Transportation Planner agreed with the report's findings and did not identify transportation infrastructure deficiencies. Numerous comments were submitted to the record regarding the traffic impacts to adjacent roadways and nearby intersections (e.g. the intersection of Stevens Road and SE 27th Street to the west). Transportation and traffic related criteria are also addressed below in DCC Sections 18.128.080(B)(3) and 18.124.060(K). Hearings Officer: Staff appears to have found that this criterion is met but, after noting the comments received, suggests that this criterion be a focus of my review. The opponents did not present professional analysis of the adequacy of transportation access to the site. Rather, their comments are anecdotal based on their experience and impressions. In a Feb 2, 2018 letter, Mr. Kasmeyer states that ingress and egress from Thunder Road already is dangerous as traffic on Stevens travels over 50 mph despite the posted 45 mph limit. Several commenters suggest that the STR should consider construction detours, bike traffic and other concerns. They note that there likely will be well over 100 trips for Sunday services. They suggest that there will be adverse impacts on the intersection of Stevens Rd. and 27th St. in the City of Bend. The STR indicates an ITE estimate of 101 daily trips with 7 weekday PM peak hour trips. Most would come from and exit to the west, away from Thunder Road. There were no reported crashes between 2011 and 2015. Sight lines exceed AASHTO minimums and sight distances were found adequate assuming 55 MPH speeds. Stevens is an urban collector with sufficient capacity. While there may be short surges during off-peak hours such as Sunday mornings they appear to be no more than those typically associated with a church. The City of Bend was notified of the proposal and staff reached out to the City to ensure that it had no comments. Further, the Joint Management Agreement expressly provides Bend with an opportunity to seek road improvements and requires that they meet City standards. No comments or road improvement requests were received, suggesting that the intersection impacts alleged within the City are not a significant concern to the City. Staff testified that the site is within the urban area reserve 10 and the property to the south is within the Bend UGB. There was testimony regarding master planning of that site for urban development. Any such development likely would have to address ensuring that Stevens Rd is suitable for urban levels of traffic. Further, since this criterion relates to transportation access to the site, it does not appear to address off-site impacts, especially those some distance away. I find that the applicant has met its burden that the transportation access is adequate. 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 church, including buildings 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. The property is developed with an existing single-family dwelling, access driveway, parking area, and an accessory structure (shed). There are no known natural hazards, except for wildfire, or distinguishing natural resource values on property. Submitted comments by neighboring property owners place value in the natural landscape, vegetation, and 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 11 wildlife. Although staff respects the neighbors' concerns, staff reviews the site as suitable and not hindered by natural and physical features such as wetlands, rivers, and rimrock, which this site does not contain. Staff believes there are no natural or physical features on the site that will prevent the proposed church use. Hearings Officer: I concur, while the flat topography and limited vegetation are relevant to other criteria, this criterion is met. 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). Hearings Officer: Staff summarized the area as follows: Existing and projected uses on surrounding properties consist of a mixture of rural residences and small-scale farms, as well as urban density development. The closest residential developments to the proposed church building are approximately 115 feet to the north and approximately 430 feet to the west and east. Adjacent to the south and east property boundaries is Stevens Road and Thunder Road, respectively. The Bend UGB is located adjacent to the southern property boundary and includes Stevens Road and the western portion of a large parcel under State of Oregon ownership. The area within the UGB is currently zoned Urbanizable Area, which is currently open space but is intended to be used in the future for urban development once annexed into the city limits. The eastern region of the large parcel is currently under review for a plan amendment and zone change from farm to residential. The city limits of Bend and related urban density residential development is located west of the subject property approximately 1,400 feet. To the northwest and east of the subject property are developed or vacant farm -zoned lands. The vegetation and topography on the subject property is similar throughout the surrounding area with native grasses, shrubs, and other groundcover but lacks any significant population of tree species. The projected land uses based on the current zoning will likely be similar to those already established such as single-family dwellings, agricultural uses, and urban density development. It is necessary to address the meaning and applicability of this criterion before addressing the applicant's position and the concerns voiced by opponents. Staff notes that hearings officer decisions consistently have concluded that this criterion is intended to "require that the existing and projected 'use' on surrounding lands will be allowed to continue". In other words, would the proposal preclude or severely impact whether surrounding properties may continue to be used for their existing use or develop in accordance with the Code? In the context of a cell tower, for example, it has been stated that: 1 understand the neighbors' concerns about the appearance of the tower in their neighborhood. However, the existence of the tower will not so much affect the use, but the enjoyment of their properties. This criterion is concerned mainly with making the proposed use compatible with other uses. There is no evidence in the record that the proposed monopole will impact the ability of current neighbors to use their properties for all the residential and associated uses that they now enjoy. CU -12-15, citing and referencing CU - 09 -36, CU -11-14, CU -08-79. I have applied this criterion in a similar manner in other decisions, including other than cell towers. Mr. VanVactor takes issue with this interpretation. He argues that such a limited application makes the criterion "more or Tess meaningless" because it is hard to conceptualize a proposal 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 12 that would be so incompatible as to preclude use of other properties absent an encroachment or similar issue. See, April 24, 2018 letter. The applicant urges that I continue the historic interpretation of this criterion. Father's House asserts that this is particularly appropriate given the special status enjoyed by churches under the Religious Land Use and Imprisoned Persons Act (RLUIPA). See e.g. April 23, 2018 letter. Somewhat surprisingly, there continues to be no case law and no definitive Board of Commissioners' decision addressing this criterion. I find that the arguments made by the opponents do not warrant overturning its historic application. Terms such as "compatible" are notoriously subjective and difficult to apply consistently. While one can argue that the historic interpretation is too crabbed, it provides a relatively clear guidepost. There are conditional uses listed in the MUA10 zone that one easily can envision being so incompatible as to impair the use of property for residential purposes. See e.g. exploration and processing of minerals, landing strips, landfills, mining. It also provides a basis for distinguishing this criterion from the "relate harmoniously" criterion. Mr. VanVactor argues that, even under the historic interpretation, the proposal is incompatible with the rural residences in the area. He notes that it is much large and more intense, akin to a commercial use which generally are not allowed in the MUA-10 zone. There is no doubt that the church will be the most prominent developed feature for the foreseeable time and impact views. But I find no evidence in the record suggesting that the impact on the surrounding residences would be so great as to substantially interfere with or preclude residential use. Churches are a conditional use in the zone, so they clearly are contemplated. Another, perhaps broader, application of the criterion would be to assess whether the proposal at issue greatly exceeds the scope and impacts of a typical church or whether there is something so unique about the area that even a "typical" church would be incompatible. This is not a "mega -church". The proposal is well within the setbacks and other dimensional limits in the zone. Unlike some other zones, this zone has no maximum lot coverage or structure size. As discussed below, although perhaps somewhat larger than necessary it is not significantly disproportionately larger than other churches referenced in the record. Nor is the church proposing activities that are not typically associated with a church including youth classes, weddings, funerals, occasional large events etc. The proposal is on an urban collector, has nominal peak hour transportation impacts and otherwise typical transportation impacts. The applicant has proposed landscaping and screening exceeding code requirements. I agree with staff that the exterior lighting as revised appears to be typical of uses such as a church. It will comply with the lighting requirements of DCC Chapters 18.124 and 18.116 and the County's Outdoor Lighting Ordinance of DCC 15.10, with are addressed below. Finally, although the site and the area pose difficulties for the applicant in meeting DCC 18.124.060 A., it appears to be typical of much of the rural area so raises no significantly unique compatibility issues. Neighbors have expressed concerns about property values diminishing once the use is established. However, the record does not contain evidence that property values would decrease or that the ability to sell a home in the neighborhood would be impacted as result of allowing the proposed church use, especially that the impact of this proposal would be greater than any other church. This criterion also requires consideration of projected uses on surrounding properties. This area is near the Bend city limits and urban growth boundary. The property immediately south is on its way to rather intense urban development although the scope and timing is unknown. That development is likely to impact the rural character of the area, traffic, potentially views, night sky 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 13 and other attributes valued by the opponents. The church likely will conveniently serve this newly developing area. A church is consistent with such future development and arguably provides a transition between the rural residential uses and the coming urban development. This criterion is met. 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. FINDING: Conditions of approval are imposed to lessen impacts on surrounding properties. 2. 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 church is proposed within the MUA-10 Zone. Staff recommends the Hearings Officer review compliance with the standards of the MUA-10 Zone and with standards and conditions set forth in DCC 18.128.080. 3. Section 18.128.080. Church, Hospital, Nursing Home, Convalescent Home, Retirement Home. A. Such a use shall be authorized as a conditional use only upon finding that sufficient area is provided for the building, required yards and off-street parking. Related structures and uses such as a manse, parochial school or parish house are considered separate uses and additional lot areas shall be required therefore. FINDING: As discussed in a foregoing finding, the 4.98 -acre parcel is large enough to accommodate the proposed 14,560 -square foot church, parsonage, on-site waste disposal system, 118 -space parking and maneuvering area, and landscaping areas, and meet the MUA- 10 setbacks. Therefore, staff believes this criterion is satisfied. No other structures or uses of the site is proposed. Hearings Officer: Concerns were raised about additional uses such as a day care or school. The applicant clarified that it is not proposing a school and concurred that any such use would require a separate approval in the form of a modification or new use. It currently leases space to an independent day care but does not propose to carry that over to this site. Presumably an independent day care would require additional approvals also. The applicant expressed concern that this criterion was being used in support of the opponent's arguments that the site is too small and the proposal too large. Counsel for the applicant argues that this section improperly discriminates against churches. First, I see this standard as primarily technical and not dealing with offsite impacts. Counsel for the Naslunds does not argue otherwise. Second, I concur with staff that the site is large enough for the proposed uses. Accordingly, I do not need to reach the discrimination issue. B. The applicant shall address the following issues in the application: 1. Probable growth and needs thereof. FINDING: According to the applicant, the current average attendance of Father's House church at its 61690 Pettigrew Road location, is 200 persons. As proposed, the church will accommodate 264 seats but can expand to 325 seats. As proposed, staff believes the proposal will accommodate the demand for growth and I concur. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 14 2. Site location relative to land uses in the vicinity. FINDING: As noted previously, land uses on abutting and nearby properties in the area surrounding the subject property consist of a mixture of rural residences and small-scale farms, as well as urban density development to the west. In addition, the Bend UGB is located adjacent to the southern property boundary and includes Stevens Road and a portion of a large parcel under State of Oregon ownership. The area within the UGB is currently within the Urbanizable Area Zone. The purpose of the UA zoning district is "to preserve Targe areas of undeveloped or rural land for future urban development prior to annexation" and thus is expected to provide additional urban levels of residential development in the future. The applicant proposes to site the new church building just east of center on the property. The proposed church building will be oriented southwest, with the rear of the building facing the properties to the north. At its closest reach, the building will be located approximately 115 feet from the nearest dwelling to the north. The applicant states "The proposed church location will provide convenient access to the public, particularly considering the fact the existing Father's House church is located less than one (1) mile to the northwest of the subject property." Neighboring property owners believe the proposed church building will be incompatible with the surrounding rural residential development and would have an unfavorable relation to land uses in the vicinity. Furthermore, comments suggest the site location of the church should be located within city limits to the west. Hearings Officer: The applicant has addressed the site location relative to uses in the vicinity. This section contains no standard against which to apply that information. It appears to be a requirement to provide information to assist in application of the discretionary criteria in the code. The applicant has submitted site plans, area maps, discussion of existing and future uses in the area and other information sufficient for the public to understand the proposal and for me to apply the criteria. 3. Conformity with Deschutes County Road Department standards for proposed access to and from principal streets and the probable effect of the proposal on the traffic volume of adjoining and nearby streets. Hearings Officer: Staff indicates that the applicant designed the project to address concerns from both the Senior Transportation Planner and County Road Department. This includes relocating the access west and eliminating the existing access. The project also limits the number of service drives to the parking lot to one, the minimum necessary to serve the church site. This one service drive will also provide access to the parsonage. The applicant provided a site traffic report dated January 15, 2018 and prepared by Transight Consulting, LLC. The County Road Department and Senior Transportation Planner agreed with the report's findings and did not identify transportation infrastructure deficiencies. All site distance and similar safety standards are met. As previously indicated, Stevens Road is a County -maintained urban collector. In this location, the road is also located within the Bend UGB and thus subject to the requirements of the Revised Joint Management Agreement, as noted above. The City of Bend — Planning Division and Public Works Department — was provided notice but did not present comments or concerns regarding the proposed church use. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 15 Neighboring property owners submitted comments anecdotal concerns regarding concerning traffic impacts to adjacent roadways and nearby intersections and noted the increased vehicle and bicycle traffic on Stevens Road within the last few years. It was noted that vehicles often exceed the 45 -mph speed limit but the SRA uses a higher speed limit. This criterion is met. C. Such uses or related buildings shall be at least 30 feet from a side or rear lot line. FINDING: The proposed church use, including parking and maneuvering areas, landscaping, pedestrian walkways, and the parsonage and church buildings, will be sited approximately 40 feet and 60 feet from the north side lot line and west rear lot line, respectively. D. Except as provided in Section 18.80.028 of the A -S zone, such uses may be built to exceed the height limitations of the zone in which it is located to a maximum height of 50 feet if the total floor area of the building does not exceed the area of the site and if the yard dimensions in each case are equal to at least two-thirds of the height of the principal structure. FINDING: As proposed, the church building will not exceed the 30 -foot height limit of the underlying MUA-10 Zone. This criterion is not applicable E. Churches in the Wildlife Area Combining Zone are subject to the provisions of DCC 18.88.2 FINDING: The proposed church is not located within a Wildlife Area Combining Zone and therefore, this criterion does not apply. D. CHAPTER 18.124. SITE PLAN REVIEW 1. Section 18.124.030. Approval Required. 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 church that serves the general public. The provisions of this chapter are applicable. 2 The subject application was submitted on January 19, 2018, prior to the removal of this section, DCC 18.128.080(E), which occurred in February 2018 (Ordinance 2018-003). 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 16 2. Section 18.124.060. Approval Criteria. Approval of a site plan shall be based on the following criteria: A. The proposed development shall relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features including views and topographical features. FINDING: The property is approximately 4.98 acres. The existing single-family dwelling is located near the intersection of Stevens Road and Thunder Road. The site has relatively level topography and is vegetated primarily with native grasses and shrubs and some juniper trees. An irrigation canal crosses the property in the northern half of the property. Stevens Road and Thunder Road abut the property to the south and east, respectively. Access is taken from Stevens Road. The area surrounding the property consists of small farm and rural and urban residential properties. Rural residential properties are to the north, east, and west of the property. Directly west across Stevens Road is a Targe parcel under State ownership that is currently open space, but extensive urban development is likely in the future. The western region of the state-owned parcel together with Stevens Road is located within the Bend Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) and the eastern region is currently under review for a plan amendment and zone change from farm use to residential use. The Bend city limits and related urban density residential development is located west of the subject property approximately 1,400 feet. Farm -zoned parcels are located northwest and east of the subject property are either developed or vacant. Hearings Officer: The applicant is proposing a 14,560 -square foot church on the property. It is slightly below the maximum 30 feet height. The proposal includes converting the existing dwelling to a church house/parsonage. The existing driveway access will be relocated to the west and the former driveway will be discontinued by use of vehicles. The church building is shown as centrally located on the property although toward the northern property line and west of the existing house and will include a sanctuary for up to 325 parishioners, offices, Sunday school classrooms, bathrooms, large gathering area and storage space. The applicant proposes locating the parking lot along Stevens Rd. and has reduced the proposed parking to 99 spaces with a maneuvering area. The applicant is proposing to remove native vegetation in the development footprint and introduce landscaping in and around the parking area and around the back of the church. Native vegetation will be retained in some areas (e.g. eastern region) of the property. No other impacts to landscape and existing topography are proposed. The applicant proposes exterior lighting, primarily in the parking area and submitted a revised plan using bollard lights and fewer light poles. Two septic fields are shown on the western and northern portions of the site. "Harmoniously" is not defined. Mr. VanVactor quotes Webster's New Twentieth Century Unabridged dictionary defining "harmonious" as: adapted to each other; having the parties combined in a proportionate, orderly or congruous arrangement; symmetrical." April 24,2018 letter. The online Oxford Living Dictionary defines it to include "in a way that forms a pleasing or consistent whole". I have not seen any particularly useful case law defining or applying this term. As noted in SP -99-44 (Crossroads Community Church, 2/23/2000) this criterion is "highly subjective" and difficult to apply. In 247 -17 -000319 -CU (Applicant's Post -hearing exhibit 8), I concluded that this imposes a somewhat higher standard than "compatibility" as the latter has been applied. I described it as meaning a "minimum of conflict, discord or similar impacts on existing development and the environment." The focus is on the design. I stated that "Ultimately, I think this criterion asks whether the applicant has taken sufficient steps to ensure that impacts do not create any more disharmony than other uses allowed by right or conditionally in the MUA- 247-18-000061-CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 17 10 zone or the existing uses." In that case, the proposal was similar to other uses in a heavily impacted area and the applicant had taken significant steps to mitigate impacts. Accordingly, it appears to be akin to a design review provision requiring that the applicant demonstrate that it has taken reasonable and feasible steps to make the use fit into the neighborhood through design, layout, location and other factors and expressly that the applicant minimize primarily visual impacts. Also, unlike "compatibility" this criterion considers only existing development and natural features. Ms. Kellington argues in her June 4, letter that this includes future development to the south as envisioned in the state's 2007 "Concept Plan". That plan has not been adopted by the relevant planning entities and the property has not been annexed. I have no doubt that the area will develop rather intensely at some point, but it cannot be considered "existing development." The opponents argue that the size of the structure alone violates this criterion. Mr. VanVactor notes that the church structure will be several times larger than any of the neighboring residences. He suggests that existing development in the area generally covers less than 2 percent of the applicable lots while the church, including parking would cover approximately 36 percent. As he notes, there certainly are no large parking lots in the area. The applicant contends that the size is necessary to accommodate its growing congregation. Its current location necessitates two Sunday services meaning that the congregation cannot come together as a whole for fellowship, more volunteers are required, or people must volunteer for longer periods. The applicant describes its current location as too small to accommodate needed Sunday school and daycare facilities together and other normal and customary uses. The applicant cites to other large structures in the area, although there is some dispute as to whether they all are within one -mile. These include an 11,520 sq. ft. and a 13,104 sq. ft. arena, a 13,888 sq. ft. farm building in the rural area and large structures in the urban area, including an 11,012 sq. ft. church. The applicant notes that single-family dwellings in excess of 10,000 sq. ft. are not rare in the Bend. The opponents argue that none of the structures are within a 1/4 acre radius which is more appropriate when evaluating visual and related impacts. They note that the large rural structures generally are on much larger lots so presumably have less impact on adjacent properties. Others are lower structures or less visible due to topography. I agree with the opponents that there is no question that the proposed structure and parking lot will be the predominant manmade feature within the area in which they reside. There is no evidence that the nearby vicinity currently is degraded visually or otherwise, unlike for example the Mazama or Crossroads applications. The existing residences enjoy flat, broad, largely uninterrupted rural vistas. Some, such as the Lomax's, have mountain views that they contend will be blocked. The Lakes state that it will block the view of Paulina Peaks and Lava Butte from their home. The Naslund's territorial and Paulina Peak views would be impacted. April 24, 2018 photos. The applicant provides little if any evidence to the contrary. See e.g. Stevens & Thunder Road Neighborhood slides. But there is no maximum structure size in this zone and I decline to find that this criterion prohibits large structures as such, particularly where the applicant has demonstrated that a structure in this size range being proposed is generally in line with other churches and is reasonably necessary to accommodate the use. The current church is 10,000 sq. ft. for a congregation of 200-225 with holiday peaks to 275. The applicant has demonstrated significant operational constraints. Almost by definition, churches seek out new congregants and it does not seem 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 18 unreasonable to provide the opportunity to expand to 325 nor is a 99 -space parking lot out of line for the number of users. Although the relatively nearby church is only 11,012 sq. ft., the approved Crossroads Church was 14,325 sq. ft. with 134 parking spaces for a current congregation of 200 with expansion to 350. Although information on normal and customary size in relation to congregation for churches in the area would have been useful, the information in the record indicates the proposed size is not per se unreasonable. This is not to say, however, that the footprint and scope could not be reduced without significantly impacting functionality. Further, to be "harmonious" in this area it is evident that the larger and more incongruous the structure and parking area the more consideration must be given to design, layout and locational options to minimize impacts on existing development. In my opinion, the applicant has failed to meet its burden in this regard. There is nothing in the record suggesting that the applicant met with neighbors in an effort to evaluate options to address impacts. Gary Rogers May 8, 2018 letter. There is nothing suggesting that the applicant gave any serious consideration to reducing the footprint, or different design, layout and placement alternatives in relation to how they might better blend in and reduce impacts. For example, I asked whether placing the structure next to Stevens Road might lessen visual impacts by moving it farther away from nearby residences. The response was that the applicant thought it best to move it as far away from residences as possible. But a parking lot can largely be screened and, as the applicant has proposed, lighting made smaller and less intrusive. Perhaps it could be spit up so as not to create such a large expanse. The applicant states that the location of the "approved" drain fields limits its options. April 23, 2018 letter. The opponents contend that those were the only areas tested. There is nothing in the record indicating that they must be located where proposed. Although the proposed structure meets the maximum height standards, it is not clear why a peaked roof was chosen; apparently there was no consideration given to a slightly sloped roof, or a less traditional church design. The mezzanine appears primarily to be for mechanical and storage so perhaps could be eliminated. The entryway is 23 feet wide. The great hall is 63 feet. I understand that a space for dinners and gatherings is desirable, but perhaps the classrooms could be multipurpose with movable walls and the footprint of the east -west wing reduced without significantly impacting functionality. Perhaps larger expanses of windows rather than solid siding would be less intrusive. Perhaps another building orientation would mitigate impacts. The only alternative the applicant appears to have considered is the design offered by the opponents. The applicant adequately explained why it would not reasonably meet its needs. Rowles May 30, 2018 letter. It is important to stress that I am not concluding that there is a significantly better alternative. Nor am I trying to design the facility. But I think the applicant had the burden to demonstrate reasonable efforts to consider alternatives that would better harmonize its proposal with existing residences in the area, particularly on this relatively small, flat parcel with no topographical, vegetative or other natural features to soften its impact. Cf. SP -95-60 (Applicant submitted revised site plan to address this criterion.) The applicant states that "We know that the building is an efficient layout that serves the church's identified needs" and the applicant's primary focus has been on just that. But that is not the test. The applicant simply never really provided evidence or analysis demonstrating that that it had made reasonable efforts, including perhaps some trade-offs with its desires, to meet its needs the most harmonious way reasonably possible. This portion of the criterion is not met. There is little, if anything, in the record to suggest that the proposal does not relate harmoniously to the natural environment or preserve natural features on the site, although it has offsite visual 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 19 impacts as described above. Frankly, the site itself is a typical flat, arid parcel with no significant vegetation. The applicant has proposed more landscaping than the minimum required. This portion of the criterion is met. 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 a church on the property. The proposed improvements will be sited in areas where no significant landscaping and topography exists. The proposed development will require removal of vegetation only within the building area. Mature juniper trees and other vegetation throughout the property will be preserved and protected in its natural state. No other impacts to landscape and existing topography are proposed. Staff believes this criterion is 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: The proposed site plan design provides a safe environment while offering appropriate opportunities for privacy and 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 building and to Stevens Road. Staff believes this criterion is satisfied. 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, six (6) ADA accessible parking spaces will be provided adjacent to the front of the church building. The County Building Safety Division will review specific ADA requirements during building permit review. Staff comment: Staff recommends 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: Access to the property is taken from Stevens Road, which is adjacent to the southern property boundary. The existing access, which serves the single-family dwelling (proposed parsonage), is approximately 160 feet from Thunder Road. This access will be eliminated and converted into a pedestrian pathway. A new access point is proposed approximately 540 feet west of Thunder Road and further from the two residences closest (north and east) to the existing access to be removed. 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 church building and parsonage. Hearings Officer: The proposed parking area will be located adjacent to the proposed church and the main area separated from adjacent residential uses by the church building. The revised site and landscaping plans reduce the number of parking spaces to 99 and increase landscaping 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 20 both in and out of the parking lot. I find that this criterion is met. I note that this criterion presents somewhat of a conundrum in that it singles out the parking area for special emphasis. That likely encouraged the applicant to place the church at the back of the parcel. But I do not think this criterion obviates the need to consider options and seek to harmonize the overall development with existing development. F. Surface drainage systems shall be designed to prevent adverse impacts on neighboring properties, streets or surface and subsurface water quality. FINDING: The proposed church use 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. Staff believes that 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 proposal includes a parking area along the south/southwest side of the proposed church building, which the applicant states "is located as far from adjacent existing residences as possible." The proposed church building will provide a buffer to the parking area. In addition, the proposed trash enclosure and mechanical equipment enclosure, located in the northwest and southeast sides of the proposed structure. Each of these components will be screened by landscaping and/or fencing, according to the submitted application materials. Hearings Officer: Again, this criterion may be somewhat at odds with DCC 18.124.060 when the most prominent and impactful component is the main structure. But it also suggests that, unlike the proposed structure, parking lots can be screened, landscaped and otherwise designed to minimize impacts without necessarily putting the structure in back. H. All above -ground utility installations shall be located to minimize adverse visual impacts on the site and neighboring properties. FINDING: No above -ground utility installations are proposed. This criterion does not apply. 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. Hearings Officer: The applicant revised its lighting proposal to include lower bollard style lights and minimize the number of poles. I find that this criterion can be met with a condition requiring shielding and that the applicant have a lighting engineer certify no off-site projection. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 21 K. Transportation access to the site shall be adequate for the use. 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. FINDING: As addressed in a foregoing finding, the applicant designed the project to address concerns from both the Senior Transportation Planner and County Road Department. This includes relocating the driveway access to the west and removing the existing access closer to Thunder Road. The number of service drives is limited to one, which is the minimum necessary to serve the church site. The service drive will also provide access to the parsonage. A site traffic report dated January 15, 2018 and prepared by Transight Consulting, LLC was provided by the applicant. Neighboring property owners found deficiencies or errors in the report. However, the County Road Department and Senior Transportation Planner agreed with the report's findings and did not identify transportation infrastructure deficiencies. The County Road Department recommended that any improvements sought by Bend under the Revised JMA be required but none were received. The only County requirements are payment of SDC's and that the applicant obtain a driveway access permit for the proposed access to Stevens Rd pursuant to DCC 12.28.050, 17.48.210, and 18.124.080. Stevens Road is a County -maintained urban collector. This segment of Stevens Road is located within the Bend UGB and, as noted by the County Road Department, subject to the requirements of the Revised Joint Management Agreement. As noted previously, the City of Bend was provided notice but did not provide comments or concerns regarding the proposed church use. Hearings Officer: For the reasons previously stated, I find that this criterion is met. 3. Section 18.124.070. Required Minimum Standards. B. 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 church 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. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 22 FINDING: The proposed church use will require 82 parking spaces3, as noted below in this decision. Therefore, the parking area shall be required to be improved with at least 2,050 square feet of landscaping to meet this criterion (82 * 25 = 2,050). The applicant proposes to retain native and existing vegetation in the eastern area — over one acre — of the property and in other areas not intended for development. In addition, the applicant proposes 4,900 square feet of landscaping throughout the parking area. This exceeds the 2,050 square foot requirement and thus meets this criterion. b. In addition to the landscaping required by DCC 18.124.070(B)(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. FINDING: The proposed landscape plan shows a landscaping strip at least 10 feet in width between the parking area and Stevens Road. Although the parking area is not directly adjacent to the west, north, and east property lines, the applicant proposes a landscape strips at least five feet in width adjacent to the western side of the proposed parking area. The plan shows the landscaping strip containing proposed vegetation. Staff believes 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. Staff believes 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 be 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 naturally defined areas and are uniformly distributed throughout some regions of the property. Care for these areas is a naturally occurring process and is continuously maintained and kept alive and attractive. The applicant agrees to a condition of approval to ensure compliance with these criteria. 3 Although the applicant proposes 99 parking spaces, required landscaping is only based on the required parking spaces, which is 82 in this case. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 23 Staff recommends, if the application is approved, that it be made a condition of approval 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. 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 thus no bicycle parking is required. 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 proposed church 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 a walkway that will connect the parsonage, the church building, and the parking area. There are no pedestrian walkways along the road 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. Nevertheless, the former driveway will be converted to a pathway to the public roadway, Stevens Road. The applicant is proposing this to meet a Bend Fire Department requirement for evacuation purposes. Staff believes 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 concrete and five feet of unobstructed width. The walkways that border the parking spaces will be five fee and include curbing. Based on staffs review of the site plan, the walkways directly connect pedestrians to the church building, parsonage, and parking area. Staff believes this criterion is met. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 24 d. Driveway crossings by walkways shall be minimized. Where the walkway system crosses driveways, parking areas and loading areas, the walkways must be clearly identifiable through the use of elevation changes, speed bumps, a different paving material or other similar method. FINDING: The proposal includes a driveway crossing by walkway that connects the parsonage and the church. The applicant proposes to have this crossing clearly identifiable using striping. Staff believes this criterion is satisfied. 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 facility 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: Neither the Deschutes County Road Department nor Deschutes County Transportation Planner identified transportation infrastructure deficiencies or requirements. 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, 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: 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 25 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 with this proposal. Staff believes 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 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 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 a gross 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: Based on the definition in DCC 18.04, a church is an institution and, therefore, is subject to the off-street loading requirements detailed above. The proposed church will be 14,560 square feet in size. Based on the above table, the structure does not meet the size requirement for a loading berth. For this reason, staff finds a loading berth is not required. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 26 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 Church 1 space per 4 seats or 8 feet of bench length in the main auditorium or 1 space for each 50 sq. ft. of floor area used for assembly. FINDING: The applicant is proposing a 14,560 -square foot church that will include up to 325 seats. Pursuant to the one (1) space per four (4) seats ratio above, the required church parking is 82 parking spaces. The revised indicates 99 vehicular parking spaces are proposed. Staff believes 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. FINDING: The subject property includes a residential use. However, the proposal includes maintaining the dwelling as a parsonage and thus associated and accessory to the proposed church use. Although not required to provide two parking spaces for each dwelling unit (DCC 18.116.030(D)(1)), the applicant indicates two parking spaces will be located within the attached garage of the dwelling. No other uses or businesses will be sharing the proposed off-street parking spaces. Therefore, these criteria are not applicable. 2. Joint Use of Facilities. The off-street parking requirements of two or more uses, structures or parcels of land maybe 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 applicant is not proposing joint use of parking facilities. Although not required, the proposed church and associated parsonage do have separate parking facilities, if necessary. This criterion is 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 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 27 proving the existence of such off -premise parking arrangements rests upon the applicant. FINDING: The parking and maneuvering area for the proposed church use is located on-site and within 500 feet of the building. The parking and maneuvering area is located in a safe and functional manner, designed for operable passenger vehicles made available for service personnel only. 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 church 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 percent 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 residential uses to the north, east, and west of the property. The applicant states that the proposed parking lot is not adjacent to surrounding residential uses since "the parking lot will be sited over 100 feet from the north, east and west property lines" and thus not subject to this criterion. Staff notes that, unlike "adjoining4", "adjacent" 4 DCC 18.04.030 - "Adjoining" means contiguous; touching or connected, including tracts of land that only connect or touch at a common point. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 28 is not defined in the Deschutes County Code. Merriam -Webster defines "adjacent", in relevant part as: 1 a: not distant: nearby - the city and adjacent suburbs b: having a common endpoint or border - adjacent lots - adjacent sides of a triangles Staff believes that that the properties in residential use to the north and west, at minimum, are adjacent in the sense of being nearby and having a common border with the subject property. It may be that adjacency could be a broader concern if it is simply read as "nearby". Staff believes that the Hearings Officer will need to determine which lots, if any, are "adjacent" prior to determining if the proposed site plan effectively screens or buffers parking areas from these properties. In any regard, staff is unclear where the applicant is measuring to and from in order to derive 100 feet from adjacent property lines. Based on staffs measurements, the closest part of the parking area is approximately 65 feet from the north boundary and 40 feet from the west boundary. However, at its closest reach, the northerly single-family dwelling is approximately 285 feet to the northeast, which is further than the proposed building (115 feet from the building to the dwelling). The dwelling to the west is approximately 330 to 345 feet from the parking area. Although the applicant argues that the criterion is not applicable based on distance, landscape strips are proposed in designated areas surrounding the parking area and within the parking area. According to the landscaping plan, the parking area will be landscaped primarily along the west and south sides and a couple areas in the southeast. The church building occupies most of the northeastern side of the parking area. Staff believes the proposed landscaping and church building will aide in screening or buffering neighboring residential uses. However, a small area between the ADA parking spaces and the septic tank, reserve drainfield, and trash enclosure does not contain landscaping. Staff is unclear if those elements (e.g. septic) prevents additional landscaping in this area or if there is the possibility to provide additional landscaping to mitigate the impacts to the north and northeast. In conclusion, staff believes this criterion was intended for the protection of residential development within close proximity of a proposed parking area and not necessarily for adjacent residentially zoned property regardless of the distance that separates the parking area and the residential use. Based on numerous comments concerning impacts from vehicle lights, vehicle traffic, and parking lot lighting, staff recommends the Hearings Officer determine if the parking area is effectively screened as proposed (distance to residential use and some introduced landscaping) or should additional landscaping and/or fencing be provided to mitigate impacts.6 Hearings Officer. As I have denied the site plan, findings on this issue may not particularly relevant. Nevertheless, I agree with staffs measurements. Also note that the applicant has reduced the number of actual parking spaces in this area by four. 5 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adjacent 6 In a similar case for the Seventh Day Adventist church proposed at 21620 Butler Market Road, the Hearings Officer did not discount for distance to the neighboring residential use to the south and west even though significant distance separated the parking area and the neighboring residential uses (CU -05-8 and SP -04-57). Furthermore, the area surrounding in the Seventh Day Adventist property, as in this case, was residentially zoned (MUA-10). The Seventh Day Adventist proposed a landscaped berm and fencing along the south side where the closest residence was located and additional landscape material along its west side where there was significant distance between the church and the residential use. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 29 I have reservations about the hearings officer interpretation cited by staff in the footnote. It seems to me that if the provision was intended to apply to all parking areas on all parcels adjacent to residential parcels it would simply so state. It may be that it was intended to apply to parking lots near the boundary with a residential parcel, although that creates the problem of determining when it is "near" enough to mandate buffering. I do think that it relates to the location of the residence on the parcel. Other than a septic "do's and don'ts" sheet I cannot find that the applicant responded regarding whether the septic fields preclude significant landscaping at their edges but note that the church and parking areas appear to encroach into the dashed box depicting the reserve drainfield, so it seems that some landscaping or a fence would be permissible in the areas suggested by staff or along the property lines. If the applicant were to propose moving the church closer to Stevens so it does not buffer the parking lot, other buffering would be necessary. In the end, given that the applicant should be able to achieve compliance with the interpretation cited by staff relatively easily (probably with a condition of approval if the site plan had been approved), I find that the better course is to maintain consistency and conclude that this criterion is not met for the small area referenced by staff. 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. To ensure compliance, staff recommends this be made a condition of any approval if the application is approved. 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 designed to occur on the site and prevent vehicles backing into a street or right-of-way. The proposed church parking and maneuvering areas are not located near a street or other rights-of- way. The parking area is located approximately 30 feet from Stevens Road. Staff believes 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 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 30 allow for surface water drainage on-site to designated stormwater infiltration basins and landscape beds. However, if funding for paving is unavailable, the applicant is requesting an exception to the paving requirements. the subject property is located outside of an unincorporated community. If approved, the applicant agrees to a condition of approval that requires the parking and maneuvering areas to be maintained in a matter in which it will not create dust problems for the neighboring properties. Staff believes this criterion can be met with the imposition of conditions of approval for either paving or gravel. Hearings Officer: I concur with staff and note that a gravel area appears to be more consistent with the rural character of the area than a sea of pavement, provided it is maintained properly. 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 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 Stevens Road. The applicant is proposing to relocate the access west based on conversations with the Senior Transportation Planner and County Road Department. The new access will have a width of approximately 35 feet, allowing for two-way traffic (outbound right turn and left turn, and inbound). Based on the proposed plans, sufficient width for two-way traffic service drives has been provided in the other areas. In addition, the main service drive has been clearly marked through use of either split rail fencing or concrete curbing. The applicant also proposes a landscaping strip in this area. The design of the existing drives and proposed parking area, with proper signage, will facilitate the safe flow of traffic and serve anticipated traffic. The design will also prevent vehicle -backing movements on to the road right of way. Staff believes 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: Access to the subject property is currently provided from Stevens Road. The applicant is proposing to relocate the access west. As proposed the driveway will have a minimum vision clearance area that is formed by the intersection of the driveway and Stevens Road. Staff believes 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: Most of the parking spaces are at least 40 feet from the closest property boundary and Stevens Road. Two parking spaces are located within the front 30 feet of Stevens Road. Staff believes the parking spaces within the front 30 space should be contained. As proposed, all exterior parking spaces will be contained by a curb and defined landscaping areas. In addition, the applicant proposes either split rail fencing or concrete curbing along the front service drive and parking area. Staff believes this criterion is met. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 31 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 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 Stevens Road, which does not contain bikeways such as designated 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 32 bike lanes. The applicant indicates that bicycle use by parishioners to the church's current location at 61690 Pettigrew Road location is nonexistent and thus unlikely be used by congregation at the new location outside city limits. Based on this information, staff believes that compliance with the exceptions criteria is met and no bicycle parking is required. F. RLUIPA and ORS 215.441 The applicant contends that RLUIPA and/or ORS 215.441 prohibit denial of the use and the site plan. As I have approved the CUP for the use I will not address the former allegation. RLUIPA prohibits a government from imposing or implementing a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a "substantial burden on the religious exercise" of a person or church unless the government has a "compelling reason" and chooses the least restrictive means. 42 U.S.C. section 2000c. Nothing in the denial of the site plan imposes a substantial burden on the religious activities of the applicant. I have found that those activities are allowed and are not incompatible or disharmonious. The denial is based on the applicant's failure to consider design, layout and other similar alternatives that would reasonably accommodate its needs and still address the impacts of the structure and parking lot on surrounding properties. It could be that minor changes would greatly reduce impacts or that the proposal really is the minimum necessary and the least impactful. In Corp. of Presiding Bishop v West Linn, 338 OR 453, 111 P3d 1125 (2005) the Court upheld an arguably much more burdensome denial and concluded that this provision is violated only if the regulation or denial "'pressures' or `forces' a choice between following religious precepts and forfeiting certain benefits, on the one hand, and abandoning one or more of those precepts in order to obtain the benefits, on the other." It favorably cited cases holding it permissible to deny an application. My site plan denial is based on failure to submit satisfactory data with the possibility that a modification or more evidence that the proposal is the least impactful feasible proposal would result in approval. ORS 215.441 provides that, if a zone permits a nonresidential place of worship, a county must allow use of the property for the listed activities, including services, classes, weddings, funerals and childcare. But a county may subject the property to reasonable regulations expressly including "site review or design review" concerning the physical characteristics of the site. Nothing in the denial of the site plan precludes or restricts the applicant from conducting any of the listed activities provided it first demonstrates that the physical space and layout necessary for those activities is the one that minimizes impacts on views and harmonizes the development to existing development to the extent reasonably feasible. The legislative history cited by the applicant does not contradict this and, in fact, seems to stress that the primary limitation is on regulating religious uses rather than the physical impacts of the proposal. I find that neither RLUIPA nor ORS 215.441 precludes the county from addressing the impacts created by the physical attributes of an application for a church as I have sought to do in this decision. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions: 1. Application 247 -18 -000063 -LR is APPROVED; 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 33 2. Application 247 -18 -000061 -CU for a church, parking lot and parsonage is APPROVED subject to the following conditions: 1. 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. 2. This approval is for the uses proposed and those listed in ORS 215.441 (1) (a) -(f) but not private or parochial school education for prekindergarten through grated 12 or higher. It does not authorize operation lease or operation of a daycare not affiliated with the church. 3. Any substantial change to the conditional use approval will require a new application. It is understood, however, that changes to the submitted site plan, including but not limited to building layout, design, size, location and other physical attributes may be necessary to obtain site plan approval and this CU approval is not intended to preempt that review process. The site plan may be subject to conditions of approval, including but not limited to those recommended by staff as described in this decision. 3. Application 247 -18 -00062 -SP is DENIED for failure to demonstrate compliance with DCC 18.124.060 A., as regards relating harmoniously to existing development and minimizing visual impacts and DCC18.116.030 F.1. Done and dated this 30th day of August 2018 Dan R. Olsen Hearings Officer THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL TWELVE DAYS AFTER MAILING UNLESS TIMELY APPEALED. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP and 247 -18 -000063 -LR, Father's House Hearings Officer Decision Page 34 Staff Memorandum Attachment 3 *** Father's House Church Appeal 021/7 -fig- 000Co "/-A APPEAL APPLICATION - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 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 areas shall also be provided. 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. FEE:07 7/• o� JS Appellant's Name (print):` 1 E 1G 6L-"- Phone: (5 `1 t) ?6'2 --)6,37 Mailing Address: (of (4,41C) -t Co d '�' 1hC\ City/State/Zip:iLv�6 r, 2 7 7v z Land Use Application Being Appealed: 2-'-I 7-1 -- a _ OoC--,O (4,Z-- -- Property Description: Town hip IV Range 12_ Section )L- Tax Lot 1 2.6 Appellants Signature: Cu ) ! Date: --CP— i BY SIGNING THIS APPLICATION AND PAYING THE APPEAL FEE, THE APPELLANT UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES THAT DESCHUTES COUNTY IS COLLECTING A DEPOSIT FOR COSTS RELATED TO, PREPARING FOR, AND CONDUCTING A PUBLIC HEARING. THE APPELLANT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTUAL COSTS OF THE HEARING PROCESS. THE AMOUNT OF ANY REFUND OR ADDITIONAL PAYMENT WILL DEPEND UPON THE ACTUAL COSTS INCURRED BY THE COUNTY IN REVIEWING THE APPEAL. Except as provided in section 22.32.024, appellant shall provide a complete transcript of any hearing appealed, from recordings provided by the Planning Division upon request (there is a $5.00 fee for each recording copy). 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. 117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 1 P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 `(541) 388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org ®www.deschutes.org/cd NOTICE OF APPEAL The Fathers' House Church of God hereby seeks review of the Hearings Officer's Decision, by the Board of Commissioners. De Novo review is respectfully requested. The specific reasons for review are attached. Thank you. See Attached (This page may be photocopied if additional space is needed.) FH Father's House 61690 Pettigrew Road Bend, OR 97702 (541)382-1632 Pastor Randy Wifls fathershouse.church August 8, 2018 Via Hand Delivery Deschutes County Commissioners Deschutes County, Or Dear County Commissioners, Attached please find an appeal application and separate appeal narrative. We have already provided the County with the requested appeal fee, not fully understanding the process. With those documents, | believe our appeat is complete. This year, Father's House Church of God purchased land in Deschutes County to build a new church building. In April, a hearing was held with Mr. Dan Olsen presiding. The Church appreciates Mr. {)isen'S time and consideration, and that he approved the church's conditional use permit, but had a concern about the design. We respectfully request the Board's De Novo review of the Hearing Officer's decision. Mr. Otsen's concern was that he wanted the Church to test and explain other alternative designs. The Church wishes to present its case to the Board, and that requires a De Novo review and hearing. Mr. Olsen suggested that the Church meet with the neighbors to see if there are any design options they woutd find satisfactory. The Church has enthusiasticalty agreed to do so, and has, in fact, already mailed invitations to the neighbors for such a meeting. The Church understands that the County feels an extension of the 150 -day processing period will aid the appeal, and so the Church is willing to grant an extension of the 150 -day processing period. The review and hearing date is time sensitive due to the need to commence construction of the new building as the congregation is having a very difficult tirne in its existing space, which is too smalt, However, the Church, as a cooperative citizen, is willing to give the County the time it needs, but hopes, if it is at all possible' that the processing of an approval decision can be completed soon. Thank you for your consideration. RespeNtfully, Notice of Appeal to Board of Commissioners Attachment Request for Review Request for De Novo Review Father's House Church of God August 8, 2018 This is Notice that Father's House, Church of God Cleveland Inc., (Fathers House) appeals the Decision of the Hearings Officer in 247 -18 -000062 -SP to the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board). Father's House, is the applicant and the property owner. Father's House proposed to build a Church, on land that it owns, and that is across Stevens Rd. from the DSL owned parcel slated to be developed into its own town center. Father's House proposal is to accommodate the Church's growing congregation of 200 people, with 275 congregants during special holidays. The current Father's House Church is much too small for the existing congregation. There is no dispute about the fact that the Church's current space constraints are serious and are adversely affecting the Church's ability to fulfill its religious mission. The Church explained this in detail in the record. See the Church's Final Written Argument, which is incorporated here by this reference. The Hearings Officer confirmed that the Father's House lot is a legal lot of record and granted the Church a conditional use permit to build the needed Church. But the Hearings Officer denied the Church's site plan and, anomalously, in so doing denied the Church. The Hearings Officer denied the Church on the basis of the County's "harmonious" site plan review standard in Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance (DCZO) 18.124.060(A). The Hearings Officer also denied the Church on the basis that he thought more landscaping and possibly a fence was necessary to screen parking areas under DCZO 18.116.030(F) in "a small area between the ADA parking spaces and the septic tank, reserve drainfield, and trash enclosure * * * ,, Father's House requests the Board to accept review for the reasons outlined below. Generally, those reasons are that Father's House seeks review because, respectfully, the Hearings Officer improperly applied and interpreted DCZO 18.124.060(A) and 18.116.030(F) to deny the proposed Church. A more detailed explanation is below) Father's House requests the Board to accept De Novo review for the reasons also outlined below. In discussions with staff, the Church understands an extension of the 150 -day processing period would be helpful to the County. Accordingly, Father's House grants the County an extension of the 1 50 -day processing period to November 15, 2018 so that the County has time to consider the Church's appeal. The Church badly needs to start construction on its new building as overcrowding is a serious problem. Accordingly, it will be greatly appreciated if the Church may obtain an approval by that date. Thank you. ' It is not clear how much detail is required for a Notice of Appeal. Page 1 of 10 Reasons for Review The following reasons for seeking the Board of Commissioners' review, are respectfully the following: 1. The Hearings Officer erred in deciding that Father's House Church had not demonstrated compliance with DCZO 18.124.060(A). Father's House Church proposal complies with this standard. The Hearings Officer stated the standard should be applied as follows. "Ultimately, I think this criterion asks whether the applicant has taken sufficient steps to ensure that impacts do not create any more disharmony than other uses allowed by right or conditionally in the MUA-10 zone or the existing uses."' Father's House demonstrated compliance with this interpretation. Father's House Church does not create any "disharmony" at all and certainly demonstrated that it does not create more disharmony than other uses allowed outright and conditionally in the MUA zone. The Hearings Officer recognized that there was nothing particularly unusual about the proposed new Church. 3 Churches serve residences. Churches have always been established in neighborhoods — that is what they do. The Church established, and the Hearings Officer recognized, that a house is allowed outright in the zone and could be as large and as tall as the proposed Church. 4 Father's House demonstrated that the proposed new Church was no bigger or taller than an agricultural building or riding arena that is allowed in the MUA zone outright. It demonstrated that the MUA zone does not limit the amount of lot coverage in the zone, and that the area to be occupied by the proposed new Church, including its parking surfaces, are completely consistent with buildings and parking that the MUA zone allows. The Church demonstrated that its parking was well within the parking provided for other uses that are allowed in the MUA zones — a school or hospital is allowed as a conditional use in the MUA zone, for example. The Church would occupy little to no more space than the equipment and/or junkyard that occupies a parcel that is just a few properties away. The Hearings Officer erred in deciding that the proposed Father's House Church creates "more disharmony than other uses allowed by right or conditionally" in the MUA zone; or put another way, he erred in deciding that the Church failed to show it would not "create more disharmony than other uses allowed by right or conditionally" in the MUA zone. 2 Hearings Officer Decision p 17-18. 3 Hearings Officer Decision p 13. Hearings Officer Decision p 18. 5 The Hearings Officer acknowledged that the Crossroads Church that the County previously had approved was 14,325 sq. ft. in size and had 134 parking spaces for a congregation composed of 200 people. Decision p 19. Page 2 of 10 2. The Hearings Officer erred in determining that Father's House Church had not complied with DCZO 18.124.060(A), as he interpreted it in the following passage: "the applicant had the burden to demonstrate reasonable efforts to consider alternatives that would better harmonize its proposal with existing residences in the area, particularly on this relatively small, flat parcel with no topographical, vegetative or other natural features to soften its impact. Cf. SP -95-60 (Applicant submitted revised site plan to address this criterion.)"6 Father's House Church in fact submitted a revised site plan demonstrating it had made reasonable efforts to consider alternatives that would "better harmonize" the Church with "existing residences in the area." The Church's revised site plan showed that the Church significantly reduced its parking from the 118 spaces it felt it needed, to 99 parking spaces, in order to mitigate impacts; it removed much of its outdoor lighting and reduced the size of all but a few light poles to small 3' `Bollard" style light fixtures, and ensured that all of the remaining light poles are outside the line of sight of any residence. The Church oriented itself to the street to avoid visual impacts. The Church installed significantly more landscaping — far more than any standard requires -- as a visual buffer. And the Church selected building materials and a design that was similar to materials used in construction of houses in the area. The Hearings Officer erred in deciding: "The applicant simply never really provided evidence or analysis demonstrating that that it had made reasonable efforts, including perhaps some trade-offs with its desires, to meet its needs the most harmonious way reasonably possible. This portion of the criterion is not met."' 3. The Hearings Officer incorrectly interpreted DCZO 18.124.060(A) to deny the proposed Church and his interpretation is contrary to ORS 215.416(8) and LUBA law, as well as ORS 215.427. DCZO 18.124.060(A) does not by its terms require the submittal of serial site plans (or serial applications) until finally a hearings officer decides, in his discretion, with no standards to guide him and no standards that advise an applicant how to comply, that the proposed use "is the lust impactful feasible proposal [that] would result in approval."8 As the Hearings Officer interpreted and applied the standard, it is so vague that the Church has no idea of how to comply in the first place or how it might go about revising its site plan or how many designs its must show it considered and rejected in order to comply. Unreasonably vague standards violate ORS 214.416(8)(a).9 Relatedly, the Hearings Officer's interpretation is contrary to the principle LUBA articulated in Renaissance Development v. City of Lake Oswego, 45 Or LUBA 312, 332 (2003): "Now that the city has rejected petitioner's approach to complying with LOC 50.16.055(3)(b), the city must provide petitioner some idea of how it might go about successfully revising 6 Hearings Officer Decision p 19. Hearings Officer Decision p 19. 8Hearings Officer Decision p 33. 'See Lee v. City of Portland, 57 Or App 798 (1982). Page 3 of 10 the RC Protection Area so that it will comply with LOC 50.16.055(3)(b). Commonwealth Properties v. Washington County, 35 Or App 387, 400, 582 P2d 1384 (1978); Salem- Keizer School Dist. 24-.I v. City of Salem, 27 Or LUBA 351, 371 (1994)." To the extent the Hearings Officer is saying that a Church applicant must submit serial modification applications to meet the standard, his interpretation is contrary to ORS 215.427 which requires an application — here for a Church -- to be capable of a final decision in 150 days. If a Church has to submit serial modifications applications in order to be approved, it is impossible for any given Church proposal to know that it can gain approval in any time period, let alone in 150 days as ORS 215.427 requires.10 4. The Hearings Officer's denial of the proposed Church on the basis of the "harmonious" standard - DCZO 18.124.060(A) — violates ORS 215.441. a. DCZO 18.124.060(A) is not a "reasonable regulation" that concerns the physical characteristics of the proposed Church, but rather is in the nature of a highly subjective neighborhood compatibility type of standard, which is prohibited by ORS 215.441. The legislative history of ORS 215.441 is consistent with and supports the plain text reading that ORS 215.441(2) limits local review of church applications to reasonable regulations that regulate the physical characteristics of the church or to ensure that public facilities and services are adequate for the church. Neither are at issue in the disputed "harmonious" standard that the Hearings Officer used to deny Father's House Church. There is no dispute that the Church proposal meets all public facilities and services requirements. The legislative history for ORS 215.441 demonstrates that the legislature's omission of any provision allowing for review of church applications for being "harmonious" with the surrounding neighborhood, or to deny an application on such grounds, was intentional. The legislature was fully aware that it was withholding that authority from local governments when it enacted ORS 215.441 because local government organizations expressly stated that adoption of the bill would deprive them of that authority. To the extent that this standard requires Churches to submit serial designs it has rejected and why it rejects them and serial site plans in a sort of pin -the -tail -on -the - donkey process, where it never can know what site plan is going to strike any particular hearings officer as sufficiently "harmonious", or requires the submittal of serial modification applications seeking to place the application pin where a Church guesses that a particular hearings officer might think best, it is not a "reasonable regulation" as required by ORS 215.441 under any understanding of that term. Compounding this problem is that each of the required serial site plans that the challenged decision says the Church is required to submit in order to comply with the standard, will also have to demonstrate compliance with all other standards, 70Such an interpretation is also contrary to ORS 215.441, RLUIPA, and the U.S. Constitution First Amendment as being decidedly unreasonable and burdensome, if not hostile, as explained below. Page 4 of 10 including, as the Hearings Officer specifically notes, DCZO 18.116.030(F)(1), which he also used to deny the proposed Church, and which similarly is vague and unclear as to how it was applied in this case. 5. DCZO 18.124.060(A) is contrary to RLUIPA. DCZO 18.124.060(A) is contrary to the federal Religious Land Uses and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) because: i. It is an unreasonable regulation, at least as how it was applied here. The Hearings Officer correctly points out that it is "'highly subjective' and difficult to apply".1 1 It is impossible for the Church to know how it would go about demonstrating compliance with this standard, as this case illustrates. The Hearings Office described the standard as follows: ""Ultimately, I think this criterion asks whether the applicant has taken sufficient steps to ensure that impacts do not create any more disharmony than other uses allowed by right or conditionally in the MUA-10 zone or the existing uses. * * * that the applicant demonstrate that it has taken reasonable and feasible steps to make the use fit into the neighborhood through design, layout, location and other factors and expressly that the applicant minimizes primarily visual impacts. [T]his criterion considers only existing development and natural features." Hearings Officer Decision p 17-18. The Hearings Officer said the "Harmonious" standard required the Church to demonstrate that the "proposal is the least impactful feasible proposal [that] would result in approval."72 In response to this standard, Father's House Church demonstrated compliance as best it could: the Church established (with evidence the Hearings Officer acknowledges) that a home that was just as tall and just as large, is a use that is permitted outright in the zone. The Church demonstrated that a riding arena or other agricultural building could be developed on the subject property that was just as large (if not larger) and just as tall. The Hearings Officer agreed the proposed Church was not a "mega -church" and is "not significantly disproportionately larger than other churches referenced in the record'13; the Church submitted a revised site plan in which it significantly reduced its parking from the 118 spaces it felt it needed, to 99 parking spaces, in order to mitigate impacts; it removed much of its outdoor lighting and reduced the size of all but a few light poles to small 3' "Bollard" style light fixtures, and ensured that all of the remaining light poles " Hearings Officer Decision p 17. 12 Hearings Officer Decision p 33. '3 Hearings Officer Decision p 13. He went so far as to point out that other Churches which the County has approved are the same size for a similar number of congregants, but with far more parking — 135 spaces for the similarly sized Church the Hearings Officer cites, compared to the 99 spaces Father's House's revised site plan showed. Decision p. 19. Page 5 of 10 are outside the line of sight of any residence. The Church oriented itself to the street to avoid visual impacts. The Church installed significantly more landscaping — far more than any standard requires -- as a visual buffer. And the Church selected building materials and a design that was similar to materials used in construction of the design of houses in the area. Yet still, that wasn't good enough. Instead, the Hearings Officer decided: "the applicant had the burden to demonstrate reasonable efforts to consider alternatives that would better harmonize its proposal with existing residences in the area, particularly on this relatively small, flat parcel with no topographical, vegetative or other natural features to soften its impact. Cf. SP -95-60 (Applicant submitted revised site plan to address this criterion.)"74 But the Church did submit a revised site plan attempting to comply and it is not evident what is wrong with that revised site plan under this standard. It is unreasonable under RLUIPA to require the Church to submit serial site plans and designs with no way to know what will be good enough. Similarly, it is unreasonable to apply a standard the compliance target for which changes based upon the subjective feelings of neighbors in a particular case. Presumably, a Church proposal that is not opposed would not have to go through the serial revision process the challenged decision contemplates, making the standard a moving target and, as such, unreasonable. The application of the "harmonious" standard is especially a very substantial burden in this case if the challenged decision means that each of the contemplated serial designs results in a "modification's of the initial application such that a Church has to start over every single time an opponent shows up and when that happens the Church must offer a new design and offer up some number of designs that it has rejected and the reasons why they are rejected, and is thereby thrown into an endless process with the 150 day processing period becoming wholly illusory. If that is what the decision decides is 14 Hearings Officer Decision p 19. 15 The Hearings Officer stated: "My site plan denial is based on failure to submit satisfactory data with the possibility that a modification or more evidence that the proposal is the least impactful feasible proposal would result in approval." Decision p 33. We hope he means that more evidence in the context of an appeal to you, the Board of Commissioners, is allowed rather than starting over with a "modification" application for each site plan revision. But we can't be sure. The DCZO describes a "Modification" as follows: "Modification of application" means the applicant's submittal of new information after an application has been deemed complete and prior to the close of the record on a pending application that would modify a development proposal by changing one or more of the following previously described components: proposed uses, operating characteristics, intensity, scale, site lay out (including but not limited to changes in setbacks, access points, building design, size or orientation, parking, traffic or pedestrian circulation plans), or landscaping in a manner that requires the application of new criteria to the proposal or that would require the findings of fact to be changed. It does not mean an applicant's submission of new evidence that merely clarifies or supports the pending application." In turn DCZO 22.20.055(B) says: "The Planning Director or Hearings Body shall not consider any evidence submitted by or on behalf of an applicant that would constitute modification of an application (as that term is defined in DCC 22.04) unless the applicant submits an application for a modification, pays all required modification fees and agrees in writing to restart the 150 -day time clock as of the date the modification is submitted. The 150- day time clock for an application, as modified, may be restarted as many tines as there are modifications." Page 6 of 10 required by the County code, then the challenged decision is unreasonable under RLUIPA on this basis as well. ii. The challenged decision is unlawful under RLUIPA because it imposes a substantial burden on the Church, without demonstrating a compelling state interest furthered by the least restrictive means, because: (1) Father's House has an undisputed, serious inadequate space issue and its lack of space to serve the religious needs of its congregation is significantly adversely affecting its ability to further its religious mission. Father's House has looked for years for other locations and the subject site is the only location available that meets its needs in the area it serves — other than one other available parcel next to the subject location which will have all the same issues.16 (2) Churches are always going to be different than residential uses in the MUA zone — by their nature they are large buildings where people assemble together to worship and will find it impossible to know how to comply with this of standard, (3) it is extremely burdensomely expensive to be required to hire architects and designers to come up with site plan after site plan hoping that one will meet this "highly subjective and difficult to apply" standard; not to mention the costs of lawyers, planners, civil and transportation engineers to evaluate and demonstrate each successive design continues to meet all other standards that also apply, and (4) the delay associated with the process that the challenged decision requires unreasonably interferes with the Church's ability to fulfill its religious mission. iii. The challenged decision is unlawful under RLUIPA's "exclusions and limits" clause because churches are not allowed outright anywhere in the County under the DCZO and, as interpreted here, the County has virtually standardless discretion to approve or deny Church proposals and as demonstrated in this case, in denying the proposed Church here. iv. For all of the above reasons that the challenged decision violates ORS 215.441 and RLUIPA, the challenged decision also violates the United States and Oregon Constitutions. The arguments above regarding ORS 215.441 and RLUIPA are incorporated herein by this reference. The right to worship according to one's conscience and to assemble together to worship is a "fundamental right" protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and by the Oregon Constitution Article 1, Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 26. The challenged decision unreasonably and impermissible interferes with these protections by subjecting Churches to a highly discretionary, difficult to apply land use standards, that one can never know how to comply with. 6. The challenged decision improperly applied DCZO 18.116.030(F)(1) to deny the proposal. The standard says: 16 There is no zone in the entire county that authorizes a Church as a use permitted outright. This is a problem under a separate RLUIPA provision discussed later in this appeal notice. Page 7 of 10 1 a D eloprn: fir E & and Writ nce Standards for S { a,f . Parking Areas. Every parcel of land h,w, f used as a public or private parking area, including c anerclal parking lots, shall be eloped as follows: 1e opt for parking toservo ,>, off r to enga than five vehicle .= .sh 1 FZ >< sc 7 by a sight curing h ate} ide+ al u =n = effectively or to .gid by landscaping or structu, This standard simply says that parking is to be "effectively screened * * * when "adjacent to residential uses." All parking areas on the Church's site plan are sited in the southern part of the property along Steven's Rd. The parking areas are not "adjacent" to any residential uses. Thus, because there is no "parking area" that is "adjacent" to any residential use, including in the "small area" that the Hearings Officer refers to, and that was the basis for his denial decision, he erred interpreting this standard as a basis for denial. The Hearings Officer also erred in that he did not explain how he, interpreted this standard and it is not clear how he interpreted the standard, other than he said that the standard meant the Church proposal would be denied. The Hearings Officer stated only: I have reservations about the hearings officer interpretation cited by staff in the footnote. It seems to me that if the provision was intended to apply to all parking areas on all parcels adjacent to residential parcels it would simply so state. It may be that it was intended to apply to parking lots near the boundary with a residential parcel, although that creates the problem of determining when it is "near" enough to mandate buffering. I do think that it relates to the location of the residence on the parcel. All parking areas are adjacent only to Stevens Rd. and the parsonage on the subject property. And regardless, all parking areas are "effectively screened" from residential uses in the area either by sheer distance or by the dense proposed landscaping or the proposed Church building itself. Here again, the challenged decision applies a standard in an unreasonable and vague way making it impossible to know how to comply. Making matters worse, in the challenged decision building upon his requirement that the Church begin submitting serial site plans for review on appeal or serial modification applications, the Hearings Officer observes that if the Church complies with his requirement that it submit various alternative designs, that such affects the Church's compliance with other standards, including DCZO 18.116.030(F)(1): "1f the applicant were to propose moving the church close to Stevens so it does not buffer the parking lot, other buffering would be necessary."' 7 Please understand the Church does not object to providing a fence or more landscaping along the "small area" to resolve the Hearings Officer's concern. But the Hearings Officer's desire for a fence or landscaping that the Church is wholeheartedly willing to provide, is not the equivalent ' 7Hearings Officer Decision p 30. Page 8 of 10 of a requirement for such fence or additional landscaping that provides a basis for denial. It is respectfully submitted that the screening of the parking areas for the proposed Church meets the requirement of DCZO 18.116.030(F)(1) and the Hearings Officer erred in deciding otherwise. 7. The denial of the Church proposal on the basis of DCZO 18.116.030(F)(1) violates ORS 215.441 because it is not a reasonable regulation, as ORS 215.441 requires. It is unreasonable because its meaning that it applies to residential uses that are not adjacent to parking areas is not evident from its express terms. Its application in this case is unreasonable because it is applies in a way that is not consistent with its express terms and in a way that is reasonably possible to know what it does mean. Rather, the application of DCZO 18.116.030(F)(1) in this case begins with the premise that more landscaping or a fence is simply desired for a small area and works backwards to find the Church's site plan violates DCZO 18.116.030(F)(1) without such fence or landscaping; without ever determining that there is a parking area adjacent to a residential use that is not screened. 8. The denial of the proposal on the basis of DCZO 18.116.030(F)(1) violates RLUIPA similarly because it not a reasonable regulation as RLUIPA requires. The arguments for why the denial under DCZO 18.116.030(F)(1) violates ORS 215.441 as an unreasonable regulation in Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by this reference. 9. The denial of the proposal on the basis of DCZO 18.116.030(F)(1), violates RLUIPA because it imposes a substantial burden on Father's House Church without demonstrating a compelling governmental interest furthered by the least restrictive means available. It imposes a substantial burden because it is unreasonably vague as explained above. Attempts to comply with this standard, when coupled with the attempts to comply with the Hearings Officer's view of the "harmonious" standard in DCZO 18.124.060(A) for additional designs and site plans and explanations of what works and what doesn't and why, means the Church is required to attempt to comply with vague standards that will create differing targets each time the Church makes any change in an effort to comply. This is a substantial financial burden and well as results in unreasonable delay in the Church's ability to resolve its serious space constraints which, as explained in the evidentiary record below, is significantly adversely affecting its religious mission. Reasons for Requesting De Novo Review The Hearings Officer's bases for denial require an evidentiary de novo hearing on appeal. The challenged decision requires the church to come up with straw men different designs and different site plans and explain why they don't work and to meet with the opponents and make design changes to the Church that the opponents want, that the Church can reasonably make and make the opponents happy and still reasonably function as the Church needs, and then to submit those revised site plans. This requires de novo review so that the Church can attempt to demonstrate compliance with DCZO 18.124.060(A) and DCZO 18.116.030(F)(1) in the way the Hearings Officer required. Page 9 of 10 The Church will meet with opponents and will do its best to demonstrate what the Hearings Officer said was needed. That is, by its nature, an exercise that requires an evidentiary, de novo, review so that the Church can explain why various designs won't work and to show at least one required alternative that it thinks will work that makes opponents happy or at least happier, and the requested fencing in the "small" area and better explain why other alternatives don't work. De Novo review will not cause the County to exceed the 1 50 -day time limit. Concerning the 150 -day issue, the Church does not understand what is meant by DCZO 22.32.027(B)(2)(d): "For the purposes of DCC 22.32.027, if an applicant is an appellant, factor DCC 22.32.027(B)(2)(a) shall not weigh against the appellant's request if the applicant has submitted with its notice of appeal written consent on a form approved by the County to restart the 150 -day time clock as of the date of the acceptance of applicant's appeal." Given that the Church has agreed to extend the 150 -day period to November 15, 2018, it appears this provision does not apply because the applicant complies with (B)(2)(a) by granting the 150 - day waiver (in an amount that, in consultation with staff, the County thought would be appropriate). If to have this appeal heard at all, The Church must allow a total restart of the 150 - day clock, it will do that; but the Church hopes that is not required to do that because such a restart would further delay the Church's ability to resolve the significant burden the church is experiencing with overcrowding. Review is not hampered by the absence of an audio recording of the hearing. An audio recording is available. Because of the nature of the Hearings Officer's decision a de novo evidentiary hearing is required because what he said was needed is an additional site plan and reasons why other site plans won't work. That is evidence that is new. De Novo review is not necessitated by the failure of the Church to present evidence that was available at the time of the Hearings Officer review. The Church did not know and could not reasonably know that the Hearings Officer would interpret DCZO 18.124.060(A) to require more site plan revisions and more reasons for the Church site being designed as it is in order to comply with DCZO 1 8.124.060(A). The Board's review is necessary to address a significant policy issue relevant to the approval of the proposed Church. The significant policy issues are the proper interpretation and application of DCZO 18.124.060(A) to a Church given ORS 215.441, RLUIPA, Constitutional protections at stake, as well as the proper interpretation and application of DCZO 18.116.030(F)(1). Thank you for your consideration of the Church's request. Page 10 of 10 Staff Memorandum Attachment 4 *** Julie Naslund et al. Appeal APPEAL APPLICATION - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FEE: 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 areas shall also be provided. 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. Appellant's Name (print): Qt,tt. A',4 �`�� t_ A t<, t � vt: .f -.E) Phone: ( ) 3 I 6G 5c" Mailing Address: 6 (. (A e; t t U,U City/State/Zip: t• ( / c7'1 L702 Land Use Application Being Appealed: 2-'i{ ' i s -(C000 6 ( - C Property Description: Township 1 Range 1 P (J `.' Section G. Tax Lot t ii O S t(_ Appellant's Signature: Date: 13 i4 (.4 . ZO BY SIGNING THIS APPLICATION AND PAYING THE APPEAL FEE, THE APPELLANT UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES THAT DESCHUTES COUNTY IS COLLECTING A DEPOSIT FOR COSTS RELATED TO, PREPARING FOR, AND CONDUCTING A PUBLIC HEARING. THE APPELLANT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTUAL COSTS OF THE HEARING PROCESS. THE AMOUNT OF ANY REFUND OR ADDITIONAL PAYMENT WILL DEPEND UPON THE ACTUAL COSTS INCURRED BY THE COUNTY IN REVIEWING THE APPEAL. Except as provided in section 22.32.024, appellant shall provide a complete transcript of any hearing appealed, from recordings provided by the Planning Division upon request (there is a $5.00 fee for each recording copy). 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. 1 1 7 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 I P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005 `; (541) 388-6575 @cdd@deschutes.org 0 www,deschutes.org/cd NOTICE QF APPEAL 1„ l e, At A `„_ 1. U J' , t ..., 4 ! \ Lb A e> 1 AA It -A I \,-U AAA (This page may be photocopied if additional space is needed.) CONDITIONAL USE APPEAL (247 -18 -000061 -CU) 1. Incorrect Interpretation and Application of DCC 18.128.015(B) The Hearings Officer's adoption of the historic interpretation of DCC 18.128.015(B) is incorrect. DCC 18.128.015(B) states that the proposed use shall be compatible with existing and projected uses on surrounding properties based on factors listed in DCC 18.128.015(A), i.e. site, design and operating characteristics of use. The historic interpretation as explained in the staff report and adopted by the HO is that "...the existing and projected 'use' on surrounding lands will be allowed to continue"; that the proposal would not "preclude or severely impact whether surrounding properties may continue to be used for their existing use". This is incorrect because it renders the intent of the ordinance meaningless. Specifically, the historic interpretation would, in essence, require the physical invasion of surrounding properties because existing and projected uses will always be able to continue unless a conditional use on the developing property encroaches to render that use impossible. For example, someone could place a 5 -story hotel on the subject property, adjacent owners, though, would be able to continue to use their property for residential purposes. This use would be incompatible in a rural area, but under the "historic" interpretation, it would be allowed. Or someone could put a sewage treatment facility on the subject property, but until waste leaks onto adjacent property (or some other physical invasion occurs), the adjacent owner will not be precluded from using his or her house. The HO's own example of a landing strip underscores how the historic interpretation fails. In Deschutes County, there are already landing strips near residential uses. This shows that there is nothing about an landing strip that necessarily precludes an adjacent residential property owner from continuing to use their property for residential purposes. Thus, under the historic interpretation, there would be no basis to deny an landing strip under this provision, despite the fact the HO assumes neighbors would be able to show an landing strip is incompatible. The bottom line is the historic interpretation renders the provision meaningless. Despite the clear intention to require combability and provide protection to existing and projected development, under the historic interpretation, no such protections exist. The hearings officer was correct when he noted the historic interpretation is "too crabbed." A proper interpretation of this criteria must consider all of the language in the code provision. In this case, as explained in Will Van Vactor's April 24, 2018, submittal, the code provision expressly requires consideration of design and operating characteristics. By requiring that the design be compatible with the surrounding uses, the express language requires consideration of whether the design is compatible with surrounding uses. In other words, since the code requires consideration of design, the decision maker must consider more than whether the proposed use will preclude adjacent existing uses from continuing. Such interpretation is consistent with Karen Green's church decision from 2000. She took into account design of the church and compared it to nearby buildings. She correctly did not consider whether the church use would "preclude" existing uses on nearby lands. The 2000 case was attached to Mr. Van Vactor's April 24, 2018, submittal. Thus, the Hearings Officer's implication that his interpretation is the only historic interpretation is not correct. In this case, as outlined in our prior submittals, the church is not compatible for the following reasons — 1. Operational characteristics and intensity of use in relation to surrounding rural residential properties. Two to three hundred people, and associated vehicle traffic, imposed upon a quiet rural neighborhood, even once a week, is not compatible. This does not take into consideration the associated activities that can be expected to occur—weddings, congregation wide meetings, youth groups and social services groups, etc. 2. Incompatibility due to size in relation to existing residential uses. The largest structure within the viewshed is 3600 SF, the average is around 2300 SF. This proposed structure would be 4 to 6 times larger than any residences in the neighborhood. 3. The structure would dominate the landscape and views due to level, open topography. There is nothing even close to this size within the viewshed and the topography would not allow it to be effectively screened in any real way. It would be the most prominent feature in the rural landscape. 4. Development would compromise the preservation of open space and rural characteristics due to scale and intensity of use. For the above reasons, we appeal the Hearings Officer's finding that the proposed use meets the conditional use criteria in DCC 18.128.015(B). 2. Violation of Due Process We also appeal the Hearings Officer's open record period re -set order as described in his Order dated May 22, 2018, and as clarified by his email to Adam Smith dated May 31, 2018. We believed, as did staff, that the Hearings Officer's order reset the open record period. See Mr. Van Vactor's May 30, 2018 email. As explained in Mr. Van Vactor's June 1, 2018 email to the Hearings Officer, we were not afforded a meaningful opportunity to be put on a fair playing field. By way of background, the reset open record period was the result of the applicant using county resources not available to the public. Specifically, the applicant had a member of the church, who happens to be a senior planner, obtain info not publicly available. As a consequence of the Hearings Officer's unclear order and staff's interpretation (which we agreed with), we were not able to fully act on County Counsel's efforts to make the process fair and we have been substantially prejudiced. Consequently, we ask the Board to deny the conditional use application and give the applicant instruction to reapply. This will afford all concerned parties a fair chance to participate in the proceeding. This document was prepared by Julie Naslund and Will Van Vactor Staff Memorandum Attachment 5 April 24, 2018 Public Hearing Transcript FN Father's House 61690 Pettigrew Road Bend, OR 97702 (541)382-1632 Pastor Randy Wills fathershouse.church August 20, 2018 Via Hand Delivery Deschutes County Commissioners Deschutes County, Or Dear Commissioners, Attached is the transcript from Father's House Church (appellant) for the Land Use Hearing on April 24, 2018. Thank you for your time and consideration. Pastor Randy Wills Lead Pastor 1 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO CS RW AR WK: JM: KK: Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer Cynthia Smidt—Associate Planner Randy Wills — Applicant Anthony Raguine Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant Jack Miller—Applicant Keith Kessler — Congregant 0:31:54.4 BP: JB: WV: JS: KR: JN: Bob Pardee — Congregant Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund John Schaeffer — Neighbor Karen Rogers — Neighbor Julie Naslund — Neighbor DO: All right, are we ready to get started? Good evening again. I'll open this second hearing for tonight. Again, my name is Dan Olsen and I'm the County's hearings officer. This hearing is for a conditional use and site plan review to establish church in a multiple -use agricultural zone, and a request for a lot of record verification. The applicant is Father's House Church of God Cleveland, Randy Wills and Jack Miller, and the staff numbers are, or the, excuse me, the case numbers are 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, and 247 -18 -000063 -LR. The hearing will proceed as follows: County staff will identify the applicable criteria, summarize the proposed request and the staff's recommendation. The applicant or applicant's representatives will then have an opportunity to testify to explain the proposal and submit any new evidence they may have. I will next call on anyone else who may be speaking in favor, then I'll hear from those who are opposed or who are uncertain or just have questions. I will then give staff an opportunity to make comments and finally hear from the applicant in final rebuttal. If you have written material to submit, please hand it to the staff either before or after you testify, and she will mark it with a case and an exhibit number and it will become part of the official record. State law provides that failure to raise an issue orally or in writing before the close of the record with enough specificity that I am able to respond to that issue may preclude you from raising that issue in a later appeal. State law also provides that failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to proposed conditions of approval with sufficient specificity to allow me to respond to that issue may preclude an action for damages in circuit court. I'll explain this more at the end of the testimony, but note that any party has the right to request a continuance of the hearing, or that the record be held open for up to seven days. If you have additional evidence to submit or need additional time to respond to evidence that's been submitted, you must do that before I close tonight's hearing. Every party of record will receive notice of the decision including an explanation of appeal rights. I have no conflicts of interest, I've had no ex parte contacts, but I did, however, there was a request in the record to do a site visit, and I did stop at the site on my way to the hearing tonight. I drove down Stevens Rd. and pulled into the property. I didn't get out and walk the property, but I observed the kind of older house there, I observed the property, and then I drove on Thunder Rd. down to the end, turned around, came back out again. Then I drove down Stevens Rd., to I think it's 27th, over to Reed Market and into town. I observed some houses in, you know, the general vicinity there, I observed the site, there's some fencing over there on one side. Not really a lot to 2 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt— Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills — Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers — Neighbor JM: JackMiller— Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant report, but I'd be happy to respond to any questions or comments regarding my site visit when you testify, if you have any. I have read all of the comments, the staff report, and the applicant's materials and all of the comments that were in the, on the website as of yesterday. My job is to apply the standards and criteria in the code and any applicable laws. I'm not a policy maker. So please address your testimony to the applicable criteria set out in the staff report or explain why you believe other criteria may apply. Note that you may submit written comments rather than testify, and I don't...can I get just a general idea of how many people might think they want to testify by raising your hands? I'm not going to hold you to this and you certainly may decide to testify later. So maybe 10 or 12? All right. I don't really see a need to set time limits as long as you're reasonable about your time right now, but I reserve the right to do so if it gets running late here. Again, please note that you may submit written comments rather than testify, and I ask that you try to avoid repetitious testimony. If your comments are similar to those of another speaker, you may simply want to state that you agree with those comments. If you do wish to speak, please come forward to the microphone, state your full name, spelling your last name, and give your complete address. If you represent a group, please state whom you're representing, and please make sure that if you haven't already signed in on the sheet, that you do so. Is there anyone who may wish to raise any procedural concerns or challenge my ability to conduct this hearing tonight? All right. Seeing none, let's have the staff report. 0:38:06.5 CS: Good evening, Cynthia Smidt with the county planning division. As indicated before this is a request for a church in the urban area reserve zone. Included in this request is a lot of record verification. The applicant in this case is Father's House Church of God Cleveland, and the address, the subject address is 21420 Stevens Rd. To my right I've provided just a basic aerial photo and map of the subject property and the surrounding area. The property's highlighted in red; it's there for reference if we need to use it. Real basic, just to set the table, the subject property is 4.98 acres in size, developed as a single-family dwelling and a shed, and then the rest is undeveloped. Stevens Rd. and Thunder Rd. abut the property to the south and the east, respectively. The surrounding area is small farm and rural areas, residential properties and urban residential properties. The city limit of Bend is approximately 1 mile to the west. The urbanize -able area zone and the urban growth boundary is located directly south of the property. As indicated, the proposal has requested a lot of record verification. Staff believes 3 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt— Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills — Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers— Neighbor JM: JackMiller— Applicant JN: JulieNaslund— Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant this has been met and not so much of an issue at tonight's hearing. The issue before the hearings officer is the new church that's proposed, a 14,560 sq. ft. church, and the conversion of the existing home to a parsonage. Notice of tonight's hearing and the subject application was mailed to surrounding property owners within 250 ft. of the subject property and to public agencies. Staff notes that in the staff report we did not receive notice or comments from the City of Bend. Earlier this week we sent out another notice to see if they had anything to say. They have not gotten back to staff yet. They indicated that they don't think they're going to have a whole lot to say, but if we do leave the record open that would allow them additional time to submit any comments. The general concerns and comments from the neighboring property owners are identified in the staff report. It's basically overall neighborhood livability, the overall size of the development, and how much it occupies the property. Traffic impacts to Stevens Rd., Thunder Rd, and nearby intersections; the operational characteristics; environmental impacts, including lighting and dark, the night sky, dark sky, that they do get out in that area. Neighbor impacts to views and open space, impacts to the general rural character, and also to property values. The applicable codes in this case are identified in the staff report, and there are several copies of the staff report on the table to the right by the entrance door. Staff recommends that the hearings officer review the issues raised in the staff report and here at this hearing. Based on the issues, staff concludes that the hearings officer should look at whether the church is compatible with the existing and projected uses on surrounding properties. Whether the site location of the proposed church is relative to the land uses in the vicinity; if the proposed church conforms with the Deschutes County road department standards for proposed access to and from the principle streets, and whether the transportation access to the site for the proposed church use will be adequate; whether the use will relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development, as well as whether the parking area effectively screened as proposed. I'm making a brief report here to allow more testimony by the applicant and the other parties. So this concludes my presentation. If you have any questions. DO: Yeah, I did have a few questions. As I understand it, there is, and the applicant is certainly welcome to speak to this as well. They're not requesting any kind of a preschool or school associated with this use. There were some concerns raised about that, and I'm wondering, if the applicant desired to put in a school, or a preschool or a school, would that be a separate application? Is that a separate conditional use? 4 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt— Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills — Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers — Neighbor JM: Jack Miller — Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant CS: If the school is not connected to the church, if it is an independent school, we would require a conditional use permit and site plan review for that, depending on, or just site plan, depending on how the zoning is with this school. DO: But if it was a church -run school or preschool, then it would be...? CS: Well, I think it would need...the way staff reviewed it is, the school is very accessory, incidental and insubordinate to the church. If the school is going to occupy more than staff has reviewed it, we would likely require a modification or a revised...modification of site plan and the approval, or if it hasn't received approval yet, a modification of the application. DO: Okay. I didn't see the transportation IGA with the City of Bend and the record. Did that...is that in the record, or is that just... CS: No, it isn't, but I don't know if the applicant is going to submit that at all, but if nobody does tonight, we can put that in there. DO: All right. And then finally, when you were giving your staff report, I thought I heard you say that this property is in the urban area reserve zone, but then you said it was, that the urban area reserve zone is directly south of the property? CS: So the zoning is urban area reserve 10, UAR 10, which is in the county jurisdiction. Across the street and actually part, and Stevens Rd. is in the urban growth boundary. Slightly different. UGB is within the city's jurisdiction. The UAR is in Deschutes County's jurisdiction. DO: All right, good. All right, thanks. That's all I had. Okay, let's hear from the applicant. 0:44:48.0 RW: My name is Randy Wills. I'm just now getting over a cold, so you'll have to excuse my voice. I'm the lead pastor of Father's House Church of God, and first of all I'd like to thank you, Mr. Olsen, for presiding over this hearing tonight. I represent a group of people that are diverse in many ways, professionals and blue-collar workers. Students and retirees, mountain bikers and couch potatoes. All from several different ethnicities. Yet we have one thing in common: we love God, we want to express our worship to Him as one body of people. Father's 5 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt— Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills - Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington —Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers— Neighbor JM: Jack Miller—Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant House is known for its friendliness, we try to serve our community in many, in as many ways as possible, including such things as purchasing warm coats and underwear for children at nearby elementary schools through family access network. Last year we built a handicap ramp at a home for a child with muscular dystrophy. And last year, when the smoke from the forest fires was polluting the air here in Bend, we opened up our church during the week for people to come into the air-conditioned space who didn't have that in their homes. We even gave wood to one of our new neighbors on Thunder Rd. One of the reasons we exist is to help our community. Or the past few years we've tried to find different solutions to our growth issues, but to no avail, until this property became available. A large percentage of our growth has been from people in our neighborhood, which makes it important to stay in the same area. This move allows us to stay close to our existing congregation, while moving even closer to many of our rural attendees. I hope that this evening we will be able to assure you that we will not be a hindrance to this area of our county, but a benefit. We plan on being a help to all of our neighbors, just as we have at our current site. Thank you again, Mr. Olsen, for your time in this matter. DO: And did you sign in? Thank you. 0:47:12.0 AR: There it is. So for the record, the name is Anthony Raguine, I reside at 21158 Desert Skies PI. Having attended Father's House for a number of years, I'm here as a friend of the church, helping to represent this particular application, and I do want to state for the record that I'm not here in my capacity which is, would be typical, as a senior planner with the county's community development department. Father's House church, the order presenters, I'm going to do a short PowerPoint talking about the project, the issue that was raised in the staff report, and then we'll have a few members from the congregation speak to the importance of the church and the importance of this particular project. We do have with us tonight Joe Bessman, our transportation engineer, who can talk to, or speak to any issues raised by the hearings officer or staff regarding transportation impacts. We also have with us tonight Wendie Kellington, our attorney, who will speak to, will loop in some other issues that we've included in our written materials. At the outset I do want to note that there was an error in the application materials where we referenced Stevens Rd. as an arterial road, and it is correctly pointed out by staff as an urban collector, so I do want to clear up that. Included with this presentation we will submit written 6 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt—Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills—Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington —Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers— Neighbor JM: Jack Miller—Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant materials which will include the PowerPoint presentation, a letter from Pastor Randy Wills, letter from Father's House addressing the issues in much more detail, including some information regarding RLUIPA and protections afforded to churches generally. Along with this we'll submit a revised site plan which will include some additional proposed landscaping. I'm going to skip over the introduction, the site, since Cindy did such a good job with that one. DO: Before you go on, I just want to make sure for the record that I received a packet from Ms. Kellington that I think has all of those materials in it, and staff has that. CS: Yeah, I was waiting for that to be my cue. DO: You want to go through those and identify them as exhibits? CS: We can do that right now, or we can do it... DO: Why don't we just do it now so when they come up we'll know what we're talking about. CS: I have the PowerPoint presentation, Exhibit A. Letter from Pastor Randy? Is that right? Exhibit B. The map, exhibit C. Thanks for your patience, everybody, as we go through this. Thanks, Wendie. RLUIPA, Exhibit 2. It's labeled Exhibit 2, but it will be our Exhibit D. Exhibit 3 is Exhibit E, and that is a Department ofJustice Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. AR: That one should be the agenda for the DSL plan amendment zone change, along with the Jacobs staff report and then the June 2007 adopted master plan for the, what amounts to the western two thirds of the DSL property. CS: Exhibit I is choosing a church or a house of worship. DO: That's Exhibit I, did you say? Or "J"? " F"? Should be Exhibit G, I think? CS: E, F, and G is the...Choosing a new church. And the new supervised site plan, their Exhibit 6 would be our Exhibit H. DO: Okay. Thank you for bearing with me. 7 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt—Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills—Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers— Neighbor JM: JackMiller—Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant CS: Yes. Oregon State Land Board, their Exhibit 7 will be our Exhibit I. DO: And I don't think I have that. Yet. So soon we'll all be getting that. Thank you. I'm challenged when it comes to keeping track of exhibits, so that was helpful for me. Okay. Go ahead. 0:52:53.3 AR: Awesome. So what is the proposal? As Cindy mentioned, it is a proposal for a church, conditional use site plan, and a lot of record for a building that would be 14,560 sq. ft. in size, with the ability to accommodate up to 325 congregants. The existing church that Father's House has can accommodate up to 225 congregants, and so we have planned for anticipated growth. The proposal also includes 118 parking spaces with associated landscaping. With regard to operations, there was some question regarding operations. Part of the desire for the church, really, is to be able to go back to a single service. Father's House church is currently at two services. And there was a question regarding school. At this point Father's House only has Sunday School, and we are not proposing a school during the week, if that's a concern either by staff or the neighbors, and to speak to that also, should Father's House get approval, I agree with County staff that a modification for approval would likely be required along with a site plan alteration application. The operating characteristics of the church include Wednesday youth group from 7-8:30 pm, along with Thursday evening worship practice from 6- 8 pm. I'm going to talk about those two evening gatherings just for a sec, because I know there was some concern regarding lighting. Our lighting for the church is only on when we're there, and so really at this point those are the only two regular gatherings for the church. Again, from Wednesday night and Thursday night. We do have some infrequent prayer nights, for example, but those are fairly infrequent. Other gatherings at the church include funerals and weddings as needed. For example, last year Father's House conducted one wedding and three funerals. We'd like for that ratio to flip, obviously. I don't think we have any control over that, but we'd like to see that change. But the point is that it's infrequent. Just to address potential traffic or other impacts, and the vast majority of our congregation is within three miles of the church, and that's part of why this particular location is important to us, because it does capture our being able to continue to serve the community that we serve today. And so this goes into why the church needs a new site. Again, we, Father's House, has looked for a number of other options, but in order to serve the community, and the community that we're currently serving, we needed to be close by. And this property just became available, and so it really was an 8 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt— Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills — Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington —Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers— Neighbor JM: Jack Miller — Applicant JN: Julie Naslund—Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant opportune moment to see if we could get this done. As I mentioned earlier, many of the members of the congregation already reside within three miles of the existing church, and as the crow flies, this new facility would be a mile from the existing church. The other reason why this church project is so important is that our current location ,as I mentioned, can accommodate approximately 225 congregants, and so what it's forced the church to do is to separate, and conduct two services on Sunday, separate out daycare, Sunday School, and it's really sort of affected our ability to come together as a family. And so one of the, really the goals, overriding goals for this project is to get back out a single service. Relieve the overcrowding for daycare and Sunday School. You know, have the ability, frankly, to have congregation -wide meals and business meetings, and those types of gatherings where we all can be together. The staff report, I think Cindy did a fantastic job with it, and she did a great job of highlighting areas for the hearings officer to focus on. One of those issues was transportation. As I've mentioned, we have Joe Bessman here. And when you look at the site traffic report and then the comments from county staff, including the senior transportation planner and the road department, no identified inadequacies or deficiencies were made apparent as a result of the project, no required road improvements were required. And as Cindy mentioned, to date the City of Bend has not submitted any comments requiring road improvement or even identifying any deficiencies on surrounding streets. There was a mention of the joint management agreement, or JMA, between the city and the county. Our materials will, as you look through them, we do quote the relevant, what we believe is the relevant section of the JMA, and our reading of the JMA is that if road improvements are required as part of this review, then those improvements must be constructed to city standard. Which makes sense when you consider that this portion of Stevens Rd along our frontage is under the jurisdiction of the city. But as I mentioned before, our traffic consultant and the county at this point, no road improvements are required, and so we would argue that the JMA is not relevant at this point. A number of issues were raised by neighbors regarding compatibility, the size of the structure, impacts to scenic views, and we go into greater detail in our written materials. We'll talk about landscaping in a second, and one thing that we did want to point out: whether it's required or not, for compatibility or otherwise, we are willing to do additional landscaping, and I'll talk about that in a moment. So what did we do for compatibility? What we decided to do was look at a one -mile radius around the subject property and identify what are the uses and structures in that one -mile radius? And do what did we find? What we found were a number of properties within that one -mile radius that have already large structures as part of their development. The first that 9 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt—Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills—Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: KarenRogers— Neighbor JM: JackMiller—Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant you see on the screen in the PowerPoint is the road department, which as several structures well over 10,000 sq. ft., the largest being 17,000 and 34,000 sq. ft. You also have the humane society within a mile, with a structure at 15,000 sq. ft. And then there are also two existing churches, first Missionary Baptist Church and the existing Father's House church, that are at 11,000 and 10,000 sq. ft. respectively. And each of those four uses that we talked about, right now, they all include significant parking areas and, particularly with the road department, outdoor storage areas. You know, the...when you look at that one -mile radius I think it's really important to note, and this is sort of the last bullet, the property identified at Ward Rd. is a privately -owned property that is developed with a riding arena at 11,000 sq. ft. in size. And though it's not identified in our map or in this slide, our written materials include a table which also bring in, at just beyond a mile at 1.2, 1.3 miles, two other privately -owned properties that are developed with farm structure, with a farm structure, and riding arena at 13,800 and 13,100 sq. ft. in size. I make that point only to point out that this surrounding area does include already Targe structures, and more to the point with regard to zoning, the farm structure, the two arenas, these are structures that are allowed outright, in this zone, without any land use approval, and there is no size limitation. So the compatibility standard in the Deschutes County code requires looking at existing uses, which this previous slide talked about. But it also requires us to look at projected uses. And so when you look at vacant properties in the rural county, as I mentioned there are already properties in the area that are developed with large structures. So it can be reasonably be assumed that vacant rural properties would also be developed in a similar way. Rural residential uses, hobby and commercial farming, along with large structures, arenas, farm structures of that type. But really the largest change to the area is going to come from the rezoning of the DSL property. As Hearings Officer Olsen is aware, having done the previous hearing, DSL owns the, what's called the Stevens Rd. tract to the south, 640 acres, the western two thirds of which has been rezoned to urbanize -able area, and is within the jurisdiction of the City of Bend. When you look at their June 2007 adopted plan, and so this is their master plan for how they envision this property to be developed, and I will note that it was developed in coordination with the City of Bend, it includes a number of uses, including a couple thousand dwellings, new schools, library, office and commercial spaces, solar generation storage facilities. And what's important about the analysis of projected use is that, with respect to the schools, public facility buildings, utility facility buildings, along with the commercial and office uses, these are all uses that likely require large structures, in fact typically require large structures, which will probably be larger than the proposed church. So this is just a, this is taken actually from the master plan itself, and it shows sort of the differentiation of where anticipated uses will go. That's been entered into the record for the 10 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt—Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills—Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers—Neighbor JM: Jack Miller — Applicant JN: Julie Naslund— Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant hearings officer's review. The staff report for the plan amendment zone change quotes from the DSL application itself, and as you read it, it talks about this particular property to the south becoming an urban center. So this is not going to be developed at a low-density scale, it's really urban density, lots of uses, with, again, and you can likely envision a large number of structures of significant size on the DSL property. I mentioned earlier landscaping. So the staff report identified the potential deficiency of landscaping, particularly with regard to screening a portion of the parking area along the accessible parking spaces from view to the north. And so when you look at that site plan, what we've offered to do, and certainly we could do more, is we've offered to increase landscaping along that section of the north property line, along with the portion of the property lines in the northwest corner of the property. Again, the purpose of this is just to provide additional buffering and screening from surrounding residential uses. To that end, the applicant proposes a conditional approval to install the landscaping per our Exhibit 6. The landscaping would be a minimum of 5 ft. in width, to include trees and shrubs and a requirement that we maintain that landscaping, really in perpetuity for as long as this use exists on the site. As I mentioned earlier, Joe Bessman, our transportation consultant is here, so he is certainly available to answer any questions. But I think the overlying theme with regard to transportation is that no deficiencies were found. In fact, the applicant worked with the county specifically to relocate an existing driveway to meet county standards for access to Stevens Rd., which was an issue raised by Cindy. We meet site distance requirements, and again, no party has, no party with authority to require improvements has suggested that improvements are necessary to any road in the vicinity of the property. And with that, I'have... Unidentified speaker: Can you go to the slide that shows the entire area, the one that, that one, go back. The one -mile, there you go, that. Just kind of tell them about that a little bit. AR: So this is, again, this is our one -mile radius search. So when you look at it you'll notice a couple things. You know, really close to the property, to the west, you have the City of Bend. So you'll have urban scale uses and density, and then as you move east and north, is really where you see the rural residential uses. And so again, the purpose of this one -mile radius was to just capture existing uses and structures in comparison to the structure that the church proposes. And with that I've, Hearings Officer Olsen, do you have any questions? Otherwise, I'll turn it over to a few of our congregants. 1:05:22.0 11 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt—Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills — Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers — Neighbor JM: JackMiller—Applicant JN: JulieNaslund— Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant DO: I am going to have some questions about the Bend IGA, the, what's that? AR: The JMA? DO: Management agreement. And so can you address those now, or we can address those when you're done with the congregants. AR: However you want to. DO: Why don't we go ahead and do that now, then? AR: Sure. 1:05:49.2 DO: The road department suggested that there be a condition that basically says "the applicants shall meet the requirements for county roads within the Bend UGB, in section 7 of the revised joint management agreement regarding the area within the Bend urban growth boundary." And my question is, I don't know whether I can condition that because I don't know what that those are clear and effective standards, I don't know if it's feasible to comply with those, with that agreement, or if there would need to be another hearing in order to determine what is required to comply with that. Because I don't have it in the record. So I'm hoping that the applicant can address that. AR: We, or staff, can certainly, county staff, can enter the JMA into the record. What I'd like to do Hearings Officer Olsen, is read from section 7 of the JMA, which we believe is the relevant section. Actually, it's 7.2. WK: Wendie Kellington for the church. It's quoted on page one of the narrative that's in your packets, so you can read along with Anthony. It's right under the PowerPoint... AR: Should be Exhibit C. Is it Exhibit C? Oh, "B." DO: All right. The one that's labeled "Father's House"? 12 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt—Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills—Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington —Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers— Neighbor JM: JackMiller—Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant WK: At the bottom. It begins at the very bottom. DO: Great, thank you. AR: And so the section 7.1 defines county roads, and then when you go down to really, and I think the operative language is in 7.2, it says "any new roads, upgrades not related to maintenance or repair, or improvements to roads, in the UA, or urbanize -able area, associated with a development application will be built to city standards or require an in lieu payment in conformance with the BDC chapter 4.7 made to the city." And so, again, the applicant's reading is that if improvements are required, then of course they need to be made, they need to be constructed to city standard. But at this point, no reviewing authority has made comment or requested, or even required, road improvements. And so for this reason, while the JMA certainly is relevant to improvement projects, in this case, no one has suggested that road improvements are required or needed. DO: So really then this condition is sort of irrelevant at this point, because no one has, so far anyway, no one has recommended any improvements. AR: My guess would be the road department included that in the case where the City of Bend would have commented requiring road improvements. DO: Okay. Great. Thank you. AR: Any other questions for me? DO: I don't think so. JM: Would you like me to be here, or? DO: Whichever you prefer. 1:09:14.1 JM: My name is Jack Miller, and I reside at 60360 Chickasaw Way, Bend, OR, 97702. I live, if you don't know where that's at, that's in Conestoga Hills, which is a few miles east of the proposed site. I think Pastor Randy has given a really good explanation of kind of the 13 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt—Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills—Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers— Neighbor JM: Jack Miller—Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant congregation makeup, but it is normal to fear what you don't know. As I was sitting here in the chair, I've been a member of the church for a little over two years. I was formerly a doctor of dentistry practicing here in Bend for almost 20 years, and due to some health issues, had to retire early, and I thought I'd just share an experience that I had at Father's House. When I first attended Father's House, Pastor Randy had never met me before. Nor had any of the congregants there except for one family. And we were going through a very difficult season and time in our life. I guess you could say I was very broken in spirit and mind, and I think the response that Pastor Randy gave to me gives a really good description of what Father's House is like as a body. You could tell I was upset and having a difficult time. He asked me if I was going to be okay, and I say "yes, I'm sure I'm going to be okay." But then the next sentence out of his mouth, I think summarizes us as a body. It was "how can we minister or serve you?" And at a time when I was at my lowest, you've no idea what that meant. He asked for my cell phone number, wanted to get together with me. We met for coffee. He asked me about my family. Very personal. And I could stand up here and literally, I'm also the associate pastor now, that's what happens if you go for two years, I guess. I could probably stand up here for a very long period of time and talk and tell you about a lot of great things, but I would say secondary to that, my body right now is broken due to some genetic health issues. When we moved to Conestoga Hills, it was literally mind blowing what had occurred in an hour and a half. In an hour and a half, the body had actually moved all of our belongings from our home, within an hour and a half, into a U -Haul, a trailer, a bunch of pickup trucks, and before 1:30 in the afternoon we were unloading at my residence, and the comments from the people who were friends that don't attend church were like, "we've never seen anything like this before." And so the reason I bring that up is our hope and our mission is to serve people. It's to love people. And we hope that we would have the opportunity to serve you, and if you'd like to come and see what we're like, we would love for you to come and attend a church service. Thank you. DO: Next. 1:13:45.6 BP: Good evening, Mr. Olsen, and Ms. Smidt, and everyone here taking time out of your lives. Thanks for being here this evening. My name is Bob Pardee. I live out in Alfalfa, at 62425 County Line Rd., on the Deschutes County side, just to be clear, Bend, Oregon, that's 97701 zip code. I've lived here in Bend for just shy of three years now. I moved up from Lakeview, Oregon, for the company that I work with now, for my job. I've been going to Father's House 14 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt— Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills — Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington —Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers— Neighbor JM: JackMiller— Applicant JN: JulieNaslund— Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant now since September of 2017, so I'm really very new to the congregation, very new to the church. When my wife Peggy and I began attending, it was on the invite of a friend of hers, and we were looking for a congregation that was not a mega church, not an impersonal body, but for family. And what we found in very short order, in our very first service that we attended, really, was family --people that are very genuine, and very sincerely caring about one another. In the time that we've been going to Father's House, we've gone from one service on Sundays to two services, and for us, being brand new in the congregation and meeting people, and just really getting involved, it's been a little disconcerting, because wow, I saw this person before, and now I don't see them because we go to a different service, and just trying to maneuver within that. And that's life for all of us, you know. It's not a show -stopper. We find other ways to communicate, just not as personally, via email or social media or hoping we bump into each other once in a while. One of the other things that we really appreciate about Father's House and something that excites us about this proposed new home for the church is the fact that it is closer to our home. I mean, yeah, it's a whole mile closer to Alfalfa, but I don't have to hit any street lights and I don't have to hit any of the city infrastructure. I can whip down Ward Rd. and Stevens, and go to church and go home, and that's very appealing to us because working in Bend and commuting five and sometimes six days a week, it's nice to shorten that and keep things close and personal for us. As a former planning commission member in Lake County, and as a former county employee down in Lake County working in the commissioner's office, I have a great deal of appreciation and respect for the conditional use permitting process, and the decisions and the thought that has to go into balancing the legal requirements and the legal opportunities with the personal and emotional thoughts that folks have. So thank you both for what you do every day, and the beatings that you take in that, without question. My experience both now and in the past is that in a conditional use permitting process, if you can have a neighbor like a church that is not an industry, that is not a manufacturing facility, that is not a retail outlet, that's a pretty good neighbor to have. And my experience, also, is that having a known entity like a church and a congregation that's a proven congregation, an established congregation, can sometimes be much more predictable and an easier neighbor to have than, you know, maybe the guy that really loves his dirt bikes and his dune buggies and wants to get them tuned up every night before he goes out on the weekend. I just hope that all the consideration and the working with neighbors is something that can bring us all together as good neighbors. Thank you. DO: Next. 15 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO CS RW AR WK: JM: KK: Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer Cynthia Smidt —Associate Planner Randy Wills—Applicant Anthony Raguine Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant Jack Miller—Applicant Keith Kessler — Congregant 1:18:27.7 BP: JB: WV: JS: KR: JN: Bob Pardee — Congregant Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund John Schaeffer — Neighbor Karen Rogers— Neighbor Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: All right. Thanks for having us up here, appreciate it very much. My name is Keith Kessler, I live at 61941 SE Lauren PI, here in town. Lived there for about five years now. So the story on myself and my family in regards to Father's House church: we moved to Bend and have been a church -going family for all of our lives, and explored churches throughout the community, and enjoyed a number of them, and found some great churches, but still never seemed quite settled on where my family should be, and where they were going to be fed spiritually, fed family -wise. So one weekend my wife said "hey, do you mind if I run down to Father's House church?" which is just down the street from where we live, about a half mile. I said "sure, go for it, give it a try, tell me what you think" and I honestly, we had come from a smaller church and I honestly didn't necessarily want to do smaller church again, just based on how small a church can be and how everybody knows what everybody's doing. And so I said "go for it, check it out, let me know how it goes." Well, she came back, just loving it, she got to meet Pastor Randy, she got to meet Sheila and a lot of the congregation, and the biggest thing that she mentioned to me was the feeling of love and family that she got, just from one service being there. So I said "okay, we can give it a try," and here we are, a little over two years later, and just absolutely loving it. My family has been fed spiritually, we are part of the family, we get to be family to newcomers as well, and we get to show the love to them as well. And one of the things I'd like to mention about this new property and this new facility that we're looking at, being a manager here at a business in Bend, I look at our business, and I look at the City of Bend as how much growth is going on. And the momentum that the city has, and the momentum that our businesses have, and how you want to capitalize on that momentum. And with Father's House church, how it's growing, and how we're seeing new faces all the time, and how it just...we need to keep moving, we need to keep growing. And I used to go to a church with another pastor who, he was a firm believer in, you've got to knock down a wall to show people that we're growing, and show people that we're excited, and show people that God is moving in our church. And I see this as, we're knocking down a wall. We're building that church and we're showing the community that we're here, and we're alive, God is working in our church, and it's an exciting place to be, and I'm happy to be a part of it, I'm excited to see what comes of it, and I share the same sentiments as the other two gentlemen that were up here --that we would love for anybody come by and join us and see what we're all about, and it is a wonderful place. So thank you very much. DO: Next. 16 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO CS RW AR WK: JM: KK: Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer Cynthia Smidt—Associate Planner Randy Wills —Applicant Anthony Raguine Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant Jack Miller—Applicant Keith Kessler — Congregant 1:21:50.8 BP: 1B: WV: JS: KR: JN: Bob Pardee — Congregant Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund John Schaeffer — Neighbor Karen Rogers — Neighbor Julie Naslund — Neighbor JB: Good evening. I'm getting over a cold as well, so please bear with me. So for the record, Joe Bessman, with Transight Consulting, traffic engineer for this project, traffic engineer for the prior project as well. So I prepared the site traffic report, which is what is required by Deschutes County code 116310. And what that is, is for a use like a church, that really has an off-peak trip profile, the requirements are pretty limited. The requirements are all really built around what happens during the peak commute hours, and you know, quite frankly, a church doesn't have a lot of impacts during those time periods. So what a church has to do is really look at the access point and the site lines. And I was out there, I stood there in the field, I measured those. They are more than adequate for the speed and the cross section of the road. Worked with the county transportation planning staff to make sure that all their concerns were met. They were, so I'm here. If you have any questions, happy to answer those. But I really appreciate county staff working with me. DO: Thank you. 1:23:09.3 WK: Good evening, Hearings Officer Olsen. Wendie Kellington, Attorney for the applicant. Thank you for considering this application. I don't need to repeat all of the wonderful things that have already been said. What I want to do is maybe kind of set the regulatory table a little bit, and maybe clarify a couple of facts. Let me start with the facts. The church's current congregation sits at about 275. We had 275 people at Easter, and when we have a current capacity of 200 in the existing church, it drives having to have these two different services, which is inconsistent with the church's mission of how it does things. It conveys the word of God in word and song, as a unified voice, and that's tough to do in two different services. They also have had some difficulties, they don't have enough room for all the kids, and so some people can't go to church if they have to bring their kids, and of course they want to bring their kids, because they can't, they don't feel there's enough room in Sunday School or the daycare for them. So it's been a significant burden on the church to not have a new site. They've had a difficult time finding a new site, they found this site, it meets their needs, and it also meets all relevant approval standards, and we respectfully request that you approve it. Now another fact I want to, I think I want to clarify is that I believe the zone is MUA 10; I don't think it's urban reserve. So we might want to just double check that, because I prepared all 17 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt—Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills—Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers — Neighbor JM: Jack Miller—Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant along, along that assumption, but that's what the staff report said, so maybe we can just kind of check in on that a little bit. CS: [inaudible] WK: All right, good, so we're MUA. DO: You're right that it's not urban reserve, because I still had that same question. WK: Okay, MUA 10. The approval of the church, because it's a cherished, protected, first amendment religious exercise, comes within the framework of the Oregon Constitution protecting religious exercises as well as the first amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as a Statute that you know very well, I know, Hearings Officer Olsen, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the land use side, we call it RLUIPA. And I have a couple of things about that statute that I want to share with you. One is a paragraph I'd like to read, a short paragraph, in the legislative history of RLUIPA, where then Senator Orrin Hatch remarked as follows, quote: "and while it seems odd that we would need legislation to protect the first freedom guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, when faced with this second best situation, we must do our best to ensure that in our communities bible study will not be zoned out of believers' own homes, to ensure that Americans' place of worship will not be zoned out of their neighborhoods, and ultimately to ensure that the founders' free exercise guarantee will demand that government will have a good reason before it prohibits a religious practice." We all know that churches are supposed to be in neighborhoods. This church is supposed to be in the neighborhood that it serves. It's supposed to be able to serve its congregation and the vast majority of its congregation is within three miles of this site. Then Professor Laycock, who wrote a thoughtful Fordham Law Review article that is attached as Exhibit 2 to our materials, poignantly pointed out two things in two short paragraphs that I'm going to read, quote. "Although many land uses face opposition, for the same reasons, churches are especially vulnerable. A new movie theatre, grocery store, or WalMart can expect at least some support from residents who expect to patronize it, be employed by it, or gain revenue from it. But the vast majority of residents know they will never attend a proposed new church. Some are already committed to another church, others have no interest in attending one at all. Thus, for most residents, any cost from the new church, however small, exceeds the expected benefit. So residents, or local officials say things like "no family wants to live near a religious temple with all the excessive crowds, traffic, and noise." What I hear from residents is they don't feel 18 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt— Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills —Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers — Neighbor JM: Jack Miller — Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant like churches are an asset to the community, and there will never be another mega church in, say, Boulder County. This Boulder County official openly stated a policy of total exclusion of an important category of churches, but the less dramatic sentiments, when generalized, also lead toward a de facto policy of deliberate exclusion. If churches are not an asset, and if nobody wants to live near them, they cannot go anywhere. The problem with Nimby objections is that everywhere is in someone's backyard. So it's telling, RLUIPA's sort of prescient, crystal ball, is telling that here just before this hearing there was a hearing on a 280 -acre segment of an entire section, a 640 -acre segment of property, subject to an intense master plan to be a complete community, complete with 2800 residential dwellings, two schools, a library, and a host of other things, including a solar generation facility. Things that have been approved for this property by the governor, the treasurer, the secretary of state, ie., the land board, in concert with the City of Bend, and for which application that you just heard, the application stated its very honest long-term goal for that DSL property, that says at this juncture DSL has no intention of actually developing this side into 10 -acre rural residential lots. DSL is committed to the urban development forms and resulting community functions and services, as illustrated in the concept master plan, which is Exhibit 4, Hearings Officer, to our submittal. That plan was developed cooperatively with the City of Bend planning staff to support the city's framework plan, similar to the benefits of previously rezoning the western portion of the State property to a rural residential designation. This request to re -designate and re -assign the comprehensive plan and zoning maps from agriculture to rural residential, and EFU to MUA 10, respectively, will allow the site to be eligible and competitive for UGB inclusion in the future, and help the site come closer to realizing its ultimate potential for urban development and community benefit. Developing the eastern portion, which is the one you just heard, as a part of a larger complete community and urban center, serving southwest Bend residents, will make efficient use of existing and planned, and adjacent nearby, urban infrastructure, public facilities, and public services. Eventual urbanization of this site will continue to further goals and opportunities to provide a mix of land uses and community facilities, parks, schools, open spaces, and other facilities, along with supporting urban infrastructure and facilities in this section and other portions of the Bend urban area. But yet, in spite of all of that, there were only two voices testifying in opposition. There weren't attorneys, there wasn't a room full of people. But one church, a fraction of that size, and consistent with other structures within the surrounding area, draws the concern of a room full of people. And that's what RLUIPA is designed to address, is to ask that the evaluation of impacts, and the evaluation of standards be based on real issues, not sort of a popularity contest, if you will. Because then churches can never be established. 19 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt—Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills—Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers — Neighbor JM: JackMiller—Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant There's another issue I just want to bring to your attention that flirts with a RLUIPA issue, and that is the way the county's code is set up for the MUA zone in 18.32.030, in sub m. It says that churches are an allowed conditional use, but they are subject to two additional standards that other semi-public, quote unquote, that's a term of our, uses are not subject to. If you read the County's definition of quote -unquote semi-public uses, it includes community centers, fraternal lodges, clubs, all of those things, and churches. But if you look at how community centers, lodges, fraternal organizations are treated, they are not put through the same panoply of onerous standards and permitting that churches are put through. And so there's a significant equal terms issue in the facial structure of the County's code. So if you compare 18.128.080, which is churches and the dissimilar uses of nursing homes, residential homes, and convalescent homes, and the first two standards that go with them that you have to look at your population growth, and the second one is a standard that I honestly can't tell you what it means, it's something about, you know, providing some connection between the church, or the facility, and the area around it, that doesn't apply to the other semi-public uses that are subject only to the next standard down, 090. So if you compare 080 and 090, you'll see that churches are subject to a dissimilar and disproportionately burdensome set of standards that I think, depending on how it's applied, causes a significant RLUIPA problem. If it does cause a significant RLUIPA problem, because I think there is a substantial burden here that the church needs to move, it's found a site, it meets the standards for the site. I think that it would be possible to use RLUIPA's safe harbor in subsection 4 to simply not apply that standard. But all of that said, usually when I, you know, run into these RLUIPA things, you really have to use it, because it feels like you're dealing with perhaps a hostile jurisdiction or something like that, and we have found nothing of the sort here. County staff has been great; they've been very helpful. I think they wrote a very thoughtful staff report. I think that the issues they punted to you were fair to punt to you, but I think that, when you consider the concerns that "oh, the church is too big," it's not too big. It's the size it needs to be to serve the religious needs of this congregation. And if you consider the compatibility of the area, my God, the area's going to be a whole city in some relatively short period of time. Exhibit 7 in your packet we gave you is the land board's consent agenda approved consent agenda, where they are starting the process of selling that section to a developer to begin the development process that I just described, so this isn't some sort of a strange intrusion on existing and projected uses. It's right in line, it serves the community around it, it meets all the standards. There shouldn't be any need for transportation conditions 20 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt—Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills—Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers — Neighbor JM: Jack Miller—Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant of approval. And I guess I ask you for the order and your approval of the application. That's it. Got any questions? DO: I do have some questions, not related to what you've just commented on, related to this landscaping plan. But I'll reserve those to whenever you're ready to address them. WK: I think we're ready. DO: You're ready? WK: Yep. 1:36:20.1 DO: Okay, I don't... is that...okay. And I'm just trying to get my head wrapped around some of the concerns that have been raised about, you know, fitting in harmoniously and so on with the nearby uses, and looking at this proposed landscaping plan, I guess there's just a couple of questions I have. One is, so as I understand, the parking is all, not all, but largely in the front of the property along Stevens Rd. AR: That's right. DO: And then you've got the structure, which is toward the back, and the east side of the property. Was there any thought given to, you know, like locating the church up in front and the parking in back? And I have no idea if that would address any of the neighbors' concerns, I'm just looking at... AR: Sure. When we evaluated the property and were going through sort of concept designs, again there are a number of constraints that we talked about in our written materials and also in the burden of proof. The existing house to the east, along with its septic system, you know, one of the first things we did is to do a septic site evaluation, knowing that there was a possibility that there were only going to be a few places where we could put a septic system. So where we were approved for the primary septic is along the west, with the only reserve area along the north. So you have sort of constraints on north, east, and west. And then you also have the required setback from the collector road, which, if we were to put the building any 21 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt—Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills—Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers — Neighbor JM: Jack Miller—Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant further towards Stevens, we would essentially cut the parking lot in half. And you'd have approximately half parking in the front and half parking in the back. And so we felt from a design standpoint we're constrained from three sides for sure, with the existing development and the septic system. Let's use the church to buffer as much of the parking lot as we can, and still preserve setbacks as much as we could, given the constraints. DO: So the drawing's fuzzy. So those two kind of lined areas are the drain field and the backup drain field. AR: Yeah, so along the west is the primary and along the north is the reserve. DO: Okay. And then the church itself, I noticed you talk about additional five -foot -wide landscapes creating along the corner there and then along the septic field. What about the actual church itself? What kind of screening or landscaping goes along the property line from the septic field off to the east behind the church? AR: At this point there is no proposed landscaping along that section of the property line. DO: Okay. WK: Leaving it in its natural condition, thinking that that's how you best respond in the standard. Right? DO: All right. Great. Thank you. WK: That said, if you wanted more landscaping, they'd plan it. You could add it as a condition. DO: I'm just making sure I understand and lay it out...[inaudible] AR: Sure. WK: Okay. No problem. Thank you. DO: So thank you. 22 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO CS RW AR WK: JM: KK: Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer Cynthia Smidt—Associate Planner Randy Wills—Applicant Anthony Raguine Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant Jack Miller—Applicant Keith Kessler — Congregant 1:39:43.8 BP: JB: WV: JS: KR: JN: Bob Pardee — Congregant Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund John Schaeffer — Neighbor Karen Rogers — Neighbor Julie Naslund — Neighbor DO: Pardon me? I have a big one in here? Okay. Ah, yes. Yes, okay, thank you. All right. Next, we'll hear from anyone who's opposed, and I know that we have counsel here for Ms. Naslund, so I'm going to go ahead and have you speak first, Mr. Van Vactor, just because sometimes that's easier to have... WV: Actually... DO: ...at this stage, unless you...Okay. WV: We've kind of talked about it, and I think I would like to go last, so I can kind of... DO: All right. Great. That's fine. So who would like to testify in opposition? 1:40:40.5 JS: I'm already signed in. Give me a minute to get my presentation ready. So my name is John Schaeffer, S -C -H -A -E -F -F -E -R. I live at 61677 Thunder Rd. So...Right up here, okay. And I think...whoops. Let me hook up so you can see what I'm seeing. But I want to start out with the fact that none of us here are opposed to a church. We're opposed to the size and the scale of the church in this neighborhood. I have no problems with churches, okay? So I want to make that clear. So I'm going to try and stick to criteria and policy if I can. Whoops. Okay. Got it. Okay. So we did request a lot of information from the church, they declined to respond until this hearing, so I'm going to have to change a few things on the fly here, and respond to a few things on the fly, because we do have more information now. But what I want to talk about is, we have three major objections to the plan development. Okay. One, we don't feel it meets county codes regarding to compatibility with existing uses in the area, because of the size and the mass of the structure, the amount of land used for the parking, additional traffic this would generate. We just feel like it's totally out of character with this neighborhood here. Second, we have not been informed of the whole scope of their operations. We did learn a few more things tonight, okay. And we have concerns about the expansion plans the church might have in the future, and some of those have been answered also, okay. 23 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt—Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills—Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington —Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers— Neighbor JM: Jack Miller — Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant But, let's start with the first objection, which is, it does not meet county codes, or at least I feel it does not meet county codes, relating to compatibility with the existing uses or the current zoning. So I'm not going to read all of the code, but some of the pieces are, says that it shall relate harmoniously to the natural environment and the existing development, minimizing visual impacts, preserving natural features, including use. Another part of the code, "shall be compatible with existing and projected uses on the surrounding properties based on operating characteristics." Okay, and that's some of the stuff we finally learned today. So this, I feel this proposed development does not meet the criteria. It is completely out of scale with this neighborhood, okay, and even the areas to the east and the west and the south. Now it was pointed out there's a few buildings that are larger, larger. Half of them are over on 27th St. Well out of the area. Okay? The zoning, MUA 10, we talked about. But some of the things for the zoning is to preserve the rural character, conserve open spaces, and protect natural and scenic resources. And we don't think this development preserves the rural character of the neighborhood. The size of the building and the parking lot, this is more like a commercial development. Does not conserve open spaces. Even the parking lot with the light poles, is really cutting into the open space that we see around us when we live out there. Okay? And it does not protect scenic resources, as the development impacts the views from the entire neighborhood and beyond. All these slides will show some of how it could negatively impact the area. So this is the aerial view here, and so you see Bend over to the west like was mentioned before, we have all of this open area out here, we have this area which will be urbanized, but the way the City of Bend goes through their planning process, that's going to be a very long time. And if you talk about the church being similar to this, it's almost like you're asking the church to become part of the UGB and to carve that out. Well, none of us in the rest of this area will have that benefit, to be able to do that type of development. And at least visually, this is definitely one of the largest developments in this area here now. Okay? This is a little closer view of what the church will look like when it's built, and I think you can easily see that, compared to the other structures in this neighborhood, much, much larger. And that's what we're really against. Not the purpose, but the size compared to the rest of what's happening out here. Okay. Now, you don't need to know all my updates. I didn't think I was online here. Okay. Now another way of just kind of comparing the scale is to look at the footprints. So what I did is I geo-referenced the site plan, brought it in attached to the tax lots, and basically, if I look at what the development is going to use, between the buildings, the parsonage, the driveway and parking, it's going to consume almost 37% of the lot. If I go and look at my property, it's fairly 24 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt—Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills—Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers — Neighbor JM: Jack Miller — Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant typical, we have a large house, we have a three -car garage, 230 ft. driveway. We're using 4.5% of that. In other words, we're keeping, what's 100 minus 4.5? We're keeping 95% as open space. Okay? So that's an eight -time differential. Now some of the properties might use a bit more space, but I can't imagine any of the properties using 6% of the space, and keeping the rest open, so that's a six -time differential. Another comparison is, I took an outline of the building, put it over my house, and my house fits easily inside just one part of the building. So we're really talking about a difference in scale. Again, we're not concerned about the purpose, it's the scale compared to what is actually out here. Now part of the zoning, MUA 10, is designed to in part to conserve open spaces and protect scenic resources. Okay? Now a major benefit of living here, and I think one of the people 1 had come in from Alfalfa said how much they appreciate open space, okay? Is this open space? We have open space and views in all directions, so I have a few shots here. So this is actually about, well, this is actually up here by the canal. So even this far, you know, you have all these open spaces in here. This is from a little bit further in, but it's still about 1,000 ft. away from where the development would be, and from all of these photos the building is going to be clearly visible. This is looking from the west and the southwest, so coming in from here, and so as soon as you turn this corner, where you're seeing a few farmhouses, now we're going to see this 30 -ft. tall structure, okay, an big open parking spot. We should just say it's out of character with the neighborhood. And this is looking towards the proposed development from the north. And again, nice open views. I can see the Paulinas back here, you know. So part of what we're looking at here, and part of what the MUA 10 is calling for, is conserving open spaces. That's what we have, that's what's in this area. Now let me go back really quick. So in this area here, we do have a little more density east of Ward Rd, but in this area, okay, except for a couple exceptions, all the properties are five -acres or greater, we don't have a chance to develop, we don't have a chance for conditional use, so it's not going to get any more dense. It's going to stay this open. Unless we have some type of large structure in the middle of this. I also did a visibility study. So my study area is about a half mile wide, east to west, a little over a mile north to south. Here's the church building, here's the parking lot, and what you're seeing here, the dark brown, those are the areas where you'll not be able to see the church roof at all. The orange in here, those are areas where you'll see at least part of the church roofline, okay. And everywhere else the church, at least the roofline, and in many cases most of the church, most of this building, will be clearly visible. So we will not have these open spaces anymore. And I only limited my visibility analysis this far. I'm sure out here, out here, out here, you know, this building is going to be visible. And I also did the same visibility analysis even for the light poles. Now, we didn't have the information, but I'm assuming the Tight poles 25 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt—Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills—Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers— Neighbor JM: Jack Miller—Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant are 10 ft. high, probably pretty standard. And I'm going to be able to see those 10 ft. tall poles anywhere inside this yellow line in here. So even if you, even just that is still going to be, you know, a visual impairment on the open space views, to have these unnatural objects sitting in here. Now this is a Google map street view of the proposed development site, and in the back you can see some structures, some trees, nice rural setting. And here's what this building would look like when it's built, okay. I can no longer see any of those structures back there, and that also means the people living in those structures don't have that view, don't have that open space. And yes, maybe in 10 years the area across is going to be urbanized, but essentially, if you're building something that big, you're asking the city to expand that into the, or expand the UGB to there. And in the meantime, you know, we have no options. Now another thing to think about is to look at how this will impact use on some of the individual properties. So in the application it stated that views of the cascade mountains will be retained from the property and surrounding properties. This is just not true. So this is Tom and Beth's property, due east of the church, gets to see Mt. Bachelor. Plus Tom works at Bachelor; maybe he doesn't need to see it. Maybe we can block it off for you, I don't know, okay? And over here we got Broken Top, South Sister in here, depending on where they are on their property they can see all of the cascades. Well, when this building is built, it's going to be sitting in here. So I estimated all these from the site lines, comparing them to adjacent buildings, the parsonage here is maybe 15 ft. high, it's one story, low slope roof. This church, this building would probably be much higher than this. I tried to be very conservative about these. Now this is the property due north of the church, and another thing that the application states is that the design of the building will allow the church to screen portions of the parking lot. I don't want to screen portions of the parking lot if that screen is a 30 ft. tall object. That defeats the purpose. I want to know about the screening for the object. Now, what they could do is they could grow 10 or 15 or 20, 30 -ft. tall ponderosas, but what that would do is that would turn their whole place into a nice dark yard, because they're losing their south sun. Okay. So the church does need the solar setbacks, but if we wanted to screen so we're not seeing this big building every time we look outside, the screening itself would defeat the purpose of, of that. You know, we would still lose that sense of open space, that views, and in this case the southern setback, which is very important in the winter here, have that nice south sun come in over here. This is looking from the northeast towards the proposed development, and as long as this tree stays healthy, they're only going to see part of the church. So maybe not doing too bad. This 26 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt—Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills—Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers — Neighbor JM: JackMiller—Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant very typical rural setting, barn, old, weathered barn wood, another barn back here, clear morning, see the Paulinas, probably see 30, 40 miles from here. And then if this is built, it's going to be sitting right there. So again, you know, we're losing all the open space. And if you go back to visibility study, it's not just the people right in this immediate neighborhood. This building is going to be visible for probably a mile or so in some places. This is open, flat land. So the second objection is that we do not have enough information concerning their operations to judge the impact. We had asked through Cynthia that the church provide us with more information about what they do. We've learned some things now, I can scratch out a few things on the slide here, okay. You know, on the website they don't list the two activities, Sunday services, a Wednesday night meeting, now we learned about Thursday night meeting. And none of these things are necessarily unreasonable at all for a church, okay. But once you start putting in language like "not limited to", we really don't know what will be happening, so we can't judge the impact the type of activities that will be here. And again, we're not talking about a church, we're talking about anything that's going to have a wide range of activities we don't know about. So we can take out the part about the preschool, that's been clarified. You said there's one wedding, you hope to have a few more weddings, a few less funerals, and that sounds good with me, but I want to know, are the weddings only the services, or are they service and reception? You have a large building now, or will have a large building. Probably get a good kitchen in there. Is this going to be a reception that lasts until 10 at night, what, we don't know. Again, all of these could be reasonable, but without knowing, without having an understanding of exactly what you want to do here, we can't make a good judgement about this. How many programs there are at night, I think that's something that's been answered. How many staff members are there on a daily basis? Do have a question about the parsonage house. Will this only be for the parson, will it be for other staff members, will it ever be used as a group home, will it be expanded? So these are all the things that we'd asked for earlier, and that we still need to know to understand the operating characteristics, to know if the operating characteristics make this proposal compatible, harmonious, with the area we're going to be in, okay. So to me, when I look at all of these things, you know, it's more like a commercial operation, you know. You have activities all through the day, maybe not all through the day, but you have some activities almost every day, sometimes at night, obviously on Sundays, okay, but we just don't know, and I think that needs to be clarified before we can understand the impact this is going to have on, not just on little Thunder Rd. neighborhood, but this whole region here. Okay? And the last thing is possible expansion. So again, some of this has been answered, but the application talks about initially accommodate 264 seats, with the ability to expand at 325, but 27 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt—Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills—Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers — Neighbor JM: JackMiller—Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant in the application it's not clear whether this expanse will be within the church, within the building, or if you're going to be building more buildings. We had some information that may not be correct, but when we looked up the size of your existing structure in Deschutes County building records it shows 2,897 -something ft., which, you know, is five -times less that what you're planning now. So, you know, I'm not against your congregation growing, but that type of increase, if that's correct, would indicate a lot of other activities that may be happening in the future that, you know, we need to know about, that needs to be part of the record, it needs to be part of the understanding of exactly how, you know, this is going to develop. So that's my presentation. We've got a couple more people that want to speak. Just set it back to the beginning here. But, basically, summary, it just does not fit with this neighborhood. It's way out of scale from if you look at all the other houses in here, it's just completely out of scale. It loses the open spaces that are part of being here, of why we all bought 10, 20, 30 years ago in this area. And again, you brought up the fact that this will be urbanized, and maybe that's where something this size would belong, over here. Any questions for me? DO: I don't think so, but I did make some notes that are probably, I'm going to probably want the applicant to address, basically. JS: Okay. DO: Thank you. JS: Julie, you want to...? CS: [inaudible] DO: Yes, that's just what I was going to... 2:00:53.2 CS: So, Exhibit J is the PowerPoint presentation. Exhibit K is the letter by James and Janet Lake. And Exhibit L is letter by Patty Bailey. Unidentified speaker: I wasn't going to speak up, but... 28 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt—Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills—Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers— Neighbor JM: Jack Miller—Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant DO: That's fine. All right, go ahead, ma'am. 2:01:13.9 KR: My name is Karen Rogers, R -O -G -E -R -S, I reside at 61662 Thunder Rd, down the street. I have a letter here from my husband unfortunately he's out of town and he wasn't able to be here tonight, and I know that he's very sorry. He writes pretty formally, so originally I was going to stand here and read it to you, but I think I will just...it doesn't say anything new, because John did such a thorough job of talking about our concerns, which are scale, the view shed, possibly traffic, just negatively impacting the properties that we all bought when we bought. And have maintained this, these five -acre lots, you know, we were, for whatever reason, excluded from the UGB, and I know that's not what this meeting is about, but, you know, that has its pros and cons, of course. Development, non -development, and so okay, it's not development, we've all sort of made our peace with that. But it doesn't seem like this decision would be consistent with the fact that the rest of us cannot do anything other than our one house on our five -acres. I love my five -acres, it's fantastic, and I just feel like it should be consistent in the neighborhood. So that's mine, and then I would like to submit this letter from my husband into the record, please. CS: [inaudible] ...with an "M". DO: "M"? KR: Gary Rogers. DO: All right, next. 2:03:02.9 JN: Good evening. My name is Julie Naslund, that is N -A -S -L -U -N -D. I live at 61645 Thunder Rd, 97702. I'm kind of in a quandary because I have two documents here, and one is more facts and figures, and one is more intangibles. I think John has done a really fabulous job with the facts and figures, I have a little more detail in here, but I think I'll just present that to you, and just read a brief thing that I wrote that's about kind of the things we can't exact name. 29 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt —Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills—Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers— Neighbor JM: JackMiller—Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant I live with my family directly north of the subject property. I have submitted a letter and numerous other documents to the file. I want to talk a little bit about those intangible things that I'm concerned with. They might not be able to be codified, they might not be measurable, they might not be even something that a decision can be based on, but I don't believe that means they are any less important. I'm talking about things like dark skies, open space, the ability to connect with the landscape, and our community, our small community there. These things anchor us, they sustain us. I think of these intangibles like I think of dark matter, that mysterious, frictionless substance, which physicists believe holds the physical universe together. We all chose to live in this area because these intangibles are important to us, because we want a quieter, more rural place to call home. We love that feeling we get when we turn onto Stevens Rd. and the stresses fall away as the landscape opens. To imagine coming up against a 14,560 sq. ft. structure, with parking for 800 and, 118 vehicles, as I round the corner toward home, is unfathomable. It would completely alter that sense of openness that is so important to us, that gives the area its rural character. Our views would be diminished; some neighbors would completely lose their cascade views, some would lose the views of Paulina Peak, all views would be impacted by such a massive structure, and views don't only exist in daylight. I tried to imagine that void in my front yard when I step outside at night and see the bulk of the building instead of the evening and part of the night sky. I try to imagine a grid of lights intruding on a previously dark space. The lighting might meet code, it might not be allowed to fall on neighboring properties, it might be cast downward, but it would still present a field of light in an otherwise dark night. It's unacceptable to me. We are a community here, all of us. If my neighbors would mind, would stand for me, I'd really appreciate it. We don't have barbeques and gatherings, but we look out for each other. We recognize everyone's kids and cars; we know the names of all the neighbor dogs; people jump in when the need arises; I get my eggs from Jill; Carmen waters my garden when I'm out of town; when the road becomes impassable because of snow or ruts, you look out there and there's Jim with his tractor, or a pickup with a bed full of gravel and a shovel, and he's fixing the road for us all. This is who we are. I urge you to consider carefully what stands to be lost. Just because it isn't measurable, doesn't mean it isn't real. Thank you for your time and attention. DO: Thank you. [cross talk regarding adapters 2:07:04.6 - 2:08:38.1] 2:08:45.5 30 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO CS RW AR WK: JM: KK: Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer Cynthia Smidt— Associate Planner Randy Wills — Applicant Anthony Raguine Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant Jack Miller — Applicant Keith Kessler — Congregant BP: JB: WV: JS: KR: JN: Bob Pardee — Congregant Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund John Schaeffer — Neighbor Karen Rogers — Neighbor Julie Naslund — Neighbor DO: Just a second here; I want to get these exhibits. Unidentified speaker: No worries. DO: Two letters, what, are they numbered, lettered? CS: The third one is going to be "N". DO: "N"? All right. CS: And the other one "0". DO: So one's a letter from Julie Naslund, it's "N", and letter from Julie Naslund and family is "0". All right. WV: Thank you, Mr. Olsen. I appreciate you coming all the way over from Portland to hear this matter. For the record, my name is Will Van Vactor, and I represent Julie Naslund, who we just heard testify. She noted she owns the property immediately north. The subject property [inaudible] is right here. My comments tonight will be very brief. I received a lot of information from the applicant this evening and I can't meaningfully review that and respond to it this evening, so I'm just going to keep my comments focused on a couple of criteria. In particular, I'm going to focus on site plan review criteria. It's DCC 18.124.060, and it requires that approval of a site plan be based on the following criteria: "A proposed development shall relate harmoniously to the natural environment and the existing development, minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features, including views and topographical features." Couple things I want to note, as I listened to the applicant make their presentation this evening, I didn't hear them mention the word harmoniously, and 1 may have missed it, I know that talked about compatible, which goes to a separate criteria. But I didn't hear them mention the word harmoniously, and I think there's a reason for that. It's hard to explain how this proposal is harmonious with the rural residential area. We're talking about a number of rural residential dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. All of them have houses that are approximately 2,000 sq. ft., they may have some small farm buildings, but they don't...there isn't a single building within that area that is anywhere close in scale to the proposed church building. And I want to point something out here. The applicant submitted a map showing a one -mile radius. There's no definition of the area that needs to be examined, but the staff 31 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: Speakers: DO CS RW AR WK: JM: KK: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer Cynthia Smidt —Associate Planner Randy Wills—Applicant Anthony Raguine Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant Jack Miller—Applicant Keith Kessler — Congregant BP: JB: WV: JS: KR: JN: Bob Pardee — Congregant Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund John Schaeffer — Neighbor Karen Rogers — Neighbor Julie Naslund — Neighbor provided this great map here this evening, and all of these buildings that they cite as being large buildings on their one -mile radius map, none of them are on this map. This whole area there isn't a single building anywhere close that they could find that would be similar to what is proposed. I also want to point out we heard a lot of talk from the applicant today about the hearing you heard before, the zone change and comprehensive plan map amendment. And I think it's appropriate to consider that, when you're considering the conditional use criteria that I'll get to in a minute, but when you look at this language there isn't anything in there that say anything about projected use. It says "existing development." That's the focus. And I think if you look at existing development, what you see, you see rural residential development, it's all five -acres, all zoned MUA. You see ESU 40 -acre plot further to the east, more ESU to the north, a huge irrigation canal, and then you have residential use. You don't have commercial use, industrial use, there isn't another large church on this map. I don't see any other large uses on that map, anything that would compare to what is proposed today. I get into some more detail in my written submittal, and I guess just for the record, I see it sitting there in front of Cynthia, I didn't submit a letter today with a few exhibits, and I explain in much more detail why this proposed use is not harmonious with existing development under this approval criteria. For the sake of keeping my comments short, I'm not going to continue examining all the, the number of ways the proposal is not harmonious, except I do want to cite, or note that, in my written submittal, 1 included a decision from a hearings officer from 2000, Karen Green was the hearings officer. She was examining a similarly sized church in the MUA zone, and she ultimately concluded that it was harmonious. The reason 1 included her decision is because I think that her analysis is spot on. The reason that that church was harmonious, is because it was at the intersection of Highway 20 and the old Bend -Redmond highway. We're talking about two big roads. She also noted that it was down in a hole. If you noticed during Mr. Schaeffer's presentation earlier, the proposed church will be visible for, I don't know the exact radius that he was discussing, but it would be visible for, I won't say "miles," but for a long ways. In other words, the church that she ultimately approved and found to be harmonious was very different. It was located on Highway 20, which is a high use, high intensity area, and what we have here is a rural residential area, and a quiet setting. She has some additional analysis in her decision regarding the harmonious criteria that I would encourage you to take a look at, because I think it underscores why this case is not harmonious. Next, I just briefly want to touch on the conditional use criteria that is related, it's the compatible standard that is found at 18.128.015, and specifically I have sub A up here now, just because it includes the factors that we need to consider, but our concern is with the subsection 32 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt—Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills—Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers — Neighbor JM: Jack Miller—Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant B of this section, which says that the proposed use shall be compatible with existing and projected uses on surrounding properties based on the factors listed in that preceding subsection. I think it's appropriate, I think compatible more or less means the same thing as harmonious, I think for the same reasons this project is not harmonious, or, yeah, is not harmonious. It also is not compatible. Once difference, as I noted previously, is this one does take into account projected uses, so it may be appropriate for this criteria to consider those projected uses, but it's not for the site plan review criteria. Regardless, I think, as the graphics that Mr. Schaeffer had, showed the church is huge in comparison to the existing development in the area. It'll increase traffic, noise, everything, and I don't think you can reasonable say that it's consistent with the rural residential setting that exists in the neighborhood. To the extent the future area gets built out, again, my understanding, and I didn't follow it completely, was that will mostly be residential use, again, residential use is more similar to what is existing in the area already. It doesn't include right next to the rural residential setting, as far as I know, a plan for any sort of large development, as least at this time. So, moving on. This is all stuff that Mr. Schaeffer talked about, but the subject site is flat, so there's no natural buffering; the church is five to seven times as large as most of the residential dwellings in the area, unless you also add in the small farm buildings that some of the properties have, so maybe closer to five times; lot coverage is at least 36%, with the typical lot coverage for the rural residential development that already exists being closer to 2%; and as I've noted before, the church is a high-intensity use compared to what exists there today. The applicant brought up RLUIPA today, I make a note in it, in my writ...about it in my written submittal, there's a case I think you should read from the Oregon Supreme Court regarding a very similar case out of West Linn that had to do with the LDS church that had very similar needs to what we heard about today, and ultimately what happened, and I'll just summarize it, was the local government denied the request for a church based on design standards like we're contending here today. And the church challenged that under RLUIPA and ultimately the Oregon Supreme Court held that the local government's decision was proper. In part because, and I include some additional analysis regarding this in my written submittal, but in part because the local government had suggested to the church what it could do to make it so it could meet the design criteria and getting to the fact, or getting back to what Mr. Schaeffer said when he began his presentation, as far as 1 know, none of the neighbors are against a church on that property. They have serious concerns, as you heard from Ms. Naslund and Mr. Schaeffer, about the scale of the proposal. And that is why we're focused on the harmonious criteria that apply to the site plan reviews. 33 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt— Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills — Applicant WV: William Van Vactor—Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers— Neighbor JM: Jack Miller — Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant I guess in summary to that point, I want to read something that's already in the record from one of the neighbors, Jill Harrell, she wrote "when I first heard about the project, I was excited that Father's House church was growing and building their dream so close to my house. I expected a rustic, rural church moving in, providing much needed social services to our community. I was shocked to see the plans included a proposal to build a 15,000 sq. ft., 25 -ft. - high building and a large parking area, with twelve Tight posts, encompassing almost the entire five acres." That gets to the point that Ms. Naslund and I am trying to make, that the multiple use agricultural zone and the site plan criteria, they, and the conditional use criteria, for that matter, don't just allow a church on any property just because a condition use, or the zoning ordinance says it's permitted as a conditional use. We have site plan review criteria and conditional use criteria that look at that use to make sure it's consistent with the zoning, in this case, make sure it's harmonious with the surrounding development. And in that regard, a rustic rural church would meet that criteria, but we're dealing with an MUA zone where a 15,000 sq. ft. building that's closer to 30 -ft. -high is not harmonious with the surrounding area. And with that, that kind of summarizes our argument. Again, it's laid out in my written submittal, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. DO: Great, thank you very much. Does anyone else wish to speak in opposition, or maybe has a comment or a question they'd like to make? All right, does staff have any comments? 2:22:23.0 CS: For the record, I misspoke. The zoning of the property is multiple use agriculture, not UAR 10. It's been a long day. I was going to comment, there was a question, and I know the applicant can respond to this as well, that there was concern about other uses of the parsonage. If they, if the applicant were to change the use, similar to if they were to add more school operations, it would require some kind of modification or new condition use permit or site plan review, so. And then if they were to expand the footprint of the church, it would also require another land use application for review. I just wanted to clarify that. And then other than that, I don't have anything right now. DO: I have a couple questions, and it may be in the staff report and I've just forgotten, but the parking that's being proposed, is that the minimum required, is it, does it exceed the standard, what's? 34 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt—Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills—Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers — Neighbor JM: Jack Miller—Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant CS: It exceeds the standard. DO: By how much? CS: If I'm going off memory, I think it was required to have 82, I don't have the staff report in front of me, and they were proposing over 100, like, over 110, 112, possibly. So it exceeds the requirement. DO: And the lighting. Is there, are there standards as to the type of lighting that's required? CS: We have an outdoor lighting ordinance, so a dark sky lighting ordinance, so they would be subject to that, and then there is a site plan criteria that it cannot project off site if it's adjacent residential properties. DO: But nothing, for example, I'm thinking, for example, I handled the Mazamas case, and we talked about lights that were low to the ground, rather than on poles. There's no standard in that regard? CS: It's not required for lighting, it's what, I think it's assumed that lighting may occur for safety purposes, but I'm not thinking of anything in particular that requires it to be either way. That they would just be subject to the lighting ordinance. DO: All right, great, thank you. CS: Thank you. DO: All right, does the applicant have anything? 2:25:16.3 DO: Oh let me, excuse me, before you get started, Ms. Kellington. The letter from Mr. Van Vactor. CS: Exhibit P, as in "Peter" 35 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO CS RW AR WK: JM: KK: Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer Cynthia Smidt—Associate Planner Randy Wills—Applicant Anthony Raguine Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant Jack Miller — Applicant Keith Kessler — Congregant DO: "P" as in "Peter", okay. v 2:25:48.1 BP: JB: WV: JS: KR: JN: Bob Pardee — Congregant Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund John Schaeffer — Neighbor Karen Rogers — Neighbor Julie Naslund — Neighbor WK: Thank you Mr. Hearings officer, Wendie Kellington, representing the applicant. Because new material has been submitted, we request the open record period and the applicant's final word in a final written argument, and I'm sure we'll be talking about that at the end, but I want to make sure I say that before I forget. Maybe starting from the back first, I just want to make sure that you understand this case is nothing like Corporation of the Presiding Bishop; I represented the Beckett Fund the Amicus. In that case. In that case there's two very important distinctions. One is that there the city's decision was a denial, but it required the submittal of a new application with certain features in order to gain approval, and the other thing is, and I'll quote from the Oregon Supreme quote, Court, from that opinion. "There is no evidence in the record that suggests that the crowded conditions at the meeting house have forced the church to turn away anyone who wished to attend church, or to eliminate or reduce church activities." And we don't have that here. We have evidence in the record that the church has been forced to reduce church activities. It's not able to accommodate all of the children that it needs to accommodate, people have not attended church because there isn't the ability to accommodate their children, and they haven't been able to have congregation -wide meals, they haven't been able to have the congregation -wide business meetings, they haven't been able to have congregation -wide services, which is important to their particular religious mission, because, again, the way they do what they do is they find God in word and song as a unified whole. So this case is nothing like that one. Sort of generally I want to point out for the hearings office that the, you know, the standards, there are a variety of standards, and I think counsel for the opponents has conceded that they all kind of say the same thing, even those he chided us, I guess, for using the word "compatibility" when he thought "harmonious" was a better word, but then he conceded that they really were the same thing. I think he's probably right, to the extent that we didn't use the word "harmonious", we're using it now. The church meets whatever the standard is, whether it's compatibility or harmony or not having more than...or to minimize impacts on views. It's unreasonable for any property owner to assume that a structure that is no taller than an allowed outright dwelling — which is what this church is; it's no taller than a dwelling, which is allowed outright —to assume that a dwelling that's allowed outright somehow can't be approved because it has an impact on somebody's view of the mountains, well, any permitted 36 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt— Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills—Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers— Neighbor JM: Jack Miller — Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant use would have the equivalent of, you said, impact in terms of, you know, blocking a view, of some views somebody wants. I also pointed out that the county's code specifically authorizes in this zone agricultural buildings. There's nothing that prevents, and in fact, within the one -mile radius area, which was surrounding properties, which means I think reasonable read a mile around, there's a horse, there's a horse riding arena that's just as big, and probably a whole lot taller than what we're talking about here. So in the circumstances here, the allowed uses can be just as tall if not taller. There's nothing magically sinister or nefarious about a church, and again, the standard for views is minimizing impacts. This is a design review standard, and the church has done everything it can to minimize its impact as was described. You know, there's only a certain amount of building area where it can construct. It's done its best, it can, but it needs the size of a building that it is proposing in order to accommodate its congregation, and I don't think that the county wants to be of course in the job of limiting congregation sizes. I also note that the zoning district authorizes as an outright permitted use agricultural uses in the zone, and again, agricultural use, as defined in the code, includes the preparation and storage of agricultural products and, of course, that can allow very large buildings, as I know you've seen. And there are a lot of very large buildings. So again, I think it is not a basis to deny the church to say that its structure is somehow not harmonious or not compatible with the area, its size is what it needs to be. Its size is consistent with other uses that could be allowed in the zoning district outright without going through this kind of a process, and in fact is consistent in size with other buildings within the one -mile radius area, and more importantly, a church is consistent with, and a type of, extension of a residential use. It is not a commercial use, it's a spiritual use. It's its own kind of thing that is situated and as Senator Hatch stated, and Professor Laycock stated, it's the kind of thing that is supposed to be in residential communities, nearby a congregation, so that people can conveniently go to the church and have...and to be, as one of the members said, filled up. The church is inherently compatible with residential uses. Not wanting to look at a church, just because it's a church, is not a basis to deny a church. I think that's probably fairly well established under RLUIPA. And so if we couldn't object to a barn or a dwelling or a horse arena, or some other large, a pot warehouse, a marijuana warehouse, for example, would be just fine. If you can't object to that, you certainly couldn't object to a church. We will provide more operational details about what we do, but of course, a church, as you heard it, has to grow and kind of be fluid, and if in its growth it requires additional land use approval, it will get that. But I think we've provided a pretty good understanding of what the church does and it's pretty normative. You know there's an Oregon statute that I know you know about, in 215, I believe 411, that says the counties, if you 37 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt—Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills—Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers — Neighbor JM: JackMiller—Applicant JN: JulieNaslund— Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant allow residential uses you have to allow churches, and you have to allow churches to have a certain suite of uses, and everything that goes on here is within the statutory suite of uses. Or, 441, I'm sorry, 215.441. I think there might've either been a mistake or a misreading of the standards by counsel for the opponent. I think he said that there's nothing in the standard that says that you look to projected uses, and that's incorrect. If you read the standard, 18.128.015b, it specifically says that you are to look at the compatibility between existing and projected uses, according to those three factors. So he must've just missed that. So in any case, I don't really have anything more, other than, I think you know, in the written materials we'll kind of fill the gaps and probably bury you with paper, and we'll probably cut down a forest to do it. But the bottom line is that this church has met all approval standards. IT should be approved, it's a good neighbor, it's a kind of use that's contemplated in this and any other zone that allows residential uses. There's nothing particularly unusual about it or that would require denial, and we ask for your approval. Thank you. AR: For the record, Anthony Raguine again. Just want to make two comments. First is just to echo really what Cynthia said earlier, in that, you know, expansion of the church structurally, additional uses, for example, if the church contemplated, and not that we re, but if the church contemplated doing a school during the week, it would require additional land use review. OF that I think it's pretty clear, so I just wanted to echo Cindy's comments on that. And then there was a question by Mr. Schaeffer regarding, you know, we have in our application total congregant size 325. That would all be accommodated within the proposed structure, so it would not require any additional structural, any structural additions to the proposed building, it would all be accommodated really within the walls of the church that's being proposed, just to clarify. WK: Last thing, lighting. I think we said this, but we're only going to light the parking lot and that area around the church when we're using it. So mostly it's going to be off in the night, and because, you know, the church is done after Sunday services and there are a couple of meetings during the evening, but, you know, they finish up. I think the latest one is, what, nine, Pastor? RW: Eight. 8:00. WK: Eight. 8:00 is the latest one, so there's not going to be a lot of light. 38 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt— Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills —Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers — Neighbor JM: Jack Miller — Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant DO: Okay, I did have a couple questions relating to Mr. Schaeffer's slide 17. And again, some of this may be already in the record, and I looked at it WK: So we don't have his PowerPoint, so I don't know which one that is. DO: I'm sorry. Well, I'll go through it for you. WK: Okay. DO: And some of it may already be answered in the record, not that I've seen, I'm not remembering right now. So it says the proposed church will initially accommodate 264 seats, with the ability to expand to 325, and he asks if that is all within the proposed building, and you've addressed that. And I guess, what is the existing congregation size, roughly? WK: 275 people were there at Easter. And so that's the high, and it kind of fluctuates within that, but it's never been higher. DO: And then the, it says the size of the proposed church building is 500% larger than the current building, and I know Mr. Schaeffer indicated that it may not be correct because of the building records. Five times bigger, is that correct, or not correct? AR: The current church building is about 10,00 sq. ft. DO: Okay. AR: The foot... JS: And I really didn't know that. The county building department records from 2018. It only lists the basement, something else, that comes up to... WK: 11,000 square feet. AR: And we can address that in our written submittal. DO: Yeah, that'll be something you'll need to address. And then, and again, you can address this in the open record period, but I'm wondering about the difference between 82 spaces 39 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: Speakers: DO CS RW AR WK: JM: KK: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer Cynthia Smidt —Associate Planner Randy Wills — Applicant Anthony Raguine Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant Jack Miller—Applicant Keith Kessler — Congregant BP: JB: WV: JS: KR: JN: Bob Pardee — Congregant Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund John Schaeffer — Neighbor Karen Rogers — Neighbor Julie Naslund — Neighbor required in the code, and is it 118 proposed? 118 proposed. And I think I also mentioned about the lighting, you know, are there alternatives that aren't on poles, and I want to make it clear I'm asking these questions to...so I have all the information that I need. I don't want anybody to get the idea that I have even close to making a decision as to whether they've met the criteria or not, because I'm not. I'm just trying to, you know, take a look at some of the issues that you've raised, and that have been raised, questions in my mind, and highlight those. So all right. AR: So something that wasn't added into our original submittal is Pastor Randy Wills' letter. So that's also been entered into the record. I think we gave you, we gave you a copy? Okay. CS: [inaudible] ...I did mention was a letter by Pastor Randy, but that would be, that will be re- classified as a letter by Father's House, and then I labeled this latest letter as Exhibit Q which is the actual letter from Pastor Randy. DO: Okay. WK: It was his testimony. I just had him put it in the statement he read. DO: All right, okay, great. WK: So I want to clarify a question you had earlier. Related to this slide 17, which isn't in front of me. You said that the slide says that initially the anticipated capacity is 264, when the building is built, it'll accommodate 325. DO: Okay. WV: Mr. Olsen, can I just make one clarifying comment that I hope clarifies something she said, Ms. Kellington said? DO: Sure. WV: Shouldn't require any rebuttal, just want to make this point, because it's really important. DO: State your name, for the record. 40 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt—Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills—Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington —Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers— Neighbor JM: Jack Miller—Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant WV: For the record, my name is Will Van Vactor. She indicated that she thought she heard me say that DCC 18.128.015 does not include a look at projected uses. I read off my slide and I'll get those to you for the record, but it does. That provision definitely allows you to look at projected uses. What does not let you look at projected uses is DCC 18.124.060a, and that gets to my point about there being...it's a different criteria that needs to be examined. DO: Two different standards here, and one of the issues would be whether they really need anything differently, different or not. WV: Okay. WK: Thank you very much. DO: Well, all right. So, now, let me, let me explain this kind of where we're at here. And I'll go through this, try to go through this carefully for everybody. The lawyers have been through it enough times to understand it, but it is, can be a little confusing. We've had a request from the applicant to continue this matter, to keep the record open, and that does a couple things. One, it tolls the time for making a decision, and I don't recall how much, where we're at on that clock, but it, meaning State law requires that decision be made within 150 days, and the request from the applicant to keep the record open will toll that period of time for a while. And I have received your request to keep the record open, and I have the option of doing one of two things. I can continue this hearing to a time and date certain at least five days from now, in which case we would all meet together and continue the hearing, or I may keep the record open for at least seven days, and that's the option that is almost always chosen, and is the one I'm going to choose tonight. And that means that -- WV: Mr. Olsen, can I request that you do longer than seven? DO: Yeah, and I'll do that, I just want to explain to everybody. Basically what this means is that the record will be kept open for at least seven days, and we'll set the time, and anyone may submit anything you want that you think is relevant to the decision. Then that period will close and there will be a second period where you may submit anything you want that's relevant, or that responds to material that was submitted during the first open period. And then finally that will close and the applicant has the option of the last word in rebuttal but no new evidence. So we kind of call up the seven, seven, and seven rule, but then the question becomes how long 41 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt—Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills—Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers— Neighbor JM: Jack Miller—Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant people would like to have, and I'd first like to hear from the applicants, since they made the request. WK: I'm just seeing how much time sensitivity there was. They have a lot of time sensitivity, and I really think it should be the fourteen, fourteen, fourteen rule, so I think fourteen... DO: Does that work for you? WV: I was going to ask for fourteen as well. WK: And with the deal that you and I exchange emails when we send them off to the county. WV: Sure, I think we can. WK: Okay, good deal. WV: For the record, there was a handshake. DO: Okay, so let me pull my calendar up here, and this isn't just for the lawyers, this is for anybody. May 8? [inaudible] CS: Fourteen would be May 22, and then June 5? DO: May 8 and two weeks is the 22nd, and two weeks is June 5. So here's the deal: the record is kept open until close of business, five o' clock, on May 8 for any new evidence, comments, whatever you want to submit that you believe is relevant to the approval criteria. Then that period will close and the record will be open for rebuttal to those submittals during the first two week period. So not new, brand new things, testimony or evidence that rebuts what was submitted during the first period. And that will close at five o'clock on the 22nd. And then finally the applicant will have until five o'clock June 5 to submit final rebuttal but no new evidence. And I want to emphasize that it has to be physically received by the planning department by the five o'clock deadline, and had a recent case for Deschutes County not too long ago where it was like, five to five, they sent their email, and there was some kind of a 42 Date: April 24, 2018 File Nos.: 247 -18 -00061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP & 247 -18 -000063 -LR Speakers: DO Dan Olsen — Hearings Officer BP: Bob Pardee — Congregant CS Cynthia Smidt— Associate Planner JB: Joe Bessman —Traffic Engineer RW Randy Wills — Applicant WV: William Van Vactor — Counsel for Naslund AR Anthony Raguine JS: John Schaeffer — Neighbor WK: Wendie Kellington — Counsel for Applicant KR: Karen Rogers— Neighbor JM: Jack Miller — Applicant JN: Julie Naslund — Neighbor KK: Keith Kessler — Congregant hiccup in the email system and the county's email system didn't get it until five ten, or whatever it was. AR: Five nineteen. DO: And that did not go into the record. WK: Oh wow. DO: So, you know, give yourself a little grace period, because the deadline is the deadline. Great, anything else before we go? Thank you very much. I appreciate everyone's testimony, and we'll go from here. Thank you. 43 in r.J Q 1 Pt -IM GW6 11-697 1-17-18 I - KEWPA71-6k'5POtacruzcH 1 ;PR 007:Lz 330,. cc7; R3a' 03.0 a° 0 03.0 0 0.6,60 8'0,3 '00 1190 go3; 41,4 00m 00, 69Z 91.0E o Stcr;f TV', V T. ;5; q-9, lip ni 5-q;61110 8V) ° CO a 6' W 1" o6 .92Sh 1 al Otqg 41-2 i.on 6 5c, t.5.'W •.-9 2V 3 ;3 c(I1 4(115. 6 r cla -51" SR PIN hl ilq ,),. 03 6p, ?.: aoraPM A n .023 1 . 21 • ,Ko- IN .,,6i,, ()•5:m a — ii VoT:' [lz 0 Wa-(i, 1. I 0 ii liT IV 6560"D P21 0 :i: 3e aa MPI i.% (Dit' iil Vo oo 60 °goal 5 !.. -- P2-00 Me 5J1 00 a te0 9.2,0,- a il,=''th .a.0E-0Eq c TWo $-°. .11V (35i !.E ;24: /1q - ao .› m R301 qg °o;., ht Egv45 filliN :` , (1) 1W5 1!1! OA 51 .09, ja5 g!a 4 - D -e6 E _ 1 3igt wi6T.3 1JE ea ak 0 -c -c co Wo3 i724 riWii 2 (I3,5a ?,35' - Ug, 0 v5 018 132 cla 3 Oqi "!: OF sl 0 W rd4mP6,04:- 1 z 664 PR 6;! i 10 oc„ $7;ttime. 5 0 , 5fooro ga 13?5 aO>9.X-Z54 3 70q•'y H vauM, Wet -C, I LS,10.11. lAndette Yttita ,R6rate .8 .9 .8 2V 91018 a a 8181911041 0 0 > rn 0 0 0 m z 'Om co 0 M X crf 0 0 iii i� n ii n '' ti'� YI r i4 F_NCING ALTERNATIVE A T_s eaOf+cD SCnL[taeAANx i+vrilx. �SJU-e LANCSCAGWG • ALTERNATIVE$ ,,!..,3 m 'A 0 • 12 -VS 1VI5N2 f0 LOVVek PULPING HNalf PY fl" Go 0 z Go Go (H21,14:1 AO0J1)'') Th--- 11 NOUVA111 ,C150calci /1VNI9INO 1 irmim t7-69.7 15-21-B I F - KEW rAfrtg '5 POta auzai 1 wan, VAC( k vi4 co -1 m -u z 0 m z (/) > >0 mW m —1 m 2 ots 1 cl z 1 73 0)(T. CD N 0 CD CD N r --F CD -5 CD il) ci) -0 13 7+• . .-.• r+ CD C7 Q 0_2.c r+ Ca▪ ct, ND▪ r+ 'a CD a a c r -t• - s =.1 N CD c CD n to CD CD CD 5 • N a. 73 -, r.+: M EL .0 0 0 0- *V Cr 0 CD CD 0 r -t vNi CD M, CSD CD a O p ▪ O Qom- (-) Wit, . N LA c CSD CD n N �• N . • -_t,# o N an � n �• = N p ▪ = O • - 0_ rD -0 0 (7)) 5. U1 �• ' N O CD CD to CD r P 0 (/i 0 0.9 . c =• r�-t• -a cm 73 �• O rD Oan 1-1 X 0 r+ C - N Eli - 0_C CD C r -t• < -5 C CD CD •.< 0 N � - rD n • S suited for the church, as the hearings officer euon.ipuoa parvo i VC. 73 73 CD r+ 00 n 0 CD ' C nrD_ 0 CD r+ • . • • 0 o i3 74' I Si = -Ps — 0 0 --s t -i- --i : CD 0 0 3 itl.,), fp =-. (DC) =- v) 1-; —I - 1- m... a) --• _0 to rD a, rD CD c .-+: cr = 6-- n 0 tt2 pc. CD co 0 c (-) rpn- rp< iD,Fin. r+ (D CD 0 (i) 01 n (c, o. < CD 5 •• r+ O'CI a) r+ Q.) Cu CD 0 C) CU (n -42 --(-) (D n 0 (D a) = CA 0 a) Cn -1 • -% -5 = 0- Li) •-% r -a' a) 5 ,-+ a) n (-) r -l• 0- 0 .0..- a) 3 ;1) Cf) -.- - a) -< 0 :7, -riT, - %..... r-4- 0 0 D 0 5 CI) r) clowc3) -J., n c O rD 0 r+ t=I: ri- {0 - (Q__ -' CD =- •< V) r+ CD CD CD (1) -0n (73 (D rt r+ C a) D- 74,1:1 0 = in* fl) 5. ;I:,-,- r+ F) 0- r+ CD Lt. 2) ri • a) c "(3 2:, 0. = = 5 f -i- :2 < 0 -CD rt. D' - - • II) r 1 (D el e) cl) -' Oti la a) 2 05- co C -05 rb 0 P 0 Cii = n -N 0.) 0 CD cn . sa) =-• o =_,--,- r-Co * ..,,5 r+ ;-4- • CD r1) 0 . • :.- m CD (D -6 `-(5" __• . r -t• I --- I Lri a j F.-4 IV 0 = . Wt. = (IQ r.4.• • (7,- 3 0 t rDt — = CD -1. rD< -0 m =-, (t, 0 0 r÷ - • ..1%" r -i• 0.) =" M- (t) " 5. •< u, a) o 5.0 Ot1 0) PC°R CU (.1 n c-) rD Ln 'Or ILI 0 (I) 0 tn S c. tn M v) 75 t -i- rD 0) -1-1 The Hearings Officer's other unchallenged findings: wesii assianpv ON :13@ !P ou s! aaatij, Z "' --1 c -I <, 7 3 0 m 0-m. fp fD _O. fD = = = C et CIC1 V) S N M CD M ▪ fD O • Q) -t -_�'h. Q z N r+ n N N to _. fD O -5 fD O = r+ Q v' N -' co O 0 — *n• Mme CO 7• ' a ,• = 0 n to r+ y v) G M = "C3oj O. O rt Q. 0 -s _ s cu n r N � z• rt Q • Q. fCD MI'N = O N fD -i, 00 rP co —' (tD x N M• OO r~ rt cri = m- 0 7 0) ..-, rt O = CD �� c cr O nO 09 O, V) A = C C co i () fD 0,• is: ii3 —h = arie = O = C fD IO H N O fD • 00 rt ▪ NfD � � 00 fD r+ O0.9 • ~'�. M �; U1 o Q) 0 r+_r . S � n rte•+• '" rr* = O Et) ci • r•+• fD --s • co Q • N (D nfD J• v1 fU W CU Q) 3 fD . • • 111111111111 0. elm0 v O O 0 o opo -O O D C• -0 rr "0 n ( N r+ 0 n0 0 (D -, N 00 (DD CD 3 fD =0 O n = z 5' C 1_, O N h -. Q.^ fD 0) • N r+ CD Q ((DD N 13 rr 0) N r+ N'4 fD S CD N N• -. • n e -f • —►, cn DJ n- 0) fD O s -0 O (D CD N fD C CD a) — a) N fD -s 0 CD 0 r+ CL (, 3 n 0 CD O rN+ (D N N C 0.. rt C �. =-0 (0 Oo fo 0) — 0 (A N 0) x- fD 0- r0 ( N N 0)-0 n _R- CD CD 0) O r+ N N ,-4..; n- 0)-• r+ 0) ▪ : fD s D c N 30 r+ D) cD CD C 0 v'. 5 0 OO fD �• 'O n- fD m" :: C, 0- 0 0 co 00 CD no - N CD 0) x rh n r+ N� ? CL (D rt (D N n co .--t. orq S N 0) C (D CD : ,-4.- n t• n 0 0) CD s �' (D 0.) CD n N= CD ((DD 0) C e0D O_ -< n (1) to S (D (7' N rt rt 0 N (T N-0 00 fD fD r+ ONO O ow u, to > O 0) 0) • "fp cn • ri• rt fi N -S CP - O CD � N N • C_ (D N M c. • N (D (1) fp -F rt CD N O =0 ;4.1 r+ CL (co A• �•-0 •. � O • 0. rp CD N N O A 11 N fD A CD Q N CD ? rTN • ((DD V)C. N fD N � N 0_73 CD • fD C (1) 0) - s — n r+. r* O • N • N e -t r,+: fD N CD cr F1. fND -h N. • C 0) fD Q 0 • e• 0 .O 0 fD e -t 0 00 0) fD 0) e --h S CD 0 0 (D (7' 0 0) 0- 0 r* CD 0 n 3 0)- � f'1 (DD r-+' 1-40 N coO (.1'1 18.128.015(B) is the sole basis for opponents' appeal. - SAVS QIIVGNV1S 3H1IVHM • to —•I • • c : (D 13 'n8 g• - Ncuc QH 0 =QAC O N �• �_ �' 5' • a (D _. = rt a) N 0 O (D O Q N t/i D N wn Q, +mo a' et) D M. O ('_'. m = rD 3' O = N N cD cu r -r 73 '� —i s= CD cv fD t --r CD CSD p f D 2 rts O (,/) • — ri• 3 n CD Q =On`c Q cn 0.) CD -0 z CD- nN 1O��Fi su N =cl _is .N fi_ �aQO=� N �= v V) N' e'-'h.fD r+ to i I- (7 () 0 ;" : 5. r-,•rt3' r-r=� <� �D cn tv .< m r• cn t n 0) rD • ......5=• iZ n ) O N -0 O CD CD N • ' -h C . N O a) — rt O CCD CD nC nD D- C cn et CD 0 ✓ �i• 0) 0_ 0 rD it ri- rT (S% t-tO (DD CD • -0 O O CSD -s r+ • rt O � O (r• C (DD a) 011 • s O CD C �•cn CD CD X X CD CD -• O O_ co a) N N aji ▪ N N `C rt Ci O C S � CD O ri• C CCD D� 0 CD (I). 0 ▪ C V1 � O r 1 � rte CD n -� O a) CD r -r Nr�rN et 5N C)- N w a cT a _ r+N r CD �) N -, 'v N CD Cm 0 C2_ro rD 0_N - 0- O -I CD 0.. CD -0 c; Q) cn rt -I, (ef3 c:)7 Q.0t) rt �' CND CD rl- rD -0 O cn c � V1 CD 0 z rDVt. CD CD p CD rD 0 N CL Q. O .1 N N rt O 0 rf • Q (DD O V) rt 0 rt CD cvn Q O o_ O (D ' r-1- <• cm..CD CD -h r N 0 ammo• cn r+ CD CD N n et.) 0 Q (134 rD a' O cnQ CD (740 ✓ l fD CD 0) 0 CD s CD 0_ N t) 'S• CD N r � r+ v IC O CD n O CD O CD c 0) • - 5 c 01:1 CD (co cn O CD x cu O 00 D CD CD = `. F,,, CD r O n 3 cn cn v'ri. M CD �, O N O N• Z �, rnj. 00 n"-0 - l�D Q.O -(D Q� c1� c r c) � • DJ -h z (-1- C VI (f),-.1. N �. rt -5 Q) n (/) '� — N N.-3 - N CI. as c rci 03� et) CU -s rt --s O -h -0 O z v)• cn _ • rt CU *.G n �, (-1)-• rt CND r 0- CD O (D Celt,) N v' Cl. CD CU O a) n ( V, v, VIte0) r+ �c nOoil• ' rD Cp -t 0- = (7) N•pn - en (D -I U O `-s 0 0-Q. cm 0 =CD . O CD O z O r -r pi o•Q : -o 0 0) rt CSD r_r r+ �- cvn 0 0 6. o_ N 0 CrC CD O cn : CD 3 CD v) (I) O r_+ n CI N% n S Z O• 0 0 cn CD CD CD n N C �- v) V n O D CY CD r+ O 3 O— O 0)p n z CD N S 0 n N rt Q r -t: CD v)c v) Cr • D- N(to 676 r 0) S rpt' O 0- r.+ WI: Q 0 = CD • VI X O v). CD r -t CD CD 5.D 011 N �' Q) CD rr^ `p rr-t r -t 0) N 1 0) N• 7- O = CD cn O CD "0 Q cfc) cu r+ MI 9' E -- I -0 c` P-4 rocig�. C � fD -n -P n !UIff {IIP! = "�' ; _ n U2 g 0 ti to us cr r:r --1'1CNN- [D 51 C1? c z C!! CQ O B. Q O ;-CQDt v = '-' • ". " (t)re) �02 r�i• Cl- N CD 0 =•° u s ' rrl z, m - (D = -0 "11= eD tit) - —• n�� po �� O fD to it0 Q awr g CL CA (0 0 N fU , (D +Gra' {'y. f (C X to ,. Q -.5 '-) <• �N Rt � �D ce p'' (D Q -, ` - w "Si ��'�� ( a CD 0 I� �, cn � q QS fD CD o 4. d QQ hit CO 9, fO Ln D .`��.cm 0 = = co C p —(1). fb 0-I Opp C05'��--0 • �E�— ( _v' ON O O 3yn0 E (D tnn CD— ' (D NO Orin • e-1- (D(rp 0 (D 0- v) ""1 v)cai CN 0 0- 0- r - (D (DC' n. z (D O r-+ r+ 0 0 rt -a rD: r+ r + v (D C *.<r+ (1) NON r+ rn � 0 Q tn' (�D rr O -* O r+ v'cc) 3r+ rD r+ rD o a - (D = 0 51.-c,c9 r+ =.-N. O (n r -r Orta a) O rD (D r+�•� CL CCD rD - 73 � rl- D-=' 22_ -0 --s O- W -0 v- -SQA cn O (D ` r+ Cl- rt rD : Orq (D -, 0 N -(13 (1) (D (D (-) (D r* (D r- - cL) r+ f D Orq 2. a:0 Cfcl s0) (D Q SO C r+ FD C. n rD c D(rr+ r+ (f) v,-. r+ -- 0-O(gyp (D� 0) (D cin r-* Q- OCD N-, ' O- OrU rna - O r+ r* r+ - --_h, a) `DD - = c(I) s<(D c -. cn (n fl _• O r"h _ • � 0 - Co O Q CU (D O� (D o * r+ < _. rt r-* re:14. 0 O- (D O CU Crq rt < 0- O 0t) (D • cu (D =' R. O < (D'v, n N 0_ r*r+ Oti 0 _. (D (DO� r -0 N (t,( -I- 0_ r+ W 0) V)� -s r-* (D O Q O 0-D • CD OrD Q (D • 0) Q rD0 0. < � r1 < —. O O Q (D err -S rD O -h,n _ r - (D O�, (D rD cD a. a) 0)v �. r+ N S r+ C2- CL O • m a) 3 r-* (-) -0 0) 0) r-* (n CD X 0) 3 fD 0 cD rD CAI CD v' O r rte' < CD r• N O CD '< cD O Col CD NJ CD CAI(. O CD 3 r -r 0 CD —z CD O rt 0) r+ c 0) CD O r+ � N _O Cfg CD a3 cn cr CD CDO X � O < c• c o N CD �. r+ � CD Q 0) 1—• Q (n CD CD ▪ r+ (D- i0) a) r+ r+ CD n cn r+0 c cn d O CD N r+ 0) O 0) n cr CD O Q r fD Cr O V = rt -' (DD O -h rD CD -5 0- CD5. * 0) X tn' rt r,t; O �n D CD 0 (D O • . • r+� to — r1 0) Q•.< • �� D- (-) 0- CD t3-0 -5 n C 0) N rt r+ Or) CI (I V) • O _ cv N r+ • 0 a X r+ . O O r+ � r+ 'cna mO O r+O , 2. n) `�. n 0•0 S CSD N D- N 00 co O �' CND SCDco rt CD `i'� CD CD CD N CSD r' _• CI ci)Q CD CD N. cn' a) H. cr CD CD -s• "t3 —s �,D •SCOw CD () O CD - (W13 C2- Sn CD �Q�-5 o ata C 0 CD V) < n• (-I- D r+CD 0-(D O O cD -1 _ cin •' 0 cn 3 CD "('-")- CD CD r+ � o D D *)> o o (D a rD sl) r -i- m rD fD"§: �D to al 0 � � rD = (D cD rD r* -1 O O -t, m CD -1-h n `^ v,' r. rD t-pcn (D �'fD N =' , , Q • -p . 3 cm -D n 0 � � NSG � � 5� a) n rm N O (1)v) (D O X 0 --s O 0) p - 73 C Q rm ( _' r.) 2 0 03 (7, fD X ori. n V) =- fD cn r7,c � � 0 n FE a: O zi. c n cn ci) = 3 = am73 N 0 - rt N � � oo2 -0 < O W Q N rD a) O 1111-6 CL. 7)(U C1) CD A 'a r+ O < x n 3 a fD rt MN 'al O fD O tD M. n A" 0 3 -o O (D 74- x cn CD �• -. Q �. OOO 0Q ri- r1 rn 0- O rt CD n Q rt O 5. r't CD O Q Uq 0) CD ) -D as 5 a 5 0 2¥ )= 0 C4 540 c(A c0 m @ amm0.» $cF0 ? $ k k/ a £ -43 f 2 to§ R- e CA 1.1:a kk\Qm co \�%� E o 3 m(0 — m 2 a. ® 3 B R (D/ - E co a 3 o - m - .S — m< 13 o S X 0— m@ 0 (] A & E 0-Q o 5 a: = o 5 2 k R tO Re/km -o0 00 § — 7R ka E]A 0a)m5.k7 7)- § = =0 o w 9 2t. » R r o ...... 5-ea.01:3 Fol_ 3 ƒ�ƒ3 © sp \ a Q D m 03, o c(�C� C0C 9 0 2 3 m•\\7§ /0u /» 5 0 D 7 3 f C_ E 0C 'CD ƒC� §k%ECQ) ..--,- a m 0 0 E a/ 5 (no ^ ° CD k CD m (n m 11 k sii $ aio)ia,x put, Najt,s -1 n o -i - - O (D 0 (-1- i ri -0 ------# %< ;:'i 0. Q CD (1) O -h D CU CD rD 0 o r 0. rt3--, (DD 3 D --O 0_ . v) v) crg r+ -o =-•s r- r-+- (D 0 L = aq rn u) DJ rt -0 0 C, (--r N �- rD - � N r__,_ • 0 CD D 0 . NJ 0 (D a) ,uodaa s6urpuij 6l 0) co Cpc:� � O CD = =• N.-) (J1 247-17-000726-PA, 727-ZC Hearings Officer Decision H1111 Vf °c n m °' o r 3 w' X �. D • N m O m , C O a 0 ^ o o a 3 m • 04 D m % m a N C (7 O o m m D A � N K 3 :V n C 3 C j D a V w v 3 a o 0 o, m m N m a In 7 K O ? m 0 N G M N .›05.0— w a° 3 0 07,77-10,07 - �Dn a m m o �c0 a,aa3 pp baa �. O N K • O a C S 5 C o% - c m D O ° mm 2a= c m n ma m rcoD O a ^ N = a m rt o a m V ^ a a D w a m m 3 o a IDmm m S O O C �O-r • .- ro ro Ct. 13 � o ro • m a - 4n o • ro ro Q- 0 ro C O _ St b ro ro13• fl � ro O C; fl EL • v, Z3 3• ro 0• 10 ca ro ro ei 0 a ro Q. W n o 0 G,1 - • CD o • N X s� n ro p 3 3 ro fl N Ci. crg rF CD 0 N rtzr o o CD ati 0 pJ D r* 0 0) D rt _ • -i (1) rt �rn ' • l rt o < rt n � rt 0 0 rt 7134 D rt —h 0 3 ri- CD CD O) c CD 3 CD CD (D 0 (74 (D - o D 0 3 rt 0 t i V ' r - 1D n C 'o 747 ND m D = r_+ C Q 61- c1q X Ts c = ••••-s r P �� a) O < v M-< n' all at -4c o ( (D r 19 cn O O N ZT c 0• r-1- (/1 rt, -1c = fD to rt to—. = CT =• C to CM to rt to .0 V) CD a c 0 CL • CD 0 z m c F m 0 c 0 > zi m > 0 z c xi 0 z 0 m 0 0 0 r m < m z 0 CO N (•pj 9ZSI9) n —. �n N Q O O ° W 0_ 7J cm (/, O O � � v)N .. 0- 0 � O 0 0 -.h -o �'N C- o rt vd = r -t a) • /�5 Q VM CD xVM (' _ _ . r+ pie t D rD r+ (D N 3 fl) `< (D Q- X N' a rD T� r+ rD : O 0) : (D X Vf N' m- a) -0 O c O< C-' 5 C O (D r)-3 crcl N • N �N •' CT 5- (D r+ �' O 0' ((D CT (D N_ -S' gin' 0) (D (D (n o -0�� r+ o cm I C. r+ r.i. Orq 5*fp Dq• O O Dr-Zi(n • - - : - -h rt O .'(D -s, _r: • 06 n C rD fl) ((DDCD ..s rt (D O a) 0_ 0 - w 0) Q.. O (D O O ((DD (D (D 3' O -0 -s O n ClQ r+ N -� CFO - eq: = O W Q) N CT (D 0 -5 • F)' v ((DD 0 0.) n CT (D 0 N (D 3 0 0) �cn (D 0) CD s r+ (D 0) (D 0q. DJ n r+ (D 0) 1 fD 0 N 0 (1) CD 0) ro 0) 0 n (D cRi CDrt S 0 0 rD(71 0 O 3 0 (D r+ Pr - a) a) :sai Impe sal cD—I a)=0H v) —I rQ.n-a—I N•(D 0rP r D (D ( 0 -- CO O (gyp cD -s r• ' O -=n (,)• r) - n CD n 0 - r = cD = �" --S O ncD n = ` CD n 13 rp cD r+ rn* n r+ n _ to t/) n p.= r+ ...7 N O cD p 5 a) �Q ` n cD �, c�D �, N p cD to �' -s 0 �• �' c r+ �.= 13 "i D._ r) ('Opp M'- N =5 n co -4 -, 0 f�D cD fD to CT Cu (D n. = N n N= 1 ' Ste = . co . r..,. r..t. sz 0)C C O �_+ O (4)._ r+ Q- =' < 0. Q r+ r+ cD (� =a) g •cn to ='c X CD rpt O� n < '� p cp rDD N• V) = n �v, r- r -t �� iii': 0 = N O Q. Q O 0)�7:5 C O N O C rtO ^ 0 -+ ) + ntr)r+ cD r+ 0- v Q. n oOr+o rp Q,0.O . rt cita = alh r-F. to c F -s N . v --, 0) say3....1T (/frpg 0- 1 f" V I r�T (D (p (D r . • N c fD cm, <`" • gy�r+. a) ((D n (D (pr -r p(D Q�5 NQa) �. CD �Q .Nr -a) � O O r4.t'O .v, r+ rt • r-cu3� 5• N` ' 0 �<� �=� = QrD rb O rD rt n N r+ rD ci) (D � . n O. co 0.) ( o -5 (D (D S = Ori O :=1"141:3 = x Q CM (D (D � p . Cr y' O-5 O rt r+ (p c `C N • 0 " 0- 73 O (D Q rte, f• - . (D v --S O n (D Z rt (D < Q n S = ---• • • Q. Q = (D 0r+`< (D r)• n N' = n n0 "0 nQ 0 0 Q (D N < — (A. -h =1-;Q. 73 "S p (D = _h =h �. _� _ rt 4N• O� C�� OO (<p•C* -OW -61) V) 74' %"...‹.-- r -P a ' -o . 7:3 'CD -0 m ��rD O-3CO ..i< ....< (ux cn' i-, c 0) fl) (7 Q Cr 0 tri. a) -1 0) C * r+ r *ci) cu .1 Q p (D 0 O ��- 0- c = Q m O The Hearings Officer Erred — C)enia (V)090t7fl8i aapun • • • • • • rt' =T v) • =-- (-) .0 — r) 0 "23 fD fD 73 �� OQ� cn� � � fpm= 0 Cs 0) n' 0 5 (D -=':.-T3 0� = - fD rt ra-cr o)CD`t O(DfD 5 0_CD =cl)N' =cnS ty—-s O CD, (70(7; V) rD fD �. v, cl):: o_fD -� r+cu = fD fD St n C O� Oo- --I el- n - fDrt� CO aq --s -� (D LU -ti C 0 rt ED -s < n V) 5 ;<(p -i -Sa)--S =-0 e) :I.fDm _. - fD Q,= n CD Li) _. 0) 0. cn -1 0q '< r-.1- 0 0 ...00 (D- N. - 0CN . firO = n'"_ Q3c= �. fD o.�' Q - o m �CU cn =� �� fD 0C CSD D . ..< 5' a r+ c -Z . CD N N. �. O O Q. M r+ noqs • fD n� o o E= RI)Cv' r -f- (D r (DD Ori 5. N rt p �. = — fD _ . (D o. 11 0 • ri+ -, en CD O_ - Oi tn. C„ D fD O �0q 3 < CD (D N f -D 0 `� N (!) ter* *_ �'� a) 3`I) c %= 00) N -(13 0) (Dm n r -t • < --I CI CD M 3 z 0 ,-• QX) o (-p-o u ---• (D fl)(7).5:9 =+) -+;r(D0 < 0 -113• C ;IV rD- .= CI) eL • 0- "'s • r+ — 0 - CD (1) DJ(D u.) a' D-3 cia- Ic:33 (1) 5. R cal FP 20 (D0- a_ 0 - (P•'47 al '" . cr) t -p -. < c -s CL < < ci) rD CfQ = 0 r+ tF 0 ="C (1:0 EL. (DB o '-.7.3*O 21. (D- (< C • (I) o.) r+ + c.r) r+ 0 rD n, r+ O Ft; fD • m43 rD w' um; o 5 3 OXI 3 r+;.-,• 13Drp'-' Fps- al (5) St r+ C LD tn. e%. fr, (I) tr) 4-1- CO LA • - 74-Cfri tn. c (D0 0 a) rfl" 3 o 0) CU 0 - -0 5•v) v) rD CD 0 W 3 < 3 — CI) 0) CD_ 3 n) r+ CD CU 0 C , (D4rP ni . w cr, ,- cm rD "a n CD (D- Q_ CL Cfg < • < (1) 3 v - v '5 • 07 • < 0 0 -s-_. m- m r* a.) =• mo = W - . -h r -t0 .--1 -.<- .... -0 .< r+ 0.) 0 C os rts a. ,- f -i- 0 CI 0 -3 CD '- --0 =" T-3 ..e• -r+ m=a) = Ln Z (D rf 0 c 13 CD - • (r) 01:1 0- = T) -s 0<. (/) Citi — m-- .... = '`< cn --1 C cp rh 0- a) - cr) = • Di -I 0- CD (") _ IZ ......a. ci c.n.rD 1-1". = 6.7:1 _0 R cm = c (I) -3 V) i-: -) . 3 •-a, v, n 5 5. a) fD T -es RI • D 0 2sj 3 5. ca- gi P < re, - CA rD r+ 0 -o 5' .' o (D r+ cn Cl.) 0 0.).< Co7,71: („D CIC1 fD < 0 cu cZ-s -o 0.Q 3 (D0 ED c -r-; (n.rio 0 oti *C$ e+ CA 0 co 0 0 5 0 $?.?„ W H , 3 (.)* (1) n rD 0 = • 71 Fj 5 ri• < 0 ,.C1. M CI) D v) .0r-i- -C.D1 C (7) CI) 01 .-I-. rD rrT,-, :7'4 o = D --- (7;* -3 0 (57..i • 'OPCil 7---i: = a (1) C r+ 1 a3 (D • m * n v) (1) ;i: r• -i- r-' = — • ci.) = < 0 * 0 ▪ ▪ Q.) —h %.../ rTh CI- (1) — • 7 D 0_ CD 5 rii. 01 - =F.; •••-h ..,' '24 = Fco c = -5 ('D l.) r -N— • n 0.) D- < -< 2 2h 0.) = e-+ cl 5' 7 C r1- 2 -3 -5 (D 3(D r -I- V) CO 0 • • (f) > r; (--4 -o cD -� 5 c cc, °• NI �—•O c' O • 3rpo rD cD (D ▪ no' FE" O n. o_ �▪ _• N O 0 MEMO •cD n O rh cn < CT 0_ —: . <t.71• (D ac � < a) a) .r,DSQ)cD ,.. c 0) CU m • = (D �. Q r..t. to fD • r -t• m r CD Cf) r•i- 0 CU C -� -v QQ m CD`s CD CT=. • rP 0 • C srD z 0 CD n r—F- The Hearings Officer Decision is the Sou •• D • • 1 c O) v) 9- = O =•m' _ _ ▪ O -a r+. -z' • * r -r N -+, .73at)g, 3=QO-+M r t N- r+ r+ t"I' NO rt (D N CD =wow • I. 0-r _-< = i o -_ "D m-3 O •c N rD `(= (Ds l ` r+ =CD = te0 -co CI) r+ r+ • enoadde off. spec O▪ c cn aQ(D O ..... � • cD O rr. r O▪ � a_= 733 n -+, O � -sem '-': � �• (D (D O r+ (D 0• 0 N —I - 1 = CO Q CD Cl- O' N ▪ D– ,C ...<. G O 0 CU (D ) (D 3 5 O to n Q r+wCT 3 • n v) � r1 (D rt • = (D • c ( r+ rD _ — • N (D -� = Q,(p O • > � c =• a Q -s o r-1- r+- l 1 cry ,. o ma'•=•-�+00(D�,' 0 C C r+ (n 0) = -5 a n C v) (D : v CD r--1- CU = = Q r+ (ACI:.__ aj : r+C) Q (-67= 2 r+ < rCD+ rh 02.-- 0) e" rD v)= = (i) s •`= Cr 0 = n CD 8 (D (D N n. .. („= : m r+ �, -- --1 b " v �= �- Z y _ n, o p m Q �, z•. I-1= 'n fDfp D (Da)' LQ =QQ0' �Z '(D 0 Q�Q�m ?-t,0_ � N( cl�--s(ic* z'co= a =o cn (D n -1 CD r-}• 0 O ��pf� ,-+-o (1) pro �cc 9._ (7.t,14.) 1 v) o_F? rb..g c rb <SD ^OSI--' 0 •D•z c�� O`�z- Q - CD I-1 -. 0_ 0 '--- Cron • '0 - -s — N r -P —1 • Cl. r+ O (D Q Z O c n t UJ D 1'4 Cr O <—i• �? n cl -.< S-0 O Z p 0 r-+ �, "' (-p (!QV) n N r0 :•-c% ro0 =cn= ncnpn-0 0�NrOCD �Z pFr)CD -h•-hr-t• Imo (f'�„•• v„=' ^�� n -O0 g 3o�� v) ��-0 CM 2-n + po "• (DX n 3 CO O �Q c3" 5'=< (J) -� — .� -• rt rci -• (D crtr-tQ O r rtn—•v) 0r=t' o▪ . LT, Cr t- SCC �- 1'1 - m (D Z • r+ 5 a,..,c.-n3 *0 (4' r.4%.-‘ O ��r-+F,CD= �O-I0O �.0� 5o=ri'ci•oil o= s<• 0 0- r + �u ro r + • v , - i V eL E,NO (oC Q rto D,cDo E=(Dv'•(pCD —Cv' ' =•00 (n Co -. (,Q `c-atzCD o0 (D =- np Sy c �' . Q r� O m- _-h IL to 3 OO �0 `(DW na cu CD Oo+0n'N r- 0 �-0ti,(f),., nro a)�� =cm - (1)0)-.1 0DSCDOs O�=�'� CM � n -s —• CD ro v C ci, 73 rt CD Cr-- p= r)(D()= ri-C3— - D 7,— C/CD I -n �• -T, 6 (D cz = ___ O2 �' (D = C p-natl r-+ r� -- -'' a) � (D 0 (1) '= D�(D O rte-+• CD 0) -' CD 0 Q sv • rt D- D- D.- aq a) D-- • CD CD n rt 0_3 • cn cn RCD (1)4 sa) ci) -ici• c a.) z--- -1 of 3 3 D cc� (1) • vi to CD CD O -5 : �. -71 r -r- ' r -I- V) --f, 0' CD CD CD O O N • r -t — –s rt -5 C = CI) (1) = r--' (D * . (D CD O cn -n c r -r �-+ r1- N a) n D- VCO )O r-+ rt ri" CD c -+rt O . 0_ (D (D -(713 713 7D c 0. C 0.) 0 -7 V) CI) 0M n cn D.--� c S D 0' CO CD --h = CD n •—' O -5 O D.- n = cl) r -l- n ti; a) --5 ., -0 C --1 (D 0 (II Dz a -1 0 CD 0- n cp (4 r.) 5. __, D ---C D- a) C CD Ciqn) cc3-. -53 (DO- a.Q7 n 0 -D- (f) --5� Q OD. c to CD O CPQ 0 0 - CD C CO CI: C QCr r+0 V). . cn --S Cr (/)--- cr D cn -I- CO �- ' c- CD 2_ia) (/)O 5. ci) 3 D -0 r' v' 0' O 0 CDQ .a ca. ) C -13•C : 0 N 0_ C rt • • • • • • coil -I 0En�0 - �D 3 53•C cn-I� O�DJc,+ N fDM(D 3IV CTm �' o Dom-+ =-1c r+ tea) -. Ov' N oN� 9 (/ N Cam 0.) CD �vi�NO -O (D vel — 0O OOH 0 OID 0V(r+m O- O -ha) _NZTa)N <CU 0 0_ ...3 0r+= C a,cmf3cl N -sem-• _._o m 0 -s _•: m et -s =m vl r.t. 3 -t = -t r+ m (1)S OCGrD _ co• "S cu cu =m c3- 5 � a) O rtr-t,' rt:`< -I Q o SQ-mNN Oa) 0sz_cra E. (f) ",:,s ' O,n m -O N rO c) npq' • ''- i' () (1 O0 a_ - .. a) a) c � N < N^ v 5•DD Ci v1 003 = m== ` ..�� Oma, NoaCI v C0o'3 Q. �: m r+ 0 a] --h < C m •-O m m ,� X33 g ox)... (2„, _.0 = 0) ca. NNa) �m�� CfQ 0q m � Li 00 �N�� 9 c rD r� - m r --s 5• cmnQ �. gN§O�L1 (� N S *N.mr+ m m (D (-1. .� m _,� � a. v v, 2(Dc�• ��o�a)� a) N CDa) ra ` r:i' O - Os Q G r+ o , N o.. -h7 r.F. prq v -.a)0 aj0mn N I 0 r't r=r rr = C a) N -0 -s cm�m-v no N �� a) a)' c -I --% N rt -z el — c mo a) 075. (1.; NCS vc-•tr m i Wim' ((DD 74 N r' ((D : 0_ 0 Or+ N _- ▪ V),-5 N a)a).•-� m O S) .61) -s 0 O Cl- (D — -h e -t cn� co V� �•CI- -I CI) Ms Qrr •�mO aa�N " • n 0O- ev; �<� 'm w Dm"S N z of o CD 0 N DJ m rt N n (/) 0 c 0 0- - o0 0 — h —n o rn� D 0 r -s" -5- c) V CD D -.(1-3ri � rn_ O -I 0 n • CD rn� D C1), n O n (D = (1) ..% ...,-s. -c(13 e4." 0 2 a -073 (7)--1-::li 0 V) 7° N 3 0) LD O(D (D• (D 090 O aq CL. r+ --S �. CID �o 00 = 0- 0- Q)< ��(�o _ CD Q' ((DD (D (D O a) cji4 - �-�8 s�o 3 0 to Doo "'D�� D" CU � � � (D 0- (D E fl.) 5.,;s .� s <. �� ' : C� o t/1 (D � N � V) � Nos m-rN *-3' O c .D i J r+ -0O � 0 v'� O_W -s(Dn- • C ts r+• ND �• � N D CD o T Lfl V) �N v ='-.0 rf = CI. 0 a.X. a)N.CDcD CD -1 73 • = r+ CD 0 Nom,: rbED'0_ _.O ==��.cm () (1) o0w 0131:1 n((DD*• (I)CD -N O. 71) 0- . "' r+ ca) nN (c. 0 zj (Dr �� s-' (D CD (ND � 0_n z -E5 rD ak 1M 0-1 PID o" "ICS pa V) G) = 7 CD 4 sv 0 p 0 —fi O "Cs -.. O �.L r — h .0 t , p ,._.. P—' cn `-C - - Q N `ZG CD CD 8 ci i —7-1ti CI P (D fa• - N — n fD CI. c' n CCD b''• n t CT v)' p `� P� '' r+ aq CD ▪ (J� EI) CA r+ r+ r+ 5 e (1) " '= D CC -0- f CD I) fGDoo - N•�CD 13 r-+ =Oro • tD�' C OC:1`cw (tio pfD = a, o co cn En `s '"' P ' . v4 to CD - O o • HT1 r; T(7) v r+ QQ 0 O o'''' c). Q N � rt t Ca 0 Ca --f, p 4 • = - r+rte+ ts" Z 1 (D p CCD 'CFI. CD C �.� cro p ... gz S..). C:04; ‘--.1 aci a, _ N O = r+ Ofq rD ° c� a 0 o ... • ▪ co 5 g ,..,.,�1:$ o 4 O �- 0 0 aro �. oma v l ! (DI V c -^ c c rn V ,✓ l (I)--3 et) P1 1 O �C �_ O O• c r* N O (I) Qi -c3O C ca_ � CD W -1 •a► —1 V W I I rt- = = -' am c+ D �- (D (D CD et) (t) ' l a) -0 O vi CD c 0_ _i_ a I O (D col, 4 . 0 ) z -c-DI ci) n (D4 . . -it sai ..... 0 pi 3 r -r �, chi, -In CD CD _. kj) C ftli. Q.) V) cr' Z0 Z .6" (Do O CA n mot Z C r -t- 0 M to sig` O 0.) m; 2 � rt n a a ta) (D CD'`ctr o n C ,car a) (PD (7) O ., m D_• r—r 04 11) r'D Ci'; 0 = CO 0 "it�• ei, D 3 (D CM CD a) D. �D a 0 0 Cimmis r --I- 1!!/-!\ /,- .1!1 „ rE Wall a0U013!Sal V • • • • CT -+' CO = -s � -3 -I CD CD c Nr -P n <. C--i(-30 N n CD CD * n N CND n co = N Q CSD CCD CO n r a O_ -, — 0) . Q a LA CD S p X (DD o _ CD _. cn ci) (D N — CD = CD CD 0) N.� 0O C . rt C CD — CD n r+ Fr•t -t; = aN D 0 CD r+ O (= 0) r r O r-p.n CD =C n CD Q CD N = CD . -h ox r CD -s n v) n) N O 0 gin' ��• == Data CD ° O r -f• Q. 0 St _0 C �- m 2 CD r-+ = =-13 . V)N 3 v)' O 3 rD r n CD = = CD -5 r+ O O -� N rt et N CD fD Q -T n O tD S0 W r-1- Z C = to tin (D ...<SD "i 7 --S '< C Bt -+► ma) n n o Cr c pr CD .< = < fD o ▪ in o CD CD N o M TY = 3 O CD ro SD O —•((n o -o - • c r° ▪ B. = 0 c=i) a : _ o 7-+; r-* O ;D▪ i o • -cs V) i CAI 0.) -1 p' r+ CT iD =• =' ▪ o- O cp Q. = 0) — 0) ‹ 3 Z3 `G — (D co . co O 0i '< = Oq-i (n G a) °' El) v n) * e, o C7 (p cr �► p N C r+ a- ro z �=o -3 r,f, r i• = ,.. -1 CD - (D rD o fD �• � �`. o- � :.c.lcc:+= oCD n�;tD rDCD O. ,G O 0) • G r+ fD ..< =' o (D " n a) a0a CD = = CU C a r 3 •• rD (n rD CD 3 0 3 -0 3 Cl..rD rD 1 D - 0 fD O n ,V N ((r) o O 3 D fD -z O fD O 3 r+ rD O 73 r+ (D CL rD r+ rD O. 0 0_ CDN 3 -6-'_ oma mN Eli l...1 Ort 0D0 0 rDo S _s, -. n �5 01:1 fD�m c- T� rt (p co = r+ ?fD 3fDN rDDc 5'CL N 0 (D o n nCfQ Q �o fD =�• (DD � r+ c � (D � 5 a_ 0- (D = = (D r+ r+ --s A- n 0 .. 0_0_ Sn- �0 S m -. r+ (D (D (D rte: V) N n • c -6c).), (Drt crD CL r+ V) 1-+ frD 0 �`<<< -< cm (D 73 O= V)" r' - n- 0 < CU 0_N Cr rD °+0 nr+,= r• FA' O r+ VV) (rD (<D (D --s = N -s (D CU = (D 5.0 CD =C N 0 N = -s o) n = g- v)-. =' 0_ -• (D OS �N n* n --- 17 •v 0 rm (D n M (D rD O 0O -• rf = ' e-iN 3 j' r+ CU O0- D- (D N 0 r-1• (-I- S (D Di 1 -t' -z 0 (D n0 (D r t r O N X H" Q r1 (Drr-t r rD Hr N r+ 0 (D (D CD "a O 0 �- 0- O Er 0 m cc (D (D = < �. (j .0 a) (D .« - rD0_ Nci• a)= • �. (D ( (D <D = = n r+ r+ rn ▪ (7,0_ (D 3 ..< O -s V (D ▪ o= a (DQ r+ N N r+ -. =• a) CD (D CL (D 9 - -' s I-, r•t; 0 0 o3 =-= L.)fD0-< D i 0 - (D O =: N a) (D 3 O < O Q -' 0- • �cDI O O(D O CT FIT c (1:4 • n O HO -T- er.". a) r+ oj (D Q (D n-0 n c c ( r) N N • �•(D o_ _KO m- O (D (D 3 n FO 27* N O N c0) o _0oer c NrD� (Dr O+rD -0 (D r+ �D-0 rD 73 n (�• O ....aa;leua qi. 40 ypnal a41 (DD -D � ( < -o no -a -4. ora O O -tomOv, O O D_ -- — n v)' 00�rD O rD O r+ ^ _ C7 = N =� O O �0 • 't c CD 0 CSD �. VI CD �' '�' N = Dom. c m� -..1 rD n r+ Q. = co 1-.1 CD n = LTI Q. Cr CDD 5. 0 Q -P -0CD OiU (A . O •. O-0 v, O rD v) w p. C r* rD rD ClqO� = < = 73 r+ c rD r+ rt r+ - 0) n lv sl) �. O O O c ( 0- = r* u -, Ccr= 0 0) r* D rD nr+ = O Q,= Q. 0) 73 c rD 70r+ "0 = r7 O V)�' —r -t. O _t rD n -< c r+ --% c r+ �. O•< r+ O'(1' = ( O -_= n0 NI' O 0- = MI rD CL 73 -5 O 0 r+ rD 73 0) rt O• (n' r+ m eft r+ t7q 0 0- O r - O) m CD -oO (D F-11) . , hid- -I v) IrD ci : Q) v) Cicl t1C ro <rr) 0 Q- c . = r -r SCD EA CT - Gn am =,,� 3� D- = 5 c. a Co n c v'• S ▪ 3 n 0 `. 2 r+ �' t3: CD v) O Cu r-1- fD 3 a- o -0 ItIA r* e-e ria 5' 51) CIQ � . O 3 7-3 r. y tU ,_• : < _ co Q. rD r -r 0 0 -10 rD rD Q r' -r c rD o c (1) f rD cL o uQ 3 rD cr 3 o 5CL3 s.v O n S CD �Q) CD rt r)O 3 0 rD r+ r+ O < O O -1- V) CCD • Q ( 0- v' r+ n � r+ n cD CD o v) r+ O rD rD O CD Q) O n s 0) m CD c cn r * N o 0 N • r+ S CD c c --s v1 r+ cu ID Cr N a. Fry 0_ • v, CD CD' CD• 0 CD 0 0) uo saipnq mo CD CD O Q. O r+ rD CD rD 3 fl7tSIZ SHC r+ � O (D CD - CD Ts 3 0) 0 91 13 v)6 CI' —' CD 0- (7 O to r+ o('p rN+ ca- C� cr cD O ri) -• 3 ri) r -p, "1:3 • M < -6"" rD < O Fit O n n rt + � r . 0) r n c:). rD C:2_ v) a n p 70 V) cD. cD 13 o � r1 (D 0 N 03 = no=o- 0 S" CD =r* c-3 n c v~ �+.. o 0 ,--r su N N o ClrD70 • in r* c rD d -. 3 r ^ fp N * = C O CO ( , N .o ro a.d- N VI vs .- �'+ rti < = V), a- ~ rD 3 m -o 1 ---A• r* Crca ,..,<— r_D., .1:1‹) rt. rD • -J.. a) 3 Lr'..„ ("D a)rr CL n- iv 3 r<Q a C Q N re",-+, .< o n _tom' r4 0 r+ N CL =- fp u, 3 =• a. o = c ,, rD CL EC -1 = "V 0 n �. - a rD p - n �.N-O o �� Lu rr ci)`�- r) = <(1) - ' v' T I'D r - CL vt rrD "* rD r = .7-1' o r -r = r • -t rn N 0- - - o v+co-v SZO Gro Si)rDt0w. �' rD N tic, -4, t"� =O • - Cr =-.o f-IrD o Cl. r. 0-=s rn Onl�< ? o D- 0- cl) < C7 ��-:o ry 300O uo rD V) < tv G1 rrDD-1:7 ro ro r�D rr Z3 rD �o r%r rD a o-,+,rr3 vl < �..L.. r*�vs,�-0J rD r r o el) n rr a) n g r -l- • (A -0p r' ca, a) `C i7-) o rn (, n 3 CL o �' �/ rD o rr rD 0 - _ C CL o = vi CD .O Q-• n • Qi ° CD Et r-i- —I p co C • eicl• c /y,, 0 CD :—' r-+. CD c 0r1- (D CD O O O14‹ —• aCI `cs . 2 ,,� 0 O CD —. P. cr. v" c4cD ,=-• cs' -1 0 (D • cin 0-0)• CD Az 8 2: . r-+ P n (D s xr."1 eP2' "a 64 -:. ‘.1,.) g_ r-F cam, vt-< S `7' 8,---, (D �• -1 () SD 7.4. '7'. 5! 40 ca i co C< 5 . sv 0_ O � cn 3 n r 1 j CTS O l. CD 0 � 30.) . ci, 05" r+� a. 04 n O CD • 713 t,el :A+. --+-. ' 0- D U'© OCT' � m' CD D. 'X O .'-'+) $4 Fes, t-F CM C. cn P %< P• . �, - . P 0 p 0 �• 0-4tv —h <73 N=- 0). -o (r1- rD .O E O(-)- (Tac O Q rt CD (D(D n cu rb (D (DQ) rte+(D(11 0 (D T 0 -- (D s o -S3O rD r4' O1 -c (D Ot a) 73 :j- -. �3Q rt�.n (— (D 5' a)FD+5' fD(Dm (7 ^om �� C_- r1-1 —7).78 (D 3 cD (D -o /A - n -0 cy ( • -I -0 0) n N - (!I CD�n '�S O��=r+ g� N�O�(N P(D�Frr (AN-on9B &�� n r• te+ o fD CD (D rt r+ . (D a) C I �,S� pr+OC•a CLD (DI �pcnrt rt * N Nag Q rtcn C 0-p 70 CO (1) `�Q-• 5. -c3 -c= r O 3 -s n a� atl 0 CPC)0) o r+ D Cr(Toa) (D ill (D = D C (D �v'.cn=r+t) Desna) to o a� r+r+ (D V). CD =-. -I-0n-•tn0)< fir+ -I on� cual0 ....‘.3.5.n. r+ Q C Wto • = ' (D O r -41 0 - C• cn O -t, -1, . r+ >cn0(D=7 -5(Cnc r- nO5-0(D *-Dz(D� C =.0) (D rIT_ =n M CD- (Drot•n= (D ▪ CI 5' 0,a,0Ot n74011= D CAI SD crta (D x 13 (Dpv cn (-I. 011 <`"�._ D- cn.=cn CD r+ -' a) (D r-1- cn 0 *=(Da)-" —4—• *"0Q) 73 D -N(1) O r+ r+=-oQrD(D n-=,cnrr+ Cv)...5eCDD (D (D O O n N -, n = a) v �'(D(D= * OO r+ c cn00 cu = n N — = r+ _+ ((D eD rt• ]p — r* r,. D Fp-'0) c (1) 3 gi- �- fD rpt• - cn' rv'a. FDIs Q rt � =n X • < Q(D r* O. fD a' 5 (DD e-pO 0) 0: C 3a r+ = I-1 I —I D- oo r -t - cu -•00--e ct p'— Q0 11);.; curD 09- ("D 7:5— S) • Woo -s-h-4‹CN r't'cn�ri-WP O f -P- N CASCO r+ -.5CD Fru r+ (Do 51+7:9 = 0cgl) — D7gig=s2g 0cr- V)ca -h FDn C �NQ.CDN -g ..ez:ZE1161" C2- 0_ rD o_ -.3Oc'<n�n(DD -o3( °(n13 CU• -1; cn a 0) to r,t, • 0(D0___.D1:1 ��0rt't�/�n) (Da -o m *g (D — 7 (r fD N c fD r+• x- CD n fD C � rr � . fD • 0 fD CT -1 0) QN ol fD 0 v a) 0 fD FE c) (D • rtpq v) r* r -t; fD O zs c r. 0 -0D- -h� O D.- -SW fD s O� 3 CD0, "f-DI CUQ o c 0_ 2J D • CV 0 = --I CD 0, 'O Ncn — rD • c ...s r-+ 'D rD 0) r -f. (" = 0 FD - 74713 rD rD FE x- 0_ rD . fD -o -s cn rD N -' n C^ f ..7p cr O. O 0: r 1 . r�� C rD, -0 O D -"‘ Q. cm Q0 cn Q5-• 0 a- = rD rD 0.) 0_ rt r+ 0 -' N 0 0 • • • —•n i 3 c 0 0 CD rD rD c r r+ Ei—•cn to • Fs = N = --1 rD O c r-ral O O cn Oi vi /-1- .<24rO co— v)C = n0 =• :t3n n =73 N = r+ =O cn' cm c .r-1 N D —. f_ 5 0 n S r+ rr1 rD = -f El; r+ (DD r+ m. -(DD = CD r ' cn = r+ CU rD r-+ = Q3 0DiC, 0 °� co -071 c :-• 0 - N 7 = * = v) _ -- co v) rt _ 3 rD %< r' Q = 0= 0 5' —. = ( 0 - QD- Cr"< rD == 0.) Cr r+ 0. - CD rD =" CD SD r-+ O..0.) 0 0 < rD -o O rD cn rte+ rt cn S 0) rD Q 3 r+ 0) r -t r+ N rr+ rD 0) 0 RLUIPA— Opponents' Appea Thank you very much for your time and consideration. • ;; 0-Oo rD 0 CT) 0) 0 0 0 0 rD .• 1 r+ rD : n, 'G O c rD rD Q • D 0) 0 0 rrDD rD rDQ C • rD w. O- rD -• (D 5 O rr+ � O w C C N rD O r --F O Q -0 5• 0 O c a) -' fp O C 'a rD eft 'G rD N �•n o Q) r+ rD rD 0) c O rD CD (1) N' rD CD O (1) c O — Q v o- C rD• rD 5 CD 0 0 ✓n • • • • H 0 0 0 O z rD O N rF^ z Bu WBil lwny7eiju3ry 'S' fl 0 A aay sam ;32- g Remo diCg Q 48 tidg naH ' vi Fb%H a 0312 0763 r cn m m 0 r m o ONI1HOIl `d]d'd 31VIS QUOS 0 ro z rorn rn h CD XCO O S • `4'.••• \A oJ 0 >11 •-Y -12j-1 0 > 111 (/) m > (/) z (z2 0 0 (,) z rn m • • 4VA"rv-,, ‘st "NNTRI, uij XI A3 --I I C 7) rn 0 ,Z 0 M 0 > (i) m O7 v) ---1 —0 M X5 -ci m 0 - ril M i C m a) C o •z i RI- z 0-io z i =1 (z) 0 (----; ,T) m m Z 0 0 20 x a) ---1 5 L) o o z z >> 0 0 0 0 m 0 m V) to Z SiCIIA0eld ONICT11112- Sl1VIS ONINelVd 211- CIDelg11\113 glIS- :11\11A1c101]A]a NV1 NOLIVINgle10 MS- :aganioNi iviiivvans is ,, $mulliffil — •==\40,11411,1 • 11101ilf M I V) -11 -1 m- -, =1 m : A x mrA) o z ancm > xo> _o _ 00 1x 7x 00 < m0mmmz Zozn Z Z= , 0ri z 0 0 m m , C) = a 1, m %1 0 rn 73 ---7- x m .4-- n ci > x 'E 0 , (-22,- z (-7) m 15; m > > -1 o r-- 70 ITI -0 ---1 > 0 =1 0 X 1— Z X 0 -0 Z > > < V) 7C 0—i Po n o 0 0() 0 m — z z Zm m n (A m 0 m co o -1 (A -< Fr -i v) N) (./) 0 1110)\V1 Cliell_NA3 ].1.1S- m X rn (-73 0 ZC o 7 m -vN O 7t rn mp • r zD M 0 z 0 T CINOd WdVJ S]/\OV I- ONIdVD1O 9I1 aESV ONI- SM3IA 01. SlD`'dWl dalb']dO- D A, ("- C� p° 7'0 0 cm C C r 0 x)0 n70c o c OD -0 c- zrn om Cp m rn --1 0 0 t m00 cn n Z Dom„ 0 � D �D m x) -1 Dz z Z mz m 0Z -oO O0 �0 K O K Sllb'IS ONDIelVd 66 Di/WS- V) D Z <rn O rn70 00> 73_ m m O 0 v' Z- cn 0 my X �0 0c m , F „ OJ IN) 01 —i 0 mmQfflrnH X X (M 70 mm m Cr) (i) m MMXv) X X M M X 0 Z 0 0 (/) rTh rn L.) =1 c•7i) rn rn > > T, 0 0 rn O 0 70 ---1 Z O 00 Z Z r • - V) Z 'Ji m Z Ci)("") . :a]aaviviiiwgnsaNz aNlAidOiDA]a O 0-1z o >0 cn 0 m - 0 70 O Orn z 8��> r77r-11� - -0 -n z m 1— Z Z 0 v Z - n rn rnz D� Drn D 0 57 - co w N > 70 rn O p° O - -7' Z70 > -o - { > 77 z m rn z :aOaad IM 'SJNIelVIH ellJV LANDSCAPE PLAN DEVELOPMENT: :ATIR IJS cDSOdOdd) + 6 O. '0 (ti) rn r rn v OD ..O IW 17Z :1SIa 0 rn r rn 0 0 o'. 00 IW ZZ :1SIa k or, n rn o o N 9AP :ONIafI13NI rn 0 D r=n 0 rn D Z 0 OE1o]dVNfl )IV d VNl1flVd- a9139JJVNf1 elO1H3V9 1W- a]llhiJVNfl dOl NDOd9- :S]NIl 1HOIS GNfl1S'N A) T u CO n o -T-I p 0 Z > < &) m Li —I O MOrn Z v' -v O c E :: J - „ 0 rO > ; n rn O 0 Z rn rn rrn r (/)D 70 Z 0 p rn 0 rnp -587 AC SLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT O n rn D D rn 70 - v r z n nl O p rn z rn rn r rn • co z O > p rn 0 0 rn z -587 AC SLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT Om rn z rn nz rn cn -H� 0 Dy r p S. —I >D rn D1 ]1dzI9GISNOD/1N]I3IJ J9 CD Q 5-- D- 0- D. C. Q Q N CD N ca 5 Q cNn ao Fr a CO C7 CD N (5' NV1d HOOld 033SOdO21d CLASSROOM & OFFICE WINGS OF BUILDING Reduced ceiling/roof height = more residential in appearance .gbiei (mai° Wooassop '8 ao 6uIUOz Aq alggnnolly 4. uoRounj 38..u6IGH Z m Height has minimal impact due to adjacent wings & sanctuary height Provides transition clearances/headroom in attic for mechanical ductwork 1seM SMG!A 'bui}Ubll IDani.DN • Inclination to look up, feel height above (symbolism & relationship with God) Glue buipl!ng Infloodwi Desired interior & exterior form & design aesthetic/look 1-u5i31-1 IIDH buuau oo uogounj'8 TuibpH z 52. c rn Z /2 ,O f Q n 0 O o n O p N 0- T Q O -+ 0- N oQ �o �x D3 Q 5�o CQ n Q Nn Q O j O Q cQ C'Qa- Q o H p N cn Q C Q-3 (<D0 a N 0 �_ n 0 Q 3 0 p Q (D 0 O -, =' CD Q 0 N o. c N c Q CQ Qo a C.p D R 7,75 cn 0- O O 4cD D0 O nO< 0 C J 2 co 0 O (D Q Q y D p o N Q N x Q Q O p �° O 0 -i- n m D (0 - 0 3 m' 3 ° E -0 °g a � 0 0xx ° �� 3 �' (6: f) o c Q 0 3 rn 7 m D n D- Q0- co C N �_ CO D to 2 Q -4 D- 0� y Q 0 o tn.ci `< 5• tQ N a)O O o O .( C 0 < 3 C (Q Q =‘" (C) Q = . Dncc O Q 0 NQ O m{ONCnQ Q- N n 0 5 n c. 3 Q oO O< Cr 3 3' -.: Q -z CO 0- C o Q = o Q C. C p 0Q 0 (Q Q Q C Q n (p4 (Q Q CI. g 0 O 0 ptQ N 0 tQ N P fp 0D QO XCD tQ Q Q R O -t, - D- v. Q z NQ C N 5-1-~ y O p-.Oo Q,3 S=-.-- 9° Q . 3 a 1 Efficient/Considerate layout because.... N. Again...building size/footprint & height = result of the program/required spaces Subject: Name Address Phone #s E-mail address Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: Name Address Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS BOC SITE PLAN APPEAL 8/27/18 My name is Randy Wills. 1 live at 20755 Snow Peaks Drive in Bend. Good morning and thank you, County Commissioners, for hearing this appeal. I've been the pastor of Father's House for 18 years. Our appeal and response to the opponents' appeal will be presented to you today as follows: Our design/engineering team will explain our proposal to include justification of the proposed size and design. Next, some members of our church will briefly share with you why they feel we need a larger building and what the sacrifice has been as we've very "creatively" used our space. There are many more members of our church who are here today to support a hoped-for decision from you to approve our new church. I ask the members of our congregation who are here today to support our new church, to please stand to be recognized. Also, pastors from other churches who wish to share some thoughts with you are here. The hearings officer's decision denying our church has set off alarm bells throughout the Deschutes County religious community. It is hard enough to site churches in Deschutes County — almost no zone in the county allows churches as outright uses, and if the hearings officer's interpretation stands, and we are denied, the County will set in motion an extremely burdensome, expensive, contentious, and difficult process for any church to be approved, if ever. That, with great respect, is not what either we or your staff thinks your code requires. Other ministers are here to explain that the hearings officer's decision is untenable and to ask you to overturn it for the good of the religious needs of your people and the community as a whole. I will then return to the table to explain our application, the religious basis for why we need the space we do; to explain to you we have not proposed to gratuitously overbuild as the hearings officer suggested, concerns about the hearings officer's decision, and about the opponents' appeal. Finally, our attorney, Wendie Kellington, will offer some legal insight into why you should affirm the hearings officer's decision that we met all the county's CUP requirements and should overturn his decision denying our church's site plan on the assertion that it is not "harmonious" enough. Please feel free to ask any of us any questions you may have as we move along. Thank you again. Page 1 of 9 Charlie Rowles Bob Pardee Mario Mendoza Leah Bressman Sheila Wills Zach Neemann Gil Miller Phil Harris Commissioners, your patience. Design Team Congregant, former planning commission member Lake County Congregant, worship team volunteer Congregant, mother of eight Children's Pastor Congregant, law enforcement member Pastor of local church, Vice -President of Bend Ministerial Association Pastor of local church, President of Bend Ministerial Association Randy Wills, Pastor of the Father's House church. Thank you again for As I mentioned previously, I've been the pastor of Father's House for 18 years. During that time, the church has experienced slow but steady growth. We started in a small building with 16 people on the west side of town. When we outgrew that, we found a piece of property on Pettigrew Rd; we wanted to be on the east side because a large percentage of our congregants were there. After 11 years, we have outgrown our current facility. We have to offer two services instead of one, which is completely contrary to our religious needs of teaching, singing and praying together to worship God — unity of the congregation is critical to our religious mission of ministering to and in our congregation's everyday lives and keeping their spiritual lives healthy and focused. Our current sanctuary was built to seat 176 people, but our congregation size is approximately up to 275 for special services such as on Christmas and Easter. Splitting into two services is difficult at this juncture because half of that many people takes away from the dynamics of our worship and teaching time. People in smaller groups feel more vulnerable and inhibited to demonstrate their worship of God. (For people who sing as I do, it's always nice to be in a large crowd so no one can hear you.) In a large group, there's a feeling of togetherness, warmth, and even excitement. The 7 -million-member denomination to which we belong, the Church of God of Cleveland, Tennessee, encourages joyful singing, untraditional prayer, passionate sermons, and even a lot of humor in our services. This is freedom of worship for us and being able to express ourselves the way we believe the Bible teaches is paramount to our very lives. Being together in one sanctuary in one service enables us to act on our faith. Page 2 of 9 There are also the practical problems of a congregation of 200-300 being forced to break into two services as we have been: there are a limited number of church volunteers who end up having to work two services — there are a limited number of ushers, Sunday School teachers, nursery caregivers, musicians and so forth, and asking the same people to volunteer for two wholly separate services puts an exhausting burden on them, risking church becoming a burden rather than the positive and satisfying religious experience we strive for; indeed, that we exist to provide. Accordingly, it is important for you to understand that our ministry is premised on our congregation coming together in word and song to worship as a whole; to adequately and completely serve our adults, our little ones, our primary children, teenagers and tweens, and we cannot do that in our existing space. Our need for more space is dire. Also, due to space constraints in our current facility, we no longer are able to host congregation -wide meals or business meetings, which are also important to the life of our church. Our chili cook -offs, dinner theaters, international meals, and Seders are things of the past, but not without deep regret. When we purchased the land on Pettigrew, the City had plans to bring the sewer system down Pettigrew within three years, but that never happened, so we had to build a large septic system on one third of our existing property to serve the needs of the church while waiting for city sewer that never came. We looked at several options to remodel our current structure, but because of the size and iocauon of our septic syr em, wi is k,ai !IBA be build upon, there is simply not enough room on our existing property for additional building space and additional needed parking. So we had to look elsewhere. We looked for two years for a site for a new church that was within about three (3) miles of our current location and about 5 acres in size, which is what we need for a church building, parking, drainfield, and reserve drainfield. This is evident when you look at our site plan. SLIDE 2 You see we have efficiently used our property which is just shy of 5 acres and within the 3 -mile area I have spoken about. We haven't wasted any land, which we know would be wrong given the extreme land needs in our area for a variety of uses. We have taken only our share; we have purchased, and we propose to build what we need. The reason we need land for our new church within about three (3) miles of our current location is that the majority of our congregation draws from residential areas within about three miles of our existing location. It is important to remain convenient to our congregation. Research shows, and I know this to be true from my own experience, that a church must be convenient to its congregation in order to become a part of their daily life and adequately serve the spiritual needs of its members. For an example, see the Pew Research Center Study at your record binder Tab 11, item G, at numbered pages 3, 15, Page 3 of 9 22, 23, 39, and 41. Over the two-year period that we looked before buying our subject property, there simply were not suitable property options within the 3 -mile area we need, that was composed of about 5 acres in size, that was properly zoned, and that was available to allow our church. Finding the subject five (5) acres on Stevens Road was a blessing. It's close to our current location and people who attend our church. The price was within our budget and the property itself is "build -friendly." During the few weeks after purchasing the property, I met three of our Steven's Rd. property neighbors. I introduced myself and let them know that we were building a church there. Only one of them told me that he wasn't sure about having a church there, but when I handed him a church business card, he told me that he knew we were all right because he had bought his Christmas tree from us for the past few years. None of the others expressed concern or called with any questions about the project, so I was surprised when the County told me that there was opposition. Please understand, though, that not all of our neighbors are opposed. Many have not weighed in at all, and one neighbor has written a letter to the County explaining his and his family's support for the proposal, and that he believes the church will be a beautiful and welcome addition to the area. See the letter in the record from Parker Carey which is Open Record Exhibit 21 dated May 8, 2018, at your record binder Tab 19. This illustrates that beauty and compatibility and harmony are in the eye of the beholder. If our church was one that the opposing people attended, they would not likely be uppusiiig. If our church was not a church but rather a dwelling the same size — and there are some in the community as the hearings officer recognized — they would not be objecting; in fact, that is a use permitted outright. The same sized horse -riding arena is allowed and so forth. Which is not to say the opponents' displeasure with having our church as a neighbor is not sincere, but rather to point out that the objections are very subjective, and different people will feel differently, and there is little that we can do to influence their opinions. The record confirms that even now there are no other reasonable property options for siting our church in the area we need to be in that are the proper size and that has the proper zone and that does not have the same issues as this property. Please see Attachment 1 to my letter in the record dated June 18, 2018, at your record binder Tab 29. The closest property to meet our needs even now that is for sale is located at 21360 Steven's Rd and is within a stone's throw of our new property (which is at 21420 Steven's Rd.) where we hope to build our church, and that property is also zoned MUA, but is almost twice the price we paid, and therefore, unaffordable for us. Also, there is no reason to think us trying to move there would receive any warmer reception than we have at the subject location from the opponents. Page 4 of 9 1 understand what churches need. I have been a pastor for over 35 years, and with those years of experience, I feel that I know what our congregation needs, and I also want to be clear that I would not construct, and have no desire to construct, a church with wasted space as the hearings officer suggested we may be doing. The church that we propose to build is the size we need and no more, and uses the space we have efficiently and thoughtfully. I've been involved with the building of six churches during my ministry, three of which are much larger than what we are planning on building here. What is the design of a successful church? It is exactly what we propose here. A cramped church with low ceilings that is not inviting from the outside nor the inside, does not serve our spiritual needs or our congregation's needs and, with all due respect, seems unreasonable. What it seems the hearings officer may seek is a building that is not a church. A church has to meet the needs of its congregation and meet the needs of its religious ministry, or, by definition, it is not able to function as a church. We do not seek to build a 7-11, or a storage building. We ask for permission to build a church. So, I do know the needs of our church, including its proper size and design to serve us now and our probable growth over the next decade. I know that we need to serve children as well as adults, and I know that we must serve and speak to youth in their preteens as well as through high school or we risk losing them. I know that families with children will not attend church if they are not assured that not only the needs of the parents but also their children are being met by the church. I know Father's House must be designed to bring people into a deeper relationship with God when they enter; it must have high ceilings as a symbolic expression of our religious belief that, in His House, we must be reminded of our Father in Heaven, and high ceilings draw our eyes to Him. Accordingly, to develop the size, design, and features of our new building, our church's leadership and I poured over various plans and a variety of ideas; we went over our options with our design/engineer team who has extensive experience designing churches; we went over options with builders and other pastors before deciding on the design of the new Father's House church. We took several things into account regarding the placement of the building on the property; we considered our needs but also those of our neighbors. Thus, one of the things we wanted to do was to shield our neighbors from the lights of the parking lot—not just the pole lights, but also head lights. Our design does that. We are limited in our options at the proposed site because the drainfield and reserve drainfield can only be where they are. You can see that on our site plan. SLIDE 2 Todd Cleveland, Deschutes County's Environmental Soils Supervisor, came out to decide septic site suitability and location. He inspected 25 holes a septic contractor had dug and concluded that the present approved location for both the septic drainfield and reserve were the only spaces available due to the soil composition on the site as well as proximity to other residences, including the parsonage. Commissioners, we have tried our best not to overbuild, and to Page 5 of 9 build a church that is sensitive not only to our needs, but to the community in which we will exist if you allow us; we seek to build only what we need presently and the near future. This plan we presented to the hearings officer and hope you approve is not an oversized "megachurch." He, in fact, said we are not a "mega church." I will talk in a moment about why we need a church of the size we propose, but my point here is that there does not seem to be a dispute from the hearings officer that the church we propose is a reasonable sized one. The hearings officer correctly pointed out that our proposed church is of a fairly typical size and configuration. However, he denied us our fairly typical church because he said we did not present enough reasons why we needed our fairly typical church. He seemed to say we had not made efforts to reduce the impacts. We think he may have missed some of the information in the record, which is understandable; there was a lot to go through. First, please look at our design. As you can see on our site plan, our church, being cross - shaped limits the bulk and scale of the church, minimizing its impact on others. SLIDE 2 I want you to know the other efforts we have made to accommodate concerns. In the hearings officer proceedings, we explained why we need the space that we do and demonstrated how the interior spaces would be used. I show you a slide of the floor plan we showed to the hearings officer demonstrating our need and I will explain to you how we will use the interior of the new buiiding. SLIDE 3 Also, because of expressed concerns about the amount of parking, we reduced our parking greatly from the 118 parking spaces that we preferred, to the bare minimum of 99 spaces that our traffic engineer said is the minimum that leaves "little margin for error." Further, because objectors argued they did not like to look at the light poles to light the exterior of the church, we took out all but three (3) light poles and made our lights low to the ground ("bollard" type lights), and I will show you a slide of what those look like. SLIDE 4 The three light poles that have to remain for safety we moved so that they were outside of the line of sight of any residence. You can see from this slide where they are now. SLIDE 5 None of the objectors will have to look at any of them. We added a great deal of landscaping — far more than the code requires. So, with the greatest respect, we believe it was unfair for the hearings officer to deny because we did not make an effort to mitigate our impact. Because the hearings officer in his decision asked for even more landscaping, we have revised our site plan yet again to add more landscaping and a fence as he suggested was needed. I show you a slide of our revised site plan that shows the additional landscaping Page 6 of 9 and fence the hearings officer suggested. SLIDE 6 The fence is very expensive, and we would rather not add that unless we absolutely have to. We now put that revised landscaping plan into the record as our commitment to what we will do and hope that resolves that concern of the hearings officer. The hearings officer also said we should have met with the objectors to see what we could do, if anything, to resolve their concerns. Accordingly, we met with the objectors last Tuesday, August 21, 2018. We presented drawings that reduced the height of the church, as shown on the next slide. SLIDE 7 We explained that we don't have options for moving the building around the site and showed them the only other configuration we could do at the site, which has more impact, not less. I show you that next on the slide. SLIDE 8 We showed them the additional landscaping and fence I just referred to. There were no questions or comments or even any signals that any of these options satisfy the church's opponents expressed to me at that meeting. Accordingly, we must move forward doing our best to respond to the hearings officer's request to "explain more"; add the landscaping and fence I just described and offer to reduce our building height as I just showed you on the previous slide to meet the harmonious standard. There is nothing more that we can do. So why do we need a church that is 14,560 sq. ft in size? That is the size of a church that we need to serve our congregation. The Deschutes County code requires that we demonstrate the size of the church, not only to meet the needs of the current congregation, but of its "probable growth." We have done that. It seems odd for the code to require that we show that the church meets the needs of the congregation and its "probable growth" and then have a hearings officer suggest the church should be denied if it is larger than needed to serve the existing congregation. Our church is an efficient use of the proposed 14,560 square foot space as I showed you earlier; it has a designated sanctuary which can serve our congregation now (up to 275 people) and in the probable growth future (it can serve up to 375). As you can see from our exhibit of other area churches, the size of our church is not overlarge to serve a congregation of our size. SLIDE 9 In fact, our proposed new church is smaller than some of the churches that our neighbors attend. Both the Nazarene church and Eastmont church are within 2 miles of our property and both are more than twice the size that we have planned. Both have residential neighbors all around them. Please understand that churches exist in neighborhoods because they are fundamentally a part of residential life and should be. In our own Page 7 of 9 country's beginning stages, the first thing a new community did was build its church and then a school and residences nearby. So we think a church in general, and our church in particular, is the right size and the right design for the religious needs of our church and is compatible and harmonious with the site, existing development, and approved projected development in the area. We also thought carefully about parking. We decided it would be best to put the parking at the street and install a great deal of landscaping to ensure compatibility and attractiveness to the residents in the area. We also believed that we needed 118 parking spaces and originally planned for that number, but because neighbors objected, we reduced our parking to the bare minimum needed to serve our church, which is 99 spaces. That we need 99 spaces is confirmed by the uncontroverted testimony of our traffic engineer Joe Bessman who explained that even 99 spaces leaves "little margin for error." See Mr. Bessman's letter in the record at our May 8, 2018 submittal, Exhibit 15. We considered placing the church the only other way that might work on the site given the soils constraints for the septic system. The only other possible configuration is the one you see on the slide. SLIDE 10 It is not good for the objecting neighbors, and it is not good for us. This configuration on the site would have put the church closer to the north property line, which would have been closer to one of our neighbors, and our parking lot would have been more visible to most of the neighborhood, causing problems of compliance with other county standards that require we obscure parking areas with either _1_ that next ..:�I� a building, fence or dense landscaping. This configuration makes next to impossible. Under that rejected design and configuration, both our parking lot lights and visitor head lights would have been in view of the neighbors. There is no reason to believe, I doubt, that this rejected design and configuration would fare any better under the "harmonious" standard. For us, the rejected configuration would not have been as inviting to people to want to worship with us because of the view from the street would be of a parking lot and the side of the building, rather than the welcoming front door entrance facing the street on our proposed plan. SLIDE 11 I believe that, given the chance, we will prove to be a great asset to this area. Across Stevens Rd. from our property is a proposed land development of up to 2800 homes, schools, library, and industrial. That will change this area immensely, and Father's House will be a good neighbor to those moving in as well as those already established. As the hearings officer said, our church will be a buffer to that intensive development coming across the street. We have served and ministered to our current neighbors with open arms and have a wonderful relationship with them. We work with Deschutes County by way of donating items to Family Action Network, remodeling homes for physically challenged children, opening up our church last year for people without A/C when the smoke was so bad. We Page 8 of 9 send underprivileged kids to the Eagle Cap Camp, help families adopt children, and even clean up after the Christmas Parade every year. Father's House is a good neighbor to have in any area. I want you to know, and I want our new neighbors to know, that I do understand what it feels like to build and then others build around me. When we built our home 18 years ago, there was one home adjacent to us. Within a few years, homes were built all around us, taking away our view of the mountains and empty acres behind us and across the street from us. My wife and I recognized that Bend is a growing city, and with that, there will be new homes, buildings, stores, businesses, and, hopefully, new churches, and sometimes it will be disappointing, but anybody's views of vacant or underdeveloped property can't be guaranteed by any entity. I know that you have to make many hard decisions, some big and some small. To the believers who call Father's House "home," this is a big one. To the other Deschutes County churches represented here by their respective pastors, this is a big one. The City has run out of affordable locations for churches. This will affect many people. I ask that you find in favor of Father's House building the church that it needs on the Steven's Road property. Thank you so much for your time. Pastor Randy wills Page 9 of 9 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes L If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: � � a, _ Date: Name Address Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS tes BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: Name Address Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS 7 AUGUST 27, 2018 CA ROWLES ENGINEERING & DESIGN . . 0 LU 0 z 1F- (/) 0 z LU 0 V) 1.1.1 0_ _J 1 I 1 LLJ z _J CL. uJ V) -SITE CENTERED LAYOUT -1 18 PARKING STALLS LL_ (/) 0 V) L U Z V) C.) LU U 0 L1.1 U 0 0 a Z 0 i= a Z z > < < z < 1._ V▪ ) -1- t r) 1--- O lc Qz v)a_ u_, v) ez 5- 06 E (-) Z ce al 0() D cz Lu ce _ v) , v) v) ce O z u '-c v) Lai ,_ LL, D L, . r•-.1 = Z i= LU -- z 2 i z 0z LLI D 0 (-)D LT, _. 0 0 U -I > = LU LU -4 Z a_ 0 5-< ?e/ ci- T< 1= 5 oz 0'"•-• v) Lu LT3 4§ 2 2 <v, ca 0 z 0 w 5 <- 1 (/) I I— 1 CY 1 11- (/) 0- i 1-1-I ItCP:OK,Nt - TM5 At%. \t-t-uSIL uJ D z z 0 z< OF__ (7)u LZ >32 uJ uJ ce 0 (7) - SITE CENTERED LAYOUT LLJ 1 1 1 uJ 0 z —J 0 LLI 0 >— c0 0 2 1 �j < < 0 Lu Z DS 0 CI Lu CZ (T — 0 z a 0 uJ LU0 LLJ V) uJ CZ LU UJ /-0S' 0 Ce I— 0_ Jo „ a z <Oc LL.(/)cD i - MAXIMIZES RETENTION OF EXISTING TREES tsss, sss-ss.41, sss skss. m,.1,,,),MIT'af&WAVAITN'T,,zW7W—WaWkw ,sas ,Naasakaskars-'"qiiMMaztak&it,tt: ALTERNATE SITE LAYOUT UJ 0 CZ a_ X LLI 0 0LU 0 0_ UJ LU SITING OPTIONS U-1 a ▪ J uJ 0 z a_ LU 1— (7) -SAME 99 PARKING STALLS X'tt. 0 CZ 0 CZ I- O u_ = Z LU U -I 2 00 Lu z < LLJ < a w 1- V) 00 o 0 1- w 0 w = O z 00 D -6 D ce O _I 0 D LU — LU i LY D C: U 1 (20 0 oe z 0 O p E • 0 uJ U -- w CL. < 0 0 O 2: CL. - GREATER IMPACTS TO VIEWS (7) CL LU 00uj uJ LU Z OI - LJ CZ 0 II - -INCREASED TREE CLEARING - REMOVES FARM POND 0 zCV) Z < • CZ OLLJ uJ0 v) 0_ LU c.0 • z • t73 w x LU \,40 CZ.gti t a vmmayszt"tx."7. ,\‘,1.7\ .„. DEVELOPMENT: z uJ 2ND SUBMITTAL ADDED: O V) Z Z I- V) < --I -J < Z Z O 00 Z I= I= E2 a a U -I 0 0 < < C CO ,__ 5- CN-- ,775.M.TIME MigMT%74P1' wClikt ,40%101 DEVELOPMENT: umwtv,v,,- 'taw> AFTER HEARINGS, WE ADDED: (>) 0 z a_ LU LI_ LL_ LU 0 - 12 ADDITIONAL TREES AND SCREENING PLANTINGS: co I- 0 _I .....".., L < 0 LJ 0 (/) Z"C' LU uj _.17_1 0 0 < V) 0,- ..-- 00 :7<-1 13 11_1 0_ W U_ C) 0 3- (ij) 0 Lu Z it7 3(J) 0... co L-2 D ce Lu W F- OZ LL- LLI i < 000CC) GV) Z 1 (/) 1 ND O 0 06 < I- e -NI- I= L) H- E UJ CI) I- UJ I- • . . .0 0 < Ce -a 1— I N 1 1 LO 1() 0 Cil N 1 1 - 14 TREES PRESERVED ONSITE -12 TREES PRESERVED IN ROW PROMINENT VISTAS: - BROKEN TOP DIST: 21 MI ELEV: 9177' - MT BACHELOR DIST: 22 MI ELEV: 9068' -LAVA BUTTE O 0 ELEV: 5023' DIST: 24 MI sL O, Qco w0- 0_ 0`0 Z w D w Q 0_ PROPOSED SITE ELEV: NASLUND SIGHT LINES: -BROKEN TOP UNAFFECTED - MT BACHELOR UNAFFECTED 0 w F- U O J - >_ Z w w w w a_ w- O ce °° Ul UJ � U J j LOMAX SIGHT LINES: - BROKEN TOP UNAFFECTED -LAVA BUTTE UNAFFECTED - PAULINA PEAK UNAFFECTED 0 W O U F-- LU cr> • Q W z > D J 1- • W C O= - F - CZ W WO ~z - THREE SISTERS - MT JEFFERSON - PILOT BUTTE z W O 0 F- 0 0 0 CZ W w V) - 587 AC SLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT F -- v) z w 0 0 w a Q z0 mV) z �w J > Q � I V) ZUJ cn 00 LU( 1\ >- OJ V) O u - w J CZz�0 -�,z "' Q Lu 0a 0DjJ LU CO > W W Liu Z oz 0 c--5 U m rr Q - FUTURE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL & VILLAGE CENTER TO BE DEVELOPED w w 0 w 0 O F- 0 0 V) Z w w V) CONCEPTUAL MASTER PLAN: -587 AC SLATED FOR DEVELOPMENT ›- F- V) - V) Z w 0 0 W Q Z Q m v> Z U-1 > V) Z v> w V) 00 w Q (>5 u z 0 z 0 CZ (J) 8 CHURCHES IDENTIFIED WITHIN A 4 MILE RADIUS: -AVG BLDG SIZE = 20,300 SF -PROP. BUILDING SIZE = 14,560 SF - -25% SMALLER THAN AVG TMAVVIN \ ,.'4,741KANVT-ty**-31,15ktget':nr-w,w4s, ttikiat 11/4, - -Watiditigitat—V-PevA. Vs„Naamt: N c n 0 0 :oN c ((7)) 4- 0 N CD E -I-- C that have influenced size & height) ? the building mass 1-- a- 0 - 0 0 LL W (./) EFFICIENT/CONSIDERATE USE OF MASS(SIZE & HEIGHT) Size/Footprint ® Allowable by zoning 11. Building Size driven by design program/needs of the church body Sanctuary Size, determined by... Congregation size and ability to gather together in prayer Hall Size, determined by... c 4) 0 0 Congregation size & ability to gather prior to/after service • Dinners & church gatherings • Maintain fire/life-safety egress requirements while providing gathering space e Areas, determined by... Classroom, Office, Nursery, & Stora • Experience & review of existing space at current building, including staffing needs Service spaces such as restrooms, kitchen, circulation, etc... • Required by the use of the space, occupancy, or code Minor increase in area from current spaces, in order to improve function of space Height & Function .o) 0 E. Allowable by zoning c D D O O 0 U U N 41 N 0 0 c E O i O i Q N 0 0 N N c U 11,7 � N '5 N co 0 111 r (13 ice & classroom areas 4— O Reduced ceiling/roof height = more residential in appearance c 0) tN a) W -1- W O U 0 c a) E c 0 L c a) O O a) a) 'v a) 5 o Q U c 00 0 0 L m•0 E bz CLASSROOM & OFFICE WINGS OF BUILDING Height & Function _C (ll r 0 0 Desired interior & exterior form & design aesthetic/look • Impactful building entry Inclination to look up, feel height above (symbolism & relationship with God) • Natural lighting, views west Provides transition clearances/headroom in attic for mechanical ductwork Height has minimal impact due to adjacent wings & sanctuary height ?kailfz,z ......,.. . eestrnk.v., ,A+47.E •,'% ,A7.57:147Alii: Height & Function V / 0 0V -0 0 U c 0 Offered concession - reduce roof slope/pitch, lower max height of building by 3ft Height is a result of function & desired performance • Vaulted ceiling serves desired form & acoustics - lift eyes/thoughts upward in contemplation • Vaulted ceiling serves line of sight & wall area for projector screens Pitched roof provides for better design & maintenance Lessens impact of snow, especially w/ heavy snow load occurrences. Reduced structure & maintenance Familiar design aesthetic fits awvit 0µ.7I v) 0 4- O a) 0 0) U (7) -8 ®o V! � 00 W - Again...building size/footprint & height = result of the program/required spaces Efficient/Considerate layout because.... 1 0 3 U c O v) c a Individual wings allow portions of building height to remain lower. c 3 u o a) 0-= 0 a a, O 0 0 Q) O a) c 0) 0 Q) v) oua O� 6 = W a LO ? a 0 a o 0 5 = Is a� .z -o 0) 0) o 'a - o c 5 r -a 2®a, a E U .? 0 0 0 v o� c a) iii o 0 0 c , a : 0) 15 O rO o o _.2._ _0 a O).,_ a5 _c .r.-. c ._ a, O W r Q) '5 c r c E O 6 -cU "= U 0 = y L > 0 O r a) E ca 0 3 o -c 0 0 E x U Oa, a)E Oc O O O v E 0 O) V -'1 Q Oa o= a x �„ O a, O : N 0 a2) N S � c 8Z7 O O _a £ a5 0 ° 6 a) o '5 4 a a) a) E aa) c0 0 ov 0c 0Q) o U c 0 c U 0 E c 'x .c N t 0 0) EU 0 a)= a)5 ao o = 3 - t/, a 0 .0 U . . < 0 --1" ES 0 CV �.r BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony � F Subject: ( Date , a Name ,` ;. Address Phone #s E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes i If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Submitting written documents as part of testimony? ; h Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS BOC Appeal August 27, 2018 My name is Sheila Wills. I live at 20755 Snow Peaks Drive, Bend, Or. I am an Associate Pastor in charge of the Children's Department at Father's House and have been a part of the church since August 2000 when my husband and I moved to Bend to pastor the church. Part of what qualifies me to be a Children's Minister and to speak on learning needs for children is my past experience of being a public and private school teacher, but more importantly, the experience I have from working in children's ministries since I was a teenager. I'm 61 now, so about 45 years. I've learned (and am still learning) what it takes to run a successful children's ministry, from using sticky tack instead of thumb tacks to organizing a staff of volunteers to work smoothly and passionately. Nursery... When we had just a few babies and toddlers, we managed just fine, but then we grew. Our nursery workers reported that toddlers were stepping on crawlers, and it became stressful not only for our volunteers, but for parents who were trusting us to keep their babies safe. Then we went to two services. We couldn't sustain the number of nursery volunteers needed. No matter how many children are in the nursery, we always have two sitters because of safety, legal protection, and liability issues. This caused us to have to hire an outside sitter to work in the nursery every Sunday morning along with a volunteer for each service. It put an additional strain on our congregation. That did not alleviate the need to separate our babies from toddlers - to have a Baby Nursery and a Toddler Nursery as is necessary for a successful ministry. Our Nursery goes from birth through three years. As I just mentioned, we have big three -year-olds running around with babies who are crawling at best. We've had more than one little hand stepped on or a just -walking -one -year-old accidentally pushed over. It's not unreasonable to ask that we have room to make a safe place for our little ones. Sunday School for ages preschool through 8th grade Please understand that a successful Sunday School is critical to the success of our church and to the cohesion of our congregation. To be successful in their own adult ministry, and to stay connected to the church, parents must feel that their children are benefitting from their experience and growing in God. We are fortunate to have a dedicated and talented group of 24 volunteers who take care of our kids for Sunday school in one form or another: from checking them in, to leading them in music and prayer, to assisting in classrooms, to teaching. For Sunday School to be most successful, all similarly -aged children must be together, beginning at a single time (10 am) where a single set of adults ministers to them. When we were smaller and could fit into our space, we used to enjoy one Sunday School service this way, composed of the preschool group, primary group, elementary group, and middle school group, where the adults could serve all of the kids as appropriate, starting at 10am. Since being forced into two services due to our significant space constraints, I now have to assign volunteers which service they must come to in order to continue their ministry, plus they only get to see half of the kids because of different services our families must choose to attend. This has caused problems for us in ways we weren't able to foresee, such as a woman teacher having to teach in our second service because of her particular skill set, but her husband only being able to attend first service due to his work schedule. This goes directly against one of our church's basic foundations: harmony in families. Because of two services, we have had to forego splitting the kids into age-appropriate classes. Now, the requirement for two services means the kids are diluted, so we only have two classes for kids 3 years through 5th grade! Because of the lack of room and now the tack of volunteers, we have to keep 1st through 5th graders all in one room being taught the same lesson the same way, which hinders us from helping kids with issues they face for their specific age. When we were able to enjoy one service together, we had a Sunday School class for middle schoolers until our number of children outgrew the classrooms, so we actually had to cut that class. Currently, the middle schoolers and high schoolers both are in the main sanctuary with the adults the entire morning. Now that we're at two services, there is enough room, but not enough volunteers, so our middle schoolers struggle with staying in a morning service that is geared for adults. This also causes problems for their parents who want their children to enjoy and be engaged in their Sunday morning experience. After we went to two services, I noticed a family not attending, so I called the mom and inquired if there was a problem because their family had seemed very content. The mother of the family told me that they weren't coming anymore because the early service is too early to get their five kids ready and out the door in time (their kids' ages range from 3 years through 6th grade) and the late service puts their lunchtime late and the three-year-old twins become tired and cranky by the time they get home. She also said that their 6t" grade girt has said she is bored on Sunday mornings and would love to have a class where she could connect with other girls her age. The mother expressed her disappointment at the turn of events because they love Father's House and wish that we had the room for one service again and room to grow classes—if that happened, they would be back. In other words, people are leaving the church due to our space constraints. Youth...6th through 12th grade When our church attendance wasn't as targe as it is now, our young people (6t"-12t" grades) were able to meet on Wednesday evenings in a classroom in our building. Now we have a group of over 20 teens, and they don't fit into any of our rooms except our sanctuary. The four problems with that? The large room overwhelms them and inhibits them from sharing and being involved in the lessons; new students feet vulnerable and rarely return; our electric bill is higher; and there is no way for the youth to make it "theirs," no decor or things that would make it unique for teens. An important facet of our ministry is to engage our youth in the Word of God, and we are unable to successfully do that simply because of our significant space constraints. I ask that you give us the space that we need to grow our children in their faith. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING a/r REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject:.,. _ Date: Name g, Address Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT` COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: `,.: Date: Name Address Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS w 0 J1 - a BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: ��s G &Lk - Name 'D a?e)..r-Atje Address A429Z Awa t -i -A),612 Ze,00, (arc., q 77c�� Date: Phone #s Sy/ — c21 — ) Q ci E-mail address L cO1.--r6/cKg 11/4a0, cam In Favor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes L, If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS -k BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: / LSF 12 �c.o _ Date: /0 ./,/(6' Name 4 /' ®�e Address / p"yc -7 ,) - 5 7 -t) 6572 7� Phone #s E-mail address XIn Favor `. eGr. C;t2 ,'cam 4, Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS Subject: Name Address BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen 'Input or Testimony Date: Phone #s E-mail address. In Favor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed 0 SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS w 0 Subject: Name Address BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Phone #s E-mail address In Favor ,-,717e) 2 �i� tAs �• Date: i4 Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes J If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS Citizen Input or Testimony Date: Subject: aF I. Name Address Phone #s t E-mail addressC4.02 cpu t� Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Subject: .. Date: Name Address Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS -r ES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject: < 1 0 - / / no( --)44 -�1 Date: ` -'/W. Name AddressN U' C c /l A f lr��( Phone #s E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS Van Vactor Law LLC Will Van Vactor Admitted in Oregon 750 NW Charbonneau St Suite 201 Bend, OR 97703 541.233.8517 will@vanvactorlaw.com www.vanvactorlaw.com August 27, 2018 Hand Delivery Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners c/o Cynthia Smidt 1300 NW Wall Street, 2nd Floor Bend, Oregon 97703 Subject: Father's House Appeal 247-18-000624-A and 247-18-000643-A Dear Chairman DeBone and Commissioners Baney and Henderson: My office represents Julie Naslund in the above referenced matter. Thank you for considering these appeals, as I believe they raise critical issues relating to property rights and the rule of law. I look forward to discussing those issues with you at the upcoming hearing. I. Appeal of the Conditional Use Approval (by Julie Naslund) 1. Incorrect Interpretation and Application of DCC 18.128.015(B) The applicant seeks approval of a 15,000 square foot church in the Multiple Use Agricultural (MUA) zone. Churches are allowed as a conditional use in the MUA zone. Thus, to be approved, a church must meet certain conditional use criteria. One such criterion is DCC 18.128.015(B), which requires: The proposed use shall be compatible with existing and projected uses on surrounding properties on the factors listed in DCC 18.128.015(A). The standards in DCC 18.128.015(A) include review if the site, design, operating characteristics, transportation access, and natural and physical features (e.g. topography, natural hazards, and natural resources. The Hearings Officer adopted a "too crabbed" historic interpretation of DCC 18.128.015(B) is incorrect. The "historic" interpretation as explained in the staff report and adopted by the Hearings Officer finds that "compatible means "...the existing and projected 'use' on surrounding lands will be allowed to continue" and that the proposal will not "preclude or severely impact whether surrounding properties may continue to be used for their existing use". Hearings Officer's Decision ("Decision"), pg. 12. The Hearings Officer's interpretation renders the provision meaningless, since short of a physical invasion or trespass by a developer onto adjacent lands, no use will ever be incompatible. Such interpretation will not be upheld by LUBA or other Oregon appellate courts because it is not supported by the express language of the ordinance and is inconsistent with the purposes and policies underpinning the conditional use ordinance and the MUA zone. Importantly, the Hearings Officer's interpretation, in real world application, requires the physical invasion of surrounding properties. This is because existing and projected uses will always be able to continue unless a conditional use on the developing property encroaches to render that use impossible. For example, someone could place a 5 -story hotel on the subject property, despite it clearly not being compatible with adjacent uses. However, because adjacent owners would be able to continue to use their property for exiting residential purposes, under the Hearings Officer's interpretation, because the adjacent uses can continue, the hotel is compatible. Alternatively, someone could put a sewage treatment facility on the subject property, but until waste leaks onto adjacent property (or some other physical invasion occurs), the adjacent owner will not be precluded from using his or her house. The Hearings Officer's own example of a landing strip underscores how his interpretation fails. In Deschutes County, there are already landing strips near residential uses. This shows that there is nothing about a landing strip that necessarily precludes an adjacent residential property owner from continuing to use their property for residential purposes. Thus, under the Hearings Officer's interpretation, there would be no basis to deny a landing strip under this provision, despite the fact the Hearings Officer assumes neighbors would be able to show a landing strip is incompatible. Nothing about a landing strip would preclude a rural residential property owner from continuing to use their property, despite clear conflict. Moreover, the use is inconsistent with the underlying purpose and policies of the conditional use criteria. Conditional uses are uses that can allowed so long as the applicant can demonstrate the use is appropriate in the underlying zone. Deschutes County requires such uses be compatible with the existing and potential development on surrounding properties. By adopting the "too crabbed", historic interpretation, the Hearings Officer is not ensuring combability because it renders the criterion meaningless. I also take issue with the reference to the adopted interpretation as the "historic" interpretation. No one has cited a decision from this Board where such interpretation was adopted. Staff cited a Hearings Officer decision that adopted the historic interpretation. However, I also cited in my April 24, 2018, submittal a Hearings Officer decision from 2000 (CU -99-138) that did not adopt or use the so call "historic" interpretation when considering whether a church was compatible. Thus, there is no need, nor any basis, to give the historic interpretation precedential import in this case. A proper interpretation of this criteria must consider all of the language in the code provision. In this case, as explained in Will Van Vactor's April 24, 2018, submittal, the code provision expressly requires consideration of design and operating characteristics. By requiring that the design be compatible with the surrounding uses, the express language requires consideration of whether the design is compatible with surrounding uses. In other words, since the code requires consideration of design, the decision maker must consider more than whether the proposed use will preclude adjacent existing uses from continuing. Such interpretation is consistent with 2000 decision I cited above. Hearings Officer Karen Green took into account design of the church and compared it to nearby buildings. She correctly did not consider whether the church use would "preclude" existing uses on nearby lands. In this case, as outlined in prior submittals, the church is not compatible for the following reasons: 1. Operational characteristics and intensity of use in relation to surrounding rural residential properties. 200 to 300 hundred people, and associated vehicle traffic, imposed upon a quiet, rural neighborhood, even once a week, is not compatible. This does not take into consideration the associated activities that can be expected to occur — weddings, congregation wide meetings, youth groups and social services groups, on a daily and weekly basis. 2. It is not compatible due to size and sale. The largest structure within the viewshed is 3600 SF. The average size is around 2300 SF. This proposed 15,000 square foot structure would be 4 to 6 times larger than any residences in the neighborhood. 3. The structure would dominate the landscape and views due to level, open topography. There is nothing even close to this size within the viewshed and the topography would not allow it to be effectively screened in any real way. It would be the most prominent feature in the rural landscape. The Hearings Officer correctly noted this when considering whether the IMMEFZIWZROS church is "harmonious" with existing development but failed carry that analysis into his analysis of DCC 18.128.015. 4. Development would compromise the preservation of open space and rural characteristics due to scale and intensity of use. This is the state policy of the MUA zone. This conditional use criterion must be interpreted within that context. For the above reasons, we appeal the Hearings Officer's finding that the proposed use meets the conditional use criteria in DCC 18.128.015(B). 2. Violation Julie Naslund's of Due Process Rights My client also appeals the Hearings Officer's open record period re -set order as described in his Order dated May 22, 2018, and as clarified by his email to Adam Smith dated May 31, 2018. My client believed, as did staff, that the Hearings Officer's order reset the open record period. See Mr. Van Vactor's May 30, 2018 email. As explained in Mr. Van Vactor's June 1, 2018, email to the Hearings Officer, we were not afforded a meaningful opportunity to be put on a fair playing field. By way of background, the reset open record period was the result of the applicant using county resources not available to the public. Specifically, the applicant had a member of the church, who happens to be a senior planner at Deschutes County, obtain information not publicly available. As a consequence of the Hearings Officer's unclear order and staff's interpretation (which we agreed with), we were not able to fully act on County Counsel's efforts to make the process fair and we have been substantially prejudiced. Consequently, we ask the Board to deny the conditional use application and give the applicant instruction to reapply. The process has been so tainted by the applicant's own conduct that this is the only way to make the process fair to the public. By having the applicant re -apply, it will afford all concerned parties a fair chance to participate in the proceeding. II. Appeal of the Site Plan Denial (by Father's House) As part of the applicant's request for a 15,000 square foot church in the MUA zone, it must also meet site plan review criteria. These criteria are located in DCC 18.124. in this case, the Hearings Officer correctly found that the applicant did not meet site plan approval criteria. Specifically, DCC 18.124.060(A) requires: Approval of a site plan shall be based on the following criteria: A. The proposed development shall relate harmoniously to the natural environment and existing development, minimizing visual impacts in preserving natural features including views and topographical features. Importantly, the Hearings Officer found the proposed church and parking lot are not harmonious with existing development. Dec., pg. 19. The applicant appeals that portion of the Hearings Officer's decision. In its Notice of Appeal the applicant lists several reasons why it appealed that portion of the decision. I will try to address each of the applicant's contentions in the order raised. 1. The Applicant Misconstrues Plain Meaning of DCC 18.124.060. The applicant writes in its appeal, "Fathers House Church does not create any 'disharmony' at all and certainly demonstrated that it does not create more disharmony and other uses a lot outright and conditionally in the MUA zone". FH Appeal, pg. 2. The applicant goes on to compare the proposed church to allowed uses in the MUA zone. The applicant claims the church is "no bigger or taller than an agricultural building or riding arena that is allowed in the MUA zone outright." FH Appeal, pg. 2 (emphasis added). The applicant also contends "[t]he Church demonstrated that its parking was well within the parking provided for other uses that are allowed in the in the MUA zone ..." Id. (emphasis added) The applicant further contends the Hearings Officer "erred in deciding that the Church failed to show it would not 'create more disharmony than other uses allowed by right or conditionally' in the MUA zone." The applicant's argument demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of this approval criterion. Specifically, DCC 18.24.060(A) does not allow for comparison to allowed uses in the MUA zone. Instead, this criterion requires the decisionmaker to compare the proposed development the natural environment and existing development. The applicant incorrectly argues that the Hearings Officer was supposed to compare the proposed church to hypothetical development. The Hearings Officer describes the standard he applied on pages 17 and 18 of the decision. Specifically, the Hearings Officer found "harmonious means "a 'minimum of conflict, discord or similar impacts on existing development and the environment." Dec., pg. 17. He went on to note that the focus is on the design and that the criterion is "akin to a design review provision requiring that the applicant demonstrate that it has taken reasonable and feasible steps to make the use fit into the neighborhood through, design, layout, location, and other factors expressly that the applicant minimize primarily visual impacts." Dec. pg. 18. The Hearings Officer correctly notes it is proper to only consider existing development and natural features. Id. This criterion only allows comparison of the proposed use to existing development to determine whether such use is harmonious. The Hearings Officer correctly did so. The applicant's contention that the proposed church is comparable to "allowed uses", when the cited "allowed uses" do not currently exist near the subject property should be disregarded because such consideration is not allowed by the plain language of the ordinance. 2. The Applicant's "Revised" Site Plan Does Not "Better Harmonize" the Church with Existing Residences. As its second argument, the applicant contends that the Hearings Officer erred when he found "'the applicant had a burden to demonstrate reasonable efforts to consider alternatives that would better harmonize its proposal with existing residences in the area, particularly on this relatively small, flat parcel with no topographical vegetative or other natural features to soften its impact." FH Appeal, pg. 3. The applicant is of the belief that its modest revisions, somehow make the oversized church harmonious with the rural residential neighborhood. However, the concerns raised by the neighbors, including my client, went well beyond those minor revisions. The Hearings Officer identified some of those concerns on page 19 of his decision and noted that: • It is not clear why the applicant chose a peaked roof; there is no indication a slightly sloped roof was considered; • There is no indication a less traditional church design is was considered by the applicant; • The mezzanine appears to be for mechanical and storage, so might be eliminated; • The entryway 23 feet wide, the great hall 63 feet; • The applicant may desire space for dinners, but it is unclear why classrooms cannot be multipurpose with movable walls; • It is unclear why the east -west wing footprint cannot be reduced without impacting functionality; • Large expenses of windows rather than solid siding would be less intrusive; and • Perhaps another building orientation would mitigate impacts. The Hearings Officer correctly found that the proposed church is not harmonious with the existing development and that the applicant could have, and should do more, to make it harmonious. In that regard, he gave the applicant some very specific suggestions. The applicant must reapply for site plan approval taking those suggestions into account if it wants to make its proposal harmonious with existing development. 3. The Hearings Officer's Interpretation of DCC 18.124.060 is Consistent with ORS 215.416(8), LUBA Law, and ORS 215.427. v�+ The applicant contends that DCC 18.124.060 requires the submittal of serial site plan applications until a hearings officer finally approves the proposal. FH Appeal, pg. 3. The applicant contends that this code provision, as interpreted by the Hearings Officer, is "so vague" that the applicant has no idea how to comply in the first place, or how it might go about revising the site plan, or how many designs it must it must show it reviewed and rejected. Id. Due to the applicant's misunderstanding of this code provision, the applicant goes on to contend that the "serial application" requirement violates ORS 215.416 and ORS 215.427. The "serial application" argument is creative, but not well founded in law. Oregon courts allow local governments freedom to adopt generic and subjective approval criteria, as long as they explain in particular cases what the criteria require. Multi -Light Sign Co., 39 Or LUBA at 614; BCT Partnership v. City of Portland, 130 Or App 271, 277, 881 P2d 176 (1994). See also Lee v. Portland, 57 Or App 798, 802-803, 646 P2d 662 (1982) (rejecting a vagueness challenge to requirement that proposed development be consistent with "public convenience and welfare"). In Multi -Light Sign Co., 39 Or LUBA at 613-615, LUBA held that the city's standards requiring an application to "respond to the area's unique characteristics" and "reinforce the area's historic significance" were not impermissibly vague, at least when the city explained (before and in its decision) of the neighborhood's character and the proposed development's inconsistency with that character. Importantly, in Spiering v. Yamhill County, LUBA No. 93-049, LUBA found that a "compatibility" as an approval standard adequately informed interested parties of the basis on which the application would be approved or denied, and therefore complies with ORS 215.416(8). 25 Or LUBA 695, 715 (1993). Also, requirements of "compatibility" and "livability" were found to be sufficient in Oregon Entertainment Corporation v. City of Beaverton, LUBA No. 99-198, 38 Or LUBA 440, 456-459 (2000), aff'd, 172 Or App 361 (2001). The applicant overly complicates the Hearings Officer's interpretation in an effort to make it sound like it will have to file "serial" applications before someone will finally agree that the proposal is harmonious. That simply is not the case. If the applicant takes the advice of the Hearings Officer (see Dec., pg 19), the County will likely approve the site plan application. The Hearings Officer explains to the applicant, in the decision, that the applicant needs: • To be `harmonious' in this area it is evident that the larger and more incongruous the structure and parking area the more consideration must be given to design, layout, and locational options to minimize impacts on existing development. Dec. pg. 19. • There is nothing in the record suggesting that the applicant met with neighbors in an effort to evaluate options to address impacts. • There is nothing suggesting that the applicant gave any serious consideration to producing the footprint, or different design, layout and placement alternatives in relation to how to might better blend in and reduce impact. • Perhaps [parking] could be [split] up so as not to create such a large expanse. As noted above, the Hearings Officer also stated: • It is not clear why a peaked roof was chosen; there is no indication a slightly sloped roof was considered; • There is no indication a less traditional church design is was considered; • The mezzanine appears to be for mechanical and storage, so might be eliminated; • The entryway 23 feet wide, the great hall 63 feet; space for dinners maybe desired but it's unclear why classrooms with movable walls could be multipurpose; • Unclear why the -east west wing footprint cannot be reduced impacting functionality; • Large expenses of windows rather than solid siding would be less intrusive; and • Perhaps another building orientation would mitigate impacts. Not only is the harmonious standard lawful under Oregon law, but the Hearings Officer provides the required guidance to the applicant. Upon filing a new application and taking the design considerations noted by the Hearings Officer into account, the proposed use should be harmonious. As it stands now, the applicant has not redesigned the church to take those considerations into account and therefore the site plan request still must be denied. Although I believe the Hearings Officer met his obligation in regard to providing the required guidance, if the Board disagrees, it should not overturn his ultimate conclusion. Instead, if anything, additional guidance to the applicant should be provided for its next application. 4. The Hearings Officer's Denial Does Not Violate ORS 215.441 The applicant also misconstrues ORS 215.441(2). Critically, the law specifically states: (2) A county may: (a) Subject real property described in subsection (1) of this section to reasonable regulations, including site review or design review, concerning the physical characteristics of the uses authorized under subsection (1) of this section; or (b) Prohibit or restrict the use of real property by a place of worship described in subsection (1) of this section if the county finds that the level of service of public facilities, including transportation, water supply, sewer and storm drain systems is not adequate to serve the place of worship described in subsection (1) of this section. (emphasis added) In light of this plain language, the Hearings Officer correctly found ORS 215.441 does not preclude site plan review concerning the physical characteristics of the applicant's proposal. He also correctly found that nothing in the denial of the site plan precludes or restricts the applicant from conducting any the of listed activities provided it first demonstrates a physical space and layout necessary for those activities is the one that minimizes impact on views and harmonizes the development to the existing development to the extent reasonably feasible.' The Hearings Officer also correctly notes that the legislative history submitted by the applicant itself, confirms ORS 215.441 does not apply to the physical impact of the proposal. The County's Site Plan Review ordinance (DCC 18.124) is specifically crafted to allow for the site review and design review of buildings concerning the physical characteristics of certain proposed uses (including churches). The provision at issue, DCC 18.124.060(A) specifically calls for reasonable regulation of proposed uses to make sure they are harmonious with surrounding development. This commonly used language has not been found to violate Oregon law and, in fact, is expressly permitted by Oregon law. 5. DCC 18.1240.060(A) is not Contrary to RLUIPA The applicant contends that DCC 18.124.060 violates RLUIPA because; 1. The code is unreasonable as applied (FH Appeal, pg. 5); 2. The decision imposes a substantial burden on the Church without demonstrating a compelling state interest (FH Appeal, pg. 7); 3. It violates the "exclusions and limits" clause of RLUIPA; and 4. The decision violates the United State and Oregon Constitutions. Each of those arguments is addressed in turn. First, DCC 18.1240.060(A) is not unreasonable and is supported by applicable case law. The Hearings Officer hit the nail on the head with his analysis of RLUIPA on page 33 of his decision. The Hearings Officer correctly found: Nothing in the denial of the site plan imposes a substantial burden on the religious activities of the applicant. 1 have found that those activities are allowed and are not incompatible or just harmonious. The denial is based on the applicant's failure to consider design, layout and other similar alternatives that would recently accommodate its needs and still address the impacts of the structure and parking lot on surrounding properties. It could be that minor changes would greatly 1 The same can be said about the compatibility standard in DCC 18.128.015(8). Just because the proposed use is not "harmonious" or "compatible" now, does not mean that a new design cannot be made to meet these standards. Oregon law specifically allows such reasonable regulation by local governments. reduce impact that proposal really is the minimum necessary the least impactful. [In Corp. of Presiding Bishop v West Linn the Oregon Supreme Court] upheld an arguably much more burdensome denial and concluded that the provision is violated only if the regulation or denial "'pressures' or 'forces' a choice between following religious precepts and forfeiting certain benefits, on the one hand, and abandoning one or more of those precepts in order to obtain the benefits, on the other." It favorably cited cases holding it permissible to deny an application. My site plan denial is based on failure to submit satisfactory data with the possibility that a modificaiotn or more evidence that the proposal is the least impactful feasible proposal would result in an approval. As I noted in my June 18, 2018, RLUIPA is not a sword that entitles a church to whatever it wants. The applicant would have us believe that the law entitles it to bully its way to whatever decision it thinks is appropriate. That's not the law, though. This federal law is designed to protect religious uses from discriminatory conduct by local governments. There is nothing discriminatory about the Hearings Officer's denial, nor is there anything discriminatory about the subject regulation. There is plenty case law to support the Hearing Officer's decision. Site plan review is proper under RLUIPA. See e.g., Corp. Presiding Bishop v. West Linn, 388 Or 453, 111 P3d 1125 (2005). As the Hearings Officer notes above, in that case, the denial imposed a much greater burden on the church and was still upheld by the Oregon Supreme Court. There simply is no substantial burden just because a site plan review is denied. The applicant has been instructed on what it must do to make the church harmonious. Having to resubmit an application is not a substantial burden. The applicant's second contention under RLUIPA is that the Hearings Officer failed to identify a compelling interest to justify the denial. Importantly, the government does not need to have a compelling interest, because there is no substantial burden. 42 USC Sec. 2000c. To the extent the Board is concerned a compelling interest should nonetheless be adopted, I want to point out that are cases that confirm site plan review is a compelling state interest. As I noted in my May 8, 2018, submittal, a compelling interest includes protecting public health and safety. Such compelling interest include preserving rural and rustic, single family residential character of a residential zone. See e.g., Eagle Cove Camp & Conference Ctr. Inc. v. Town of Woodboro, 734 F3d 673 (7th Circ. 2013). Here, the compelling interest is stated in the purpose statement of the MUA-10 zone. This has been part of the long-term land use plan for Deschutes County for many years. When it adopted its zoning ordinance, the County decided to plan for and protect certain areas from urban development and preserve its rural character. Again, although I do not believe there is a substantial burden, even if there is, there remains a compelling interest to preserve the rural character of the existing neighborhood. Next, as its third RLUIPA arugment, the applicant argues that the decision is unlawful under RLUIPA's "exclusions and limits" clause. This clause prohibits local governments from implementing land use regulations that (1) "totally excludes" religious assemblies in the jurisdiction, or (2) unreasonably limit religious assemblies. 42 USC 2000c(3). The applicant does not development this argument, so it is difficult to respond. However, it should be noted that most every zone in Deschutes County allows churches. Nothing in RLUIPA requires that the uses be allowed outright. As noted above, there is plenty of case law that allows the reasonable regulation of religious land uses, and that regulation of physical characteristics and site plan review are permitted and are not unreasonable. Fourth, the applicant contends the challenged decision violates the United States and Oregon Constitutions. Again, this argument is not fully developed. I note, though, that this argument is contrary to a substantial body of case law, including the cases cited in this letter regarding ORS 215.441 and RLUIPA. 6. There is Nothing Vague in How the Hearings Officer Interpreted DCC 18.116.030(F)(1) The Hearings Officer correctly interpreted DCC 18.116.030(F)(1). This provision requires all off street parking on lots adjacent to residential uses be screened. The applicant failed to provide such screening. Any attempt to do so now requires a new application or a modification application. Denial as explained by the Hearings Officer is correct. Because of the instruction from the Hearings Officer, the applicant can correct that upon re-application. 7. Denial Based on the DCC 18.116.030(F)(1) Does Not Violate ORS 215.441 or RLUIPA Lastly, the applicant contends that denial by the Hearings Officer under DCC 18.116.030(F)(1) violates all of the religious protection laws previously cited. Once again, the applicant fails to acknowledge that reasonable regulation of physical characteristics is allowed under these laws. The required screening is intended to protect the significant impact created by the physical characteristics of a large building, like the proposed church. For the reasons explained above regarding DCC 18.124.060(A), these laws do not entitle the church to bully its way to approval. III. Conclusion To close, I want to remind you that the applicant carries the burden of proof. In this case, the applicant has failed to establish its proposal is either "compatible" or "harmonious" with surrounding development. As my client has stated repeatedly, she is not opposed a neighborhood church on the subject property. She does, however, want the applicant to not bully its way to a church that violates the County's code. The reasonable regulation of the physical characteristics of the church to limit the impact of the proposal on surrounding properties is lawful and necessary to protect the public. As a final note I want to restate something I wrote in a May 8, 2018, letter: ...Orrin Hatch stated in regard to RLUIPA, and that Pastor Wills quoted in his April 23rd letter: "... we must do our best to ensure that in our communities Bible study will not be zoned out of believers' own homes, to ensure that Americans' places of worship will not be zoned out of their neighborhoods ..." The italicized language was in Pastor Wills letter. I underlined the word "their" for emphasis. I think the above sentence is very telling regarding the real impact of RLUIPA in this case. None of the congregants live in the neighborhood. No one in the congregation is being "zoned of their neighborhood". To the contrary, the opponents are being zoned out of their neighborhood. They will forever lose their rural residential neighborhood to a nearly 15,000 square foot church and associated parking lot. The applicant is overreaching with its current proposal. The Board should deny the request and instruct the applicant how it can make its proposal "compatible" and "harmonious", like the Hearings Officer did, so that the church can reapply with a proposal meets the applicable approval standards. Best Regards, Will Van Vactor BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' 'MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony } % C./U(4 4._ Subject: . .`CVi -i-C G)tet-; 6 0 A --`t ' ,t; A L Date: 2..`7 4 u &1 c.,( Name 0 t % )L6 -,Lica It);) Address uheci Q..- q ---t I c `z.--- Phone #s �� (Q ! 9 () 5 ) E-mail address b eA tAckU\ v L `cc c K c v va", In Favor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? X Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. c; Opposed SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS w a BOARD OF COMMISSIONERSMEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Citizen Input or Testimony Subject:Zqf /94%„L - Name Address /IA/ ,SCf'V Dater/17�� (,/4; r 1.14/ 4 Phone #s 5 /— .SIU °' 4 E-mail address `- 'c; f � ,t/ rL ,�c /VJ J& i�'c /.s C(1)1-) In Favor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed SUBMIT COMPLETED REQUEST TO RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE MEETING BEGINS