Loading...
2019-16-Minutes for Meeting December 10,2018 Recorded 1/10/2019U2 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, Oregon (541 ) 388-6570 Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2019-1 6 Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk Commissioners' Journal 01 /10/2019 11:58:22 AM C-0 2019-16 FOR RECORDING STAMP ONLY 9:00 AM WEDNESDAY, December 10, 2018 BARNES & SAWYER ROOMS Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Phil Henderson and Anthony DeBone, Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; David Doyle, County Counsel; and Laura Skundrick, Board Administrative Assistant. No citizens and 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.iq,m2.com/Citizens/Default.aspx CALL TO ORDER: Chair DeBone called the meeting to order at 10:05 am. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: CITIZEN INPUT: CONSENT AGENDA: Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Henderson requested further discussion on Consent Item #1. HENDERSON: BAN EY: Move approval of Consent Agenda Items 2 - 6 Second. BOCC BUSINESS MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 1 OF 6 VOTE: HENDERSON: BAN EY: DEBONE: Consent Agenda Items: Yes. Yes. Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 1. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2018-047, a Resolution to Acquire Right of Way for Construction of Road Improvements on SW Canal Blvd, SW 61 St St, and SW Quarry Ave 2. Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2018-076, Vacating Bryce Court 3. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2018-048, Initiating the Vacation of Bryce Court 4. Consideration of Board Signature on Letter Appointing Shawn McDaniel to the Two Rivers Special Road District Board 5. Consideration of Board Signature of Letter Thanking Toby Rey for Service on the Forest View Special Road District 6. Approval of Minutes of the October 1, 2018 Business Meeting ACTION ITEMS: Consent Agenda Item 1 as pulled for discussion: Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2018-047, a Resolution to Acquire Right of Way for Construction of Road Improvements on SW Canal Blvd, SW 61St St, and SW Quarry Ave Cody Smith, Deschutes County Engineer, presented this item for consideration. Commissioner Henderson inquired how many property owners are involved and Mr. Smith stated general information notices were sent to seven property owners. Commissioner Henderson inquired about the budget for acquiring rights and Mr. Smith stated the budget is listed in the capital improvement plan. Commissioner Henderson asked for information regarding public comment, and Mr. Smith replied that most comments were generally supportive, and specific comments were presented to the Board last November. HENDERSON: BAN EY: Move approval of Resolution No. 2018-047 Second. BOCC BUSINESS MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 2 OF 6 VOTE: HENDERSON: Yes. BAN EY: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried 7. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-758, a Highway Easement Deed from the United States of America for S Century Drive - Cody Smith, County Engineer Mr. Smith requested this item be postponed as details regarding the FLAP Grant are worked out. Chair DeBone confirmed this easement deed will return as a future meeting item. 8. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-759, a Highway Easement Deed from the United States of America for River Summit Drive - Cody Smith, County Engineer Mr. Smith requested this item be postponed as details regarding the FLAP Grant are worked out. Chair DeBone confirmed this easement deed will return as a future meeting item. CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE DISTRICT: Consideration of Board Signature on Letters Appointing Mike Gocke, Bette Butler, and William Philbrook to the Sunriver Services District Budget Committee BAN EY: Move approval of Appointment Letters HENDERSON: Second. VOTE: BAN EY: Yes. HENDERSON: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Motion Carried RECONVENE AS DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: BOCC BUSINESS MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 3 OF 6 OTHER ITEMS: Cynthia Smidt, Community Development Associate Planner, brought forward consideration of Document 2018-694, an Approval of Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for a Church at 21420 Stevens Road. County Counsel Doyle confirmed it will not create a procedural issue to discuss this matter under Other Items . Commissioner Baney stated that the revised document captured her thoughts well and Chair DeBone agreed. Commissioner Henderson stated he was pleased with how it was condensed but has some small edit suggestions. Commissioner Henderson also proposed having the applicant's attorney attend a future work session to discuss her experience as a LUBA referee and her best advice for crafting findings, including the significant level of advocacy demonstrated in her submitted d raft. Commissioner Henderson inquired and proposed revisions: • Whether the reference to due process violation issues on page 4 provide enough information to satisfy LUBA review, to which County Counsel Doyle confirmed yes. • Whether the footnote on page 6 should allow the option of lowering building height for benefit of neighbors if they want to. Commissioner Baney supports this addition. • If changing "in an area" to "general area" on page 8 would help further define the surrounding areas; adding "probable" to "dynamic area" to make it more reflective; adding "increasing" urban development. Commissioner Baney agreed that those edits would strengthen the text. • If the map section in blue is the urbanizable area as of now, which Ms. Smidt confirmed. Commissioner Henderson suggested enlarging the map. • Whether visual impacts should be defined on page 14 when discussing harmonious minimizing of those impacts. Ms. Smidt confirmed she made reference to "in the record" since the applicant included designs and colors. Commissioner Baney stated her hesitation to define visual impacts overall without a more broad conversation, and proposed having text read "as noted in the record". Chair DeBone likes the idea of including the text from the record, and Commissioner Henderson requested that be drafted to review. BOCC BUSINESS MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 4 OF 6 • Inquired about a no better options test on page 15 and Ms. Smidt confirmed that can be softened. Commissioner Baney was supportive and Counsel Doyle agreed to assist with that revision. • Clarifying the parking spaces approval of 99 with the option of 118. Ms. Smidt confirmed they have the opportunity to start with 99 and ability to add 19 spaces if needed, giving them flexibility. Chair DeBone supports the 118, which could be 99 with a plan for overflow. Commissioner Baney inquired about the gravel lot and options for using Stephens Road. Counsel Doyle replied there currently is no prohibition of use specific to Stephens Road. Commissioner Baney stated her approval of 118 was only for on-site parking, to provide protection for the neighbors. Counsel Doyle suggested the approval for 99 spaces with the authorization of up to 118 can include that the Board strongly recommends no parking on Stephens Road. All Commissioners agree on this. • For acceptance of three alternatives for landscaping, could another option be allowed if mutually agreed upon? Commissioner Baney supports this addition. Ms. Smidt confirmed with the Board that this item will return to Wednesday's Business Meeting with revisions made for review. County Administrator Anderson provided an update regarding the Cohesive Strategy Steering Committee. County Administrator Anderson provided the Board with options for the process on selecting new members to the steering committee, to ensure this is a Board identified process. Commissioner Henderson and Administrator Anderson provided details of their conversations with the cohesive strategy coordinator and their concerns with the coverage area. Commissioner Baney suggested the Board may need some more information to fill in some gaps and Chair DeBone confirmed this item will be further discussed at the Wednesday Work Session. WE . 