The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-04-18 Business Meeting MinutesrES 0 � Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, APRIL 18, 2011 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Nick Lelack, Terri Payne and Peter Russell, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Tom Blust, Road Department; media representative Hillary Borrud of the Bulletin; and eleven other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. 2. Before the Board was the Continuation of a Public Hearing and Decision on File #DR -10-3, a Declaratory Ruling on the Permanent Residential Status of a Structure on the Northwest Quadrant of the Deschutes Junction Interchange. Peter Russell gave a brief overview of the item, summarized in the staff report. The property is not considered a residence even though it has been occupied. When the unincorporated community rule was established in 1994, it recognized areas as residential, but this structure was considered rural commercial. Ms. Craghead said that uses prior to 1994 were analyzed and the property was assumed to be rural commercial and not residential. The Board cannot overturn this decision under most circumstances. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 18, 2011 Page 1 of 10 Pages Mr. Russell said the OAR asks if the area was considered an unincorporated rural community and it was not due to a lack of residential dwellings. The question is, does "permanent" mean the structure or the use. Staff feels the use is the important aspect. Also, the OAR considers whether it is a rural service center of some kind and whether permanent residential dwellings are a requirement. This ruling does not change the fact that this will remain rural commercial. Mr. Russell said the owners would have to apply for a text amendment. David Allen, on behalf of his clients, asked why they are even here. There is nothing specific, such as an application, before the Board. He said that this can impact further planning for the area and is not relevant at this point. He represented Jefferson County when Camp Sherman was thought to be an unincorporated community. LUBA found that the time for this to be attacked was past. There is no collateral attack in this case. This is more an issue of a land use action. Commissions change course quite often. Regarding #5 on page 3 of the memo, Mr. Allen said that it states that the decision in the rule trumps the comprehensive plan. The analysis stopped at 1994, but there is evidence in the record in 1965 that it was being used as a residence His concern is that periods of vacancy have nothing to do with it. He said the reason it is there is because LCDC is trying to hedge against someone trying to take advantage of other situations. He thinks taking action at this time would keep the County from making progress in other ways. Paul Dewey, Central Oregon Landwatch, feels staff has done a good job. He said the County has already determined this is not a rural service center as of 2001. He does not know how a rural service center could be resurrected The designation is based on use, not whether it is residential. It is not proper to withdraw just because the owner of the property did not request this. The County took this on to determine the future of the area and the owner did not have to pay the fee, but does not like where the decision might be going. He and his group support the decision of the Board. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 18, 2011 Page 2 of 10 Pages Chair Baney pointed out that this was not done as a favor for anyone involved, but to gain clarification on the area as a whole. Commissioner DeBone asked what Mr. Dewey feels about the next twenty years of that area. Mr. Dewey said that he would testify on the next issue. The property owners have some processes they can follow if they want. Tony Aceti said that he feels errors have been made and a lot of case law where errors were fixed. In 2002, there was a situation there and no appeals of the survey. The building existed as quasi -residential but the 1920's building was still there and obviously a residence, and was not removed until 2005. History shows that the entire area as been a community in one way or another. He would be happy to give a tour of most of the properties. Errors were made and these can be corrected. Rick Coffin submitted testimony. He has been a resident of Deschutes Junction for the past fourteen years. He wants to look at the big picture. His property butts up against this property, and has been a residence since 1955. If the boundary was bigger, his could be the second residence. He noted that Ken Carsey clearly stated that he lived in the subject property. He feels this is splitting hairs, and that this building was a residence, and master planning of the area is important. ODOT has an agenda for that area as well. With all due respect to the people living in Starwood and Boonesborough, they are not as affected by this as those who live at Deschutes Junction. There are a lot of non- conforming uses