1'i % `'E. Being no further items to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:57am. SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW BOCC BUSINESS MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 5 OF 6 DATED this Day of _ 2 19 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. t �: i DEBONE, MLI e I�NDERSON, VICE C AI BOCC BUSINESS MEETING DECEMBER 10, 2018 PAGE 6 OF 6 1 E S COG O Ac 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, DECEMBER 10, 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 Resolution No. 2018-047, a Resolution to Acquire Right of Way for Construction of Road Improvements on SW Canal Blvd, SW 61 St St, and SW Quarry Ave Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Monday, December 10, 2018 Page 1 of 3 2. Consideration of Board Signature of Order No. 2018-076, Vacating Bryce Court 3. Consideration of Board Signature of Resolution No. 2018-048, Initiating the Vacation of Bryce Court 4. Consideration of Board Signature on Letter Appointing Shawn McDaniel to the Two Rivers Special Road District Board 5. Consideration of Board Signature of Letter Thanking Toby Rey for Service on the Forest View Special Road District 6. Approval of Minutes of the October 1, 2018 Business Meeting ACTION ITEMS 7. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-758, a Highway Easement Deed from the United States of America for S Century Drive - Cody Smith, County Engineer 8. Consideration of Board Signature of Document No. 2018-759, a Highway Easement Deed from the United States of America for River Summit Drive - Cody Smith, County Engineer CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE SUNRIVER SERVICE DISTRICT Consideration of Board Signature on Letters Appointing Mike Gocke, Bette Butler, and William Philbrook to the Sunriver Service District Budget Committee 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. Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Monday, December 10, 2018 Page 2 of 3 ADJOURN Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. To request this information in an alternate format please call (541) 617-4747. FUTURE MEETINGS: Additional meeting dates available at www.deschutes.org/meetingcalendar Meeting dates and times are subject to change. If you have question, please call (541) 388-6572. Board of Commissioners Business Meeting Agenda Monday, December 10, 2018 Page 3 of 3 DECISION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY FILE NUMBERS: 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP (247-18-000624-A, 247-18- 000643-A) APPLICANTS/ Father's House, Church of God Cleveland OWNER: Randy Wills and Jack Miller 61690 Pettigrew Road Bend, Oregon 97702 APPLICANTS' Wendie L. Kellington ATTORNEY: Kellington Law Group PC P.O. Box 159 Lake Oswego, Or 97034 APPELLANTS: Father's House, Church of God Cleveland' Randy Wills and Jack Miller 61690 Pettigrew Road Bend, Oregon 97702 Julie Naslund et a1.2 61645 Thunder Rd. Bend, Or 97702 ' The applicants appealed the Site Plan Review file no. 247 -18 -000062 -SP (Appeal file no. 247-18-000624-A). 2 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. Julie Naslund et al. appealed the Conditional Use Permit file no. 247 -18 -000061 -CU (Appeal file no. 247-18-000643-A). Page 1 PROPOSAL: The applicants request a conditional use and site plan review to establish a church in the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone.3 STAFF REVIEWER: Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner HEARINGS OFFICER: Dan R. Olsen HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION ISSUED: July 31, 20184 APPEALS FILED: August 8, 2018 (Father's House Appeal 247-18-000624-A) August 13, 2018 (Julie Naslund et al. 247-18-000643-A) BOARD HEARING: August 27, 2018 RECORD CLOSED: September 20, 2018 at 5:00 pm 1. SUMMARY OF DECISION: In this decision, the County Board of Commissioners ("Board") considers the appellants' appeals of the july 30, 2018 Hearings Officer Decision (247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 - SP, "Hearings Officer Decision"). The Board exercised its discretion to hear the appeals de novo. The Board received a memorandum about the appeals from Associate Planner Cynthia Smidt, dated October 10, 2018, which outlined the applicants' proposal, the Hearings Officer Decision denying site plan review and approving the applicants' conditional use permit, and a summary of the key issues in the two Notices of Appeal. On October 17, 2018, at a regular business meeting, the Board deliberated on the two appeals. Following deliberation, the Board voted 3-0 to affirm the Hearings Officer's decision approving the applicants' conditional use permit for the proposed church, finding that it complied with all applicable review criteria and standards of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance. On the same day, the Board voted 3-0 to overturn the Hearings Officer Decision denying the applicants' site plan review application on the subject property, finding that it too complied with all applicable review criteria and standards of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance. The Board determined that it need not and does not reach the applicants/appellants' arguments under the Religious Land Use and 3 The applicants also requested a "Legal Lot Verification." However, the Hearings Officer approved that application. No person appealed that approval and it is now a final decision that is not subject to this Board's decision. 4 The Hearings Officers Decision mistakenly bears the date of August 30, 2018. That is incorrect. The Hearings Officers Decision was issued by the Hearings Officer on July 30, 2018 and was mailed to parties by County staff, on July 31, 2018. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, 247-18-000643-A Document No. 2018-694 Page 2 Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) or ORS 215.441. Although the Board notes that RLUIPA and/or ORS 215.441 may have compelled a similar outcome, the Board accordingly reverses the Hearings Officers Decision findings concerning both RLUIPA and ORS 215.441 because it is unnecessary to reach either. The applicants agreed to extend the 150 -day processing period for a final decision on the two appeals for a period up to and including December 10, 2018 II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural - MUA10 Chapter 18.124, Site Plan Review Chapter 18.128, Conditional Uses Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions Title 22, Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance III. BASIC FINDINGS: The Board adopts and incorporates by reference the code interpretations, findings of fact, and conclusions of law set forth in Section II of the July 30, 2018 Hearings Officer Decision, Exhibit A of this decision, as follows:5 Basic Findings, subsections A (Location), B (Zoning), C (Site Description), E (Surrounding Land Uses), F. (Proposal), G (Public Agency Comments), I (Hearing and Record), J (Procedural Concerns). The following additions are made to the Basic Findings in the Hearings Officer Decision. J. PROCEDURAL CONCERNS Due Process Claim Under the heading of 'Violation of Due Process," appellants Naslund et al. argue in their appeal at page 4 that they "were not afforded a meaningful opportunity to be put on a fair playing field" because "the applicant had a member of the church, who happens to be a senior planner, obtain info not publicly available." As a result, appellants Naslund et al. asked the Board to "deny the conditional use application and give the applicant instructions to reapply." Id. 5 The Hearings Officer Decision skips the letters "D" and "H" in this section. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, 247-18-000643-A Document No. 2018-694 Page 3 The Board disagrees that the due process or other procedural rights of appellants Naslund et al. were violated for the reasons articulated by the Hearings Officer and supplemented herein. The Board declines to deny the application on this basis. The documents at issue in the Naslund et al. appeal provided by the aforementioned planner were public records. Specifically, while this matter was still before the Hearings Officer, the planner provided at the applicant's request electronic copies of previous hearings officer and board decisions, which are public records. Had appellants Naslund et al. asked for the same documents before they discovered that the applicants had sought those records, appellants Naslund et al. would have been provided those public records as well. When appellants Naslund et al. discovered the applicants had obtained these public records, after reviewing the applicants' May 8, 2018 first open record submittal, they too were provided copies of the same documents that the planner had provided to the applicants. The open record period was also reset to provide the appellants Naslund et al. time to review those same records. Specifically, on May 21, 2018, the County provided appellants Naslund et al. with copies of those public records. Further, the applicants extended the 150 -day processing period to accommodate a "restart" of the first open record period, to dune 4, 2018 to enable appellants Naslund et al. additional time to review such decisions and submit comments about their significance into the record. Notably, the aforementioned events occurred while the matter was before the Hearings Officer. Following the appeal of the Hearings Officer's decision, the Board elected to hear this matter in a de novo proceeding. As such, the Board finds that all parties had a full and fair opportunity to present any additional arguments and any additional evidence they wished during that de novo proceeding. The Board finds that there was no due process or other procedural flaw in the above- described processes necessitating denial of the applicants' application. Further, any "advantage" the applicants' received in obtaining public records from the planner while the matter was still before the Hearings Officer, was an "advantage" that the appellants also fully received before the Hearings Officer with adequate time to review and respond to the contents of such public records and with adequate time to make their arguments and record. In any event, after May 18, 2018, all assistance to the applicants by the planner ceased, and the planner's previous involvement was not germane or influential to this Board's fair and impartial consideration. The Board conducted a full de novo hearing on August 27, 2018, at which time and after during the open record period, any party could present any information they wished, resolving any procedural irregularity if there ever was one. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, 247-18-000643-A Document No. 2018-694 Page 4 Transcript 1. Section 22.32.024. Transcript Requirement. A. Except as otherwise provided in DCC 22.32.024, appellants shall provide a complete transcript of any hearing appealed from, from recorded magnetic tapes provided by the Planning Division. B. Appellants shall submit to the Planning Division the transcript no later than the close of the day five days prior to the date set for a de novo appeal hearing or, in on -the -record appeals, the date set for receipt of written arguments. Unless excused under DCC 22.32.024, an appellant's failure to provide a transcript shall cause the Board to decline to consider the appellant's appeal further and shall, upon notice mailed to the parties, cause the lower Hearings Body's decision to become final. C An appellant shall be excused from providing a complete transcript if appellant was prevented from complying by: (1) the inability of the Planning Division to supply appellant with a magnetic tape or tapes of the prior proceeding, or (2) defects on the magnetic tape or tapes of the prior proceeding that make it not reasonably possible for applicant to supply a transcript. Appellants shall comply to the maximum extent reasonably and practicably possible. D. Notwithstanding any other provisions in DCC 22.32, the appeal hearings body may, at any time, waive the requirement that the appellant provide a complete transcript for the appeal hearing. Appellants Father's House complied with the requirement to provide a transcript. Appellants Naslund et al. did not provide a transcript and thus requested that the Board waive the requirement as contemplated. The Board granted the request and finds that appellants' Naslund et al. are excused from the requirement to provide a transcript. IV. FINDINGS The Board adopts and incorporates by reference the code interpretations, findings of fact, and conclusions contained in the Hearings Officer's Decision in Section III, Findings and Conclusions, except for the findings relating to the DCC Sections identified below, and except for those unnecessary findings concerning both RLUIPA and ORS 215.411.6 6 As noted above, we need not and do not incorporate the Hearings Officer decision approving the applicants' application for a Lot of Record Verification. Specifically, the Hearings Officer's Findings, appearing under the heading "Findings and Conclusions" section (A)(1), approves the applicants"'Lot of Record" application. That application had a separate file number (247 -18 -000064 -LR) and the Hearings Officer's findings approving it are an independent decision that was not appealed by any party. Consequently, the Hearings Officer's decision approving the applicants' Lot of Record Verification became final when the appeal period expired 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, 247-18-000643-A Document No. 2018-694 Page 5 The Board supplements the Hearings Officer Decision, as stated below. To the extent there are conflicts between any of the findings identified in the incorporated terms of the Hearings Officer Decision and the findings below, the findings and conclusions below shall control. CHAPTER 18.32. MULTIPLE USE AGRICULTURAL ZONE 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 applicants proposed a building height of approximately 29.8 feet (29 feet, 10 inches). The Hearings Officer approved this building height. Although there was concern regarding the overall size and scale of the structure, the Board concurs with the Hearings Officer and approves the proposed height of the church building as originally proposed.' CHAPTER 18.128. CONDITIONAL USES 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(.] 2. Adequacy of transportation access to the site, and 3. The natural and physical features of the site, including but not limited to, general topography, natural hazards and natural resource values." FINDING: The applicants propose to construct a church on the subject property to accommodate the religious needs of its congregation, whose faith requires that they without challenge. Accordingly, this decision need not and does not disturb or incorporate the Hearings Officer's Lot of Record findings, as no purpose is served in doing so. ' The applicants provided an alternative building height slightly lower than originally proposed if the Board found it necessary to comply with DCC 18.124.060(A). The Board declined to require the proposed church to lower its building height, as it offered to do. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, 247-18-000643-A Document No. 2018-694 Page 6 worship as a whole and requires that they educate their children and youth in a manner appropriate to their age. The applicants argued that the current church facility is too small to enable the congregation to worship as a whole or to attend to the religious needs of its children and youth. The Hearings Officer's findings conclude with the following: 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. The Board concurs with the Hearings Officer and finds the site under consideration is suitable for the proposed church. B. The proposed use shall be compatible with existing and projected uses on surrounding properties based on the factors listed in DCC 18.128.015(A). FINDING: The Hearings Officer applied DCC 18.128.015(B) and considered the above listed DCC 18.128.015(A) factors. After doing so, he determined that the proposed church is compatible with projected and existing land uses on surrounding properties and, as a result, he determined that the applicant demonstrated compliance with DCC 18.128.015(8). Appellants Naslund et al. appealed that determination. The applicant requested that the Hearings Officer's approval of the conditional use permit be affirmed. At issue is the Hearings Officer's interpretation of DCC 18.128.015(B), which he explained as follows: Staff notes that hearings officer decisions have concluded that this criterion is intended to require that the existing and projected uses 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? The Hearings Officer further explained his interpretation of the "compatibility" standard to evaluate whether "the impact on the surrounding residences would be so great as to substantially interfere with or preclude residential use." The Board recognizes the applicant and opponents argue different analyses for defining the surrounding area. The applicants used a general analysis area of a roughly 1 -mile radius from the subject property and evaluated existing and projected uses on properties 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, 247-18-000643-A Document No. 2018-694 Page 7 in that area, without regard to how such properties were zoned. The appellants Naslund et al. argued for a 250 -foot radius around the subject property as the appropriate distance. Moreover, they also argued that only MUA Zone properties should be considered "surrounding properties." Although not specifically defined as such, the Hearings Officer used an approximate area that was roughly one -mile radius area. This area included the 640 -acre parcel owned by the State of Oregon ("DSL") to the south, a distance to the west within the city limits described as "related urban density residential development," and an undetermined distance to the north and east. The Staff Report and Hearings Officer's analysis was not limited to particular zoning districts. The Board finds that to determine whether a proposed conditional use is compatible with an area as it now exists, or as it is projected to exist in the future, it requires consideration of a large enough area to reasonably ascertain what the existing uses of properties in an area are that might be affected by a proposed conditional use. In addition, it requires consideration of existing and projected development patterns for such properties. Further, where an area is subject to dynamic change, as here, evaluating properties subject to and affected by that dynamic change is important to determine compatibility under this standard. Notwithstanding the above, the Board does not find it necessary in this case to define specifically the "surrounding area" by a distance or a zone but rather takes a broad view of the surrounding area to evaluate existing and projected uses. For all intents and purposes, this area may very well be less than a 1 -mile radius but greater than 250 feet and inclusive of multiple zoning districts. This area is likely to pick up sensitive land uses, benefitted land uses, and existing and projected development patterns - all of which are relevant to this analysis. It may be that some conditional uses would require an even larger area, because of their peculiar impacts; but this analysis area is adequate and appropriate in this case. The Board specifically finds that it is appropriate for the analysis area because the purpose of the analysis is not to invite controversies over measurement perfection, but rather to understand existing and projected uses in a given "surrounding' area. The Board acknowledges that the surrounding properties in this area include a variety of existing uses including a mixture of rural residential uses, small-scale farm uses, and urban development. The Board also recognizes that the surrounding area will include projected uses of single-family dwellings, agricultural uses, and urban development. Moreover, the proposed church is a type of use that typically is established in residential areas similar to the surrounding area and thus an expected and projected use. The DSL - owned lands south of Stevens Road are or expect to be included within the Bend Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Although this area is currently undeveloped open space, it is intended to be used in the future for urban development as indicated in the record. In the alternative, the Board finds that even if the MUA-zoned portion of this DSL -owned 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, 247-18-000643-A Document No. 2018-694 Page 8 parcel were projected to develop only with those uses permitted outright and conditionally in the MUA Zone, then that 260 acres would reasonably be projected to develop with residences, agricultural buildings, and other uses permitted outright or conditionally in the MUA Zone. In addition, the surrounding properties possess similar topography and vegetation, including varying terrain primarily vegetated with scattered juniper trees or introduced landscaping, native grasses and shrubs. The following image illustrates the mixture of zoning in the surrounding area, which includes the MUA Zone, EFU Zone, Urbanizable Area (UA) Zone, and zoning districts within the City of Bend and urban reserve. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, 247-18-000643-A Document No. 2018-694 Page 9 A general estimate of how the DSL -owned parcel south of Stevens Road is projected to develop is reflected in the Conceptual Plan for the entire DSL property as shown below: Road Tract - Master Plan Stevens Road Tract Master Plan . Department of State Lands April, 2007 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, 247-18-000643-A Document No. 2018-694 Page 10 After identifying the "surrounding properties" and the projected and existing uses on those properties, the Board takes note that the next step is to identify whether the proposed church is compatible with those existing and projected uses in the surrounding area, based on the specific factors of DCC 18.128.015(B). Those factors focus on the characteristics of the proposed site and the characteristics of the proposed use of the site: 1. Site, design and operating characteristics of the use[.] 2. Adequacy of transportation access to the site, and 3. The natural and physical features of the site, including but not limited to, general topography, natural hazards and natural resource values." Based on the record, the Board finds the Hearings Officer correctly generally identified the site, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed church. Furthermore, the Board takes note of additional clarifications and modifications (e.g. landscape plan) to the proposal as presented by the applicant during the hearing process. The Board recognizes the steps taken by the applicants demonstrating that its design impacts and use of the site are not so great as to substantially interfere with, severely impact or preclude residential or any other existing or projected use. The Board agrees with the applicants and finds that churches are typically situated in areas where there are residential uses. The proposed church is a type of use that typically is established in residential areas and indeed the existing church facility is in a residential area in Bend where it exists compatibly with the existing residential uses that are there. Several other churches exist in the County and City in residential areas including ones that are similar to the immediate area surrounding the subject property. The Board agrees with and adopts the Hearings Officer's finding below: 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 includingyouth 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 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, 247-18-000643-A Document No. 2018-694 Page 11 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. Since the opposition raised concern regarding some of the church's operational characteristics, in particular operations of a preschool, the Board briefly reviews this aspect of the proposal. The applicant provides the following summary of the operational characteristics' of the proposed church: The church use will primarily occur on Sunday with services. The church use will include other uses accessory to churches including, but not limited to, Sunday school, youth group, Bible studies, weddings, and administrative meetings. These accessory uses may occur on other days of the week. Appellants Naslund et al. argue that the church may run an otherwise undisclosed preschool Monday through Friday at the site and that this is an operational characteristic that will adversely impact them. The Board finds that this claim is unsupported. However, the Board is sensitive to the neighbors' concerns regarding the operation of a preschool not affiliated with the church. The applicants stated, and the Board finds, that there is no proposal to run a preschool Monday through Friday at the site and so daily preschool is not a part of the operating characteristics of the proposal.' To ensure compliance, the Board conditions the approval that private or parochial school education for prekindergarten through grades 12 or higher is not permitted unless approved through a subsequent land use application and does not authorize operation lease or operation of a daycare not affiliated with church functions. Concerning the "adequacy of transportation access to the site" factor of DCC 18.128.015(A), the Board relies upon and adopts the applicants' transportation study finding that it and the evidence in the record establishes that access to the site from Stevens Road is adequate to support the proposed church. Moreover, Stevens Road has adequate capacity, there are no particular safety issues associated with the proposed church access, and that there is adequate site distance on Stevens Road. No access will be taken off Thunder Road. The Board concurs with the Hearings Officer and concludes 8 The Board takes note of the detailed explanation of the church's operational characteristics provided by Associate Pastor Wills during the hearing process. 9 The church will operate its Sunday school and related child and youth spiritual programs directly associated with the mission of the proposed church. The church will not operate a daily Monday through Friday preschool or for hire preschool under the proposal we approve in this decision. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, 247-18-000643-A Document No. 2018-694 Page 12 that with regard to the proposed transportation impacts under this factor that those impacts are not so great as to substantially interfere with, severely impact or preclude residential use or any other projected or existing use on surrounding properties. The factor regarding natural and physical features of the site in DCC 18.128.015(A), the Board finds the natural features on the site are some existing juniper trees and other vegetation along Stevens and Thunder Roads and along the property lines, which will largely remain intact. While existing views across vacant areas of the subject property and across the DSL -owned parcel are current natural features appreciated by the neighboring properties, this standard does not require that those views remain unaffected by permitted or conditional uses of the subject property now or in perpetuity. The applicants' Landscape Plan submitted on August 27, 2018, contemplates vegetation landscaping around the perimeter of the property to improve and maximize the site's attractiveness. The proposed landscaping will also minimize views of the proposed church and parking area from surrounding existing and projected uses. Therefore, the Board finds the proposed development is reasonably situated and adequate mitigation measures have been taken with regard to natural and physical features of the site. For all of the above reasons, the Board finds that the proposed church has demonstrated that it is compatible with the existing and projected uses in the surrounding area considering the required factors and therefore complies with DCC 18.128.015(B). CHAPTER 18.124. SITE PLAN REVIEW 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 Hearings Officer denied the applicants' proposed site plan based on the Hearings Officer's interpretation of DCC 18.124.060(A). In doings so, the Hearings Officer applied a new interpretation of DCC 18.124.060(A) to essentially require an alternatives analysis, whereby an applicant must show that there is no other mitigation or site design possible. The Hearings Officer's interpretation makes it difficult for an applicant or the County to know when an applicant has evaluated a sufficient number of alternatives to demonstrate compliance. The applicants appealed the Hearings Officer's denial and challenged the Hearings Officer's proffered interpretation. The appellants Naslund et al. asked that the Board sustain the Hearings Officer's interpretation. As discussed below, the Board grants the applicants' appeal and rejects the Hearings Officer's interpretation of DCC 18.124.060(A). As such, the Board approves the applicants' proposed site plan, as explained in detail below. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, 247-18-000643-A Document No. 2018-694 Page 13 The Board agrees that DCC 18.124.060(A) is subjective and, at times, difficult to apply as the Hearings Officer observed. However, as the Board interprets the provision, DCC 18.124.060(A) does not require a particularly onerous exercise. It requires an applicant to show that its proposed site plan relates "harmoniously" to the natural environment and existing development. Unlike the conditional use standards of DCC 18.128.015(B), this standard does not indicate harmony achieved with "surrounding properties." However, the Board understands that the standard implies that the proposed development shall relate harmoniously on and off the subject property and generally speaking, in the vicinity, by "minimizing visual impacts and preserving natural features including views and topographical features." The code does not define what it means to "relate harmoniously." The Hearings Officer reported that the online Oxford Living Dictionary defines "harmoniously' to mean arranging something "in a way that forms a pleasing or consistent whole." Both parties in this case, provided various interpretations of the term "harmonious." The Board is not adopting one interpretation of the term over another as each contributes equally to this evaluation. The Board concurs with the Hearings Officer that there is no "particularly useful case law defining or applying this term." In addition, the Board agrees, that the Hearings Officer is correct that a site plan should be approved in light of this meaning of "harmonious," so long as the proposed site plan does not create "more disharmony than other uses allowed by right or conditionally in the MUM 0 zone." In this regard, the Board finds that this standard presumes the use is approved and evaluates only whether the site plan for the use "relates harmoniously." The Board finds that the proposed church site plan meets the standard set forth in DCC 18.124.060(A). Specifically, the Board interprets DCC 18.124.060(A) to mean that an applicant must demonstrate that the site plan has arranged the development in a way that evaluates the natural environment and existing development in the area and in the process has minimized visual impacts and reasonably preserved natural features including views and topographic features. In doing so, this enables the County decision maker to find that the site plan's impacts create no more disharmony than other uses allowed by right or conditionally in the MUA Zone. The Board agrees, in part, with the Hearings Officer that this standard is considered differently when compared to the term "compatibility" and its associated standard of DCC 18.128.015(B). The chief differences between the two standards is that the DCC 18.128.015(B) compatibility standard evaluates the compatibility of the proposed use on existing and projected uses of surrounding properties and does so in light of specific factors that are not reproduced in DCC 18.124.060(A). The DCC 18.124.060(A) "harmonious" standard evaluates whether a proposed site plan "relates harmoniously to existing development and the natural environment" considering whether the site plan shows that the applicant has reasonably mitigated its impacts and reasonably preserved views. The 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, 247-18-000643-A Document No. 2018-694 Page 14 Board observes that not every use that requires site plan approval also requires a conditional use permit. However, the Board finds that it is possible that a permitted or approved use is arranged so poorly on a site, that a proposed site plan must be denied under this standard. That is not the case here. The Board finds that the proposed church has demonstrated that its site plan relates harmoniously to the identified existing natural environment and existing development in the area; and that its site plan reasonably preserves the natural features (including views and native vegetation), while still establishing the needed and approved church use on the site. The Board finds that the size of the proposed church is well within the size (including original parking size of 118 spaces as discussed below) of uses that exist in the surrounding properties area and that the zoning district allows on this exact property, as of right and conditionally. The Board finds that the site plan demonstrates that lights for the church, as modified before the Hearings Officer, are mitigated and out of the line of sight of residential uses. The amount of landscaping, as proposed before the Board and further discussed below, also demonstrates that the proposed church's visual impacts have been mitigated. The Board reverses the Hearings Officer's denial of the church's site plan because the church has met the standard expressed in DCC 18.124.060(A) as it has been applied in the past and as it is correctly applied here. The Board also finds that regardless, the applicants have clearly demonstrated that it has no other reasonable options to develop its church on the subject property that will better comply with the DCC 18.124.060(A) standard. The church's site plan is approved. J. All exterior lighting shall be shielded so that direct light does not project off-site. FINDING: As noted, the applicants proposed to orient the church building diagonal to the road, to minimize the building's intrusion on views from adjacent residential uses. Moreover, the applicants ensured that the parking area lighting will be out of the line of sight of residential uses of surrounding properties, including of the appellants' Naslund et al. residential uses. The applicants reduced the number of tall light poles in its parking area in an effort to increase its compatibility with surrounding properties - and relate harmoniously with the natural environment and existing development. The Board supports the lighting plan revision generally as presented to the Hearings Officer as an effort to mitigate impacts to neighboring properties. In his May 5, 2018 letter, Matthew Williams of CA Rowles Engineering & Design describes the lighting plan revision as the following: Regarding site lighting, initially, 11 LED light poles, 22.5' tall, were proposed throughout the parking lot. Upon revision, 3 LED light poles, 20.0' tall, are proposed across the southwest building elevation, and the remaining lights are now proposed to be 3.5' bollard lights. Additionally, the easternmost of the 3 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247-18-000062-5P, 247-18-000624-A, 247-18-000643-A Document No. 2018-694 Page 15 LED light poles has been relocated to the median adjacent to the building, to further screen light emissions from residential properties to the east. These changes will serve to further limit light emissions from pole -mounted sources by reducing both height and quantity of pole mounted lights. The applicants lighting plan revision places the taller poles in the portion of the parking area where they are outside of existing residential uses' line of sight. The applicants also proposed additional landscaping that would be effective in softening its impact of the parking lot lighting and development. The Board concurs with the Hearings Officer in approving this criterion. To ensure compliance, the Board conditions the approval that will require the parking area be developed with only three taller light poles, as proposed, and the remaining lights be lower bollard style lights, as proposed. Moreover, all lighting on the subject property shall be required to comply with Chapter 15.10, the Outdoor Lighting Control Ordinance. CHAPTER 18.116, SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS 2. Section 18.116.030. Off Street Parking and Loading. 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. FINDING: The applicants are 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 in DCC 18.116.030(D)(4), the required parking for the church is 82 parking spaces. The applicants' original site plan dated January 10, 2018 included 118 parking spaces. The applicants modified the parking plan with the intention to mitigate visual impacts to surrounding property owners. The revised plan included 99 parking spaces. The Hearings Officer approved the revised parking plan that included 99 spaces. However, this reduction will leave "little margin of error" according to the applicants' traffic engineer, Joe Bessman of Transight Consulting, in his May 8, 2018 supplemental memorandum. Furthermore, Mr. Bessman points out that there are no overflow parking areas nearby if the 99 -space parking lot is inadequate for the demand. To prevent overflow parking occurring on Stevens Road, the Board finds the original proposal of 118 parking spaces is appropriate for the proposed church use and provides the applicant an option to phase the parking based on demand and include the additional 19 spaces as originally proposed. Together with the additional landscaping 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, 247-18-000643-A Document No. 2018-694 Page 16 discussed below and the lighting plan approved by the Hearings Officer, Board finds the visual impacts of the slightly larger parking area will be mitigated. As a condition of final approval, the applicants shall provide a final site plan that illustrates the original 118 parking spaces together with the revised landscape plan dated August 21, 2018, as discussed below. Included on the final parking plan that shows the original configured 118 parking spaces, it shall identify the 99 parking spaces that will be developed initially with the church use. The 99 parking spaces shall be those closest to the church building. The final parking plan shall also depict the additional 19 spaces that may be developed concurrently with the 99 spaces or may be developed, in whole or in part, at a later point in the future. 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 Hearings Officer admittedly struggled with applying DCC 18.116.030(F), and stated that if the Church were otherwise approved, additional conditions of approval would be required. Specifically, the Hearings Officer noted conditions of approval requiring additional landscaping or a sight obscuring fence to screen a particular area of the parking lot that was identified by staff (page 28-29 of the Hearings Officer's Decision). The Hearings Officer felt this would be necessary, because although this particular area is adjacent to a neighboring field, the field is owned by people who occupy the nearby residence on the same property. Since the Hearings Officer denied the Church's site plan, the Hearings Officer also denied the Church on his interpretation of DCC 18.116.030(F). Although the Board did not define what it means to be "adjacent to residential use," the Board agrees this criterion can be site specific. The Board is of a similar opinion with the Hearings Officer in the sense that a parking area is different to other residential uses in the area and, in some cases, warrants some type of screening from residential properties. In this case, the Board agrees that screening is necessary for the most impacted neighboring property, which is located at 61645 Thunder Road (owners Julie Naslund and Michael Nevill). Thus, the Board reverses the Hearings Officer's denial regarding this section as discussed below. At the public hearing on August 27, 2018, the applicants presented a revised landscaping plan dated August 21, 2018.10 In addition to the original landscaping plan submitted with 10 The Landscape Design Plan with a revision date of August 21, 2018 was created for Father's House by Springtime Landscaping & Irrigation Inc. and revised by CA Rowles Engineering. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, 247-18-000643-A Document No. 2018-694 Page 17 the application, the August 21 revision included supplemental landscaping plants around the north side of the church building and the parking lot. Furthermore, it provided three screening alternatives for the specific section along the northern property boundary that is referenced above. The three screening alternatives are for a region that is roughly centered along the northern property boundary and approximately 250 feet in length. The alternatives include the following: "Alternative A" is comprised of just fencing, "Alternative B" is comprised of just landscaping, and "Alternative C" is comprised of a mix of fencing and landscaping. The Board accepts this landscape plan and conditions the approval of said land use permit based on the collaboration between the applicants and the adjacent property owner (Naslund and Nevill) to come to a compromise on what is the best alternative(s) - Alternative A, B, or C - to reasonably screen the proposed parking area from the adjacent residential property. As a condition of approval, the applicants shall provide a proof of acceptance by the neighboring property owner Qulie Naslund and Michael Nevill) regarding the screening alternative that will be established with the church development. If the neighboring property owner is accepting of more than one of the identified screening alternatives, then it is the applicants' prerogative as to what screening alternative of those chosen by the neighboring property. In addition, to ensure that negotiations are facilitated in a timely manner, the Board requires that, if the applicants have not received proof of acceptance after 45 days from the date after first contacting the neighboring property owner, the applicants' also have the prerogative as to what screening alternative is used. The applicants shall provide a final landscape plan that illustrates the revised landscape plan dated August 21, 2018, and the selected alternatives along the north property boundary. V. DECISION Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law set out above, the Board hereby sustains the Hearings Officer approval of the applicants' Conditional Use Permit. The Board further overturns the Hearings Officer's denial of the proposed Site Plan Review, in particular DCC 18.124.060(A), and overturns the Hearings Officer's denial under DCC 18.116.030(F). VI. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Approval is based upon the submitted application materials, as modified by the Board above. B. 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 grades 12 or higher unless approved with a subsequent land use permit. It does not authorize operation lease or operation of a daycare not affiliated with church functions. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, 247-18-000643-A Document No. 2018-694 Page 18 C. Prior to issuance of any building permit for the church, the applicants shall submit to the Planning Division a final site plan" illustrating the following: 1. The parking and maneuvering area as illustrated on the January 10, 2018 original site plan that includes 118 parking spaces and as further defined here: a. Shall identify the 99 parking spaces that will be developed initially with the church use, and b. The 99 parking spaces shall be those closest to the church building, and C. Shall depict the additional 19 spaces that may be developed concurrently with the 99 spaces or may be developed, in whole or in part, at a later point in the future D. Prior to issuance of any building permit for the church, the applicants shall submit to the Planning Division a final landscape plan (see footnote 42) illustrating the following: 1. Landscape plan as illustrated on the landscape plan dated August 21, 2018 2. The agreed upon and selected screening alternative - Alternative A, B, or C - for a segment along the northern property boundary as illustrated on the landscape plan dated August 21, 2018 and as decided by neighboring property owner (Julie Naslund and Michael Nevill). If the neighboring property owner is accepting of more than one of the identified screening alternatives, then it is the applicants' prerogative as to what screening alternative of those chosen by the neighboring property owner. In addition, if the applicant has not received proof of acceptance after 45 days from the date after first contacting the neighboring property owner, the applicants' also have the prerogative as to what screening alternative is used. E. Required landscaping shall be continuously maintained and kept alive and attractive. F. All areas of the property proposed for standing and maneuvering of vehicles shall be paved surfaced with all-weather materials and will be sloped to allow for surface water drainage on-site to designated stormwater infiltration basins and landscape beds. Alternatively, the area for standing and maneuvering of vehicles shall be gravel surfaced and maintained in a matter in which it will not create dust problems for the neighboring properties " If the applicants chose to provide one final site plan illustrating both the site plan required in Condition C and the landscape plan required in Condition D, the Board accepts this alternative submittal. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, 247-18-000643-A Document No. 2018-694 Page 19 G. 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. H. The proposed development and parking area must meet any applicable provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). I. All walkways that cross driveways, parking areas, and loading areas shall be clearly identifiable using striping or similar method. ). Regarding driveway access to Stevens Road, the applicant is subject to the following requirements: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the church, the applicants shall obtain a driveway access permit for the proposed access to Stevens Road pursuant to DCC 12.28.050, 17.48.210, and 18.124.080. 2. 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). 3. If road improvements are required as a condition of approval based on City of Bend requirements for roads within the UGB: a. 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. b. 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. 4. No later than construction of the new driveway access onto Stevens Road, the applicant shall close the existing driveway access that serves the existing house to vehicle traffic. This former access shall be converted to a pedestrian pathway, as proposed, and clearly marked as such. K. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or Deschutes County under DCC 15.04 shall be met. L. The applicant shall obtain any necessary permits from the Deschutes County Building Division. 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, 247-18-000643-A Document No. 2018-694 Page 20 M. The proposed lighting plan for the parking area, as described in the May 5, 2018 letter by Matthew Williams of CA Rowles Engineering & Design, shall be developed as follows: 1. 3 LED light poles, approximately 20 feet tall, oriented across the southwest building elevation and located on the median adjacent to the building. 2. Remaining lights will be approximately 3.5 -foot bollard lights. All lighting on the subject property shall be required to comply with Chapter 15.10 of the Deschutes County Code, the Outdoor Lighting Control Ordinance. All exterior lights shall be sited and shielded so that no direct light projects off-site. N. All signs shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of DCC 15.08. Dated this 10th day of December, 2018 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY Anthony DeBone, Chair Philip G. Henderson, Vice Chair Tammy Baney, Commissioner THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL WHEN MAILED. PARTIES MAY APPEAL THIS DECISION TO THE LAND USE BOARD OF APPEALS WITHIN 21 DAYS OF THE DATE ON WHICH THIS DECISION IS FINAL. EXHIBITS A. Hearings Officer's decision dated July 30, 2018 247 -18 -000061 -CU, 247 -18 -000062 -SP, 247-18-000624-A, 247-18-000643-A Document No. 2018-694 Page 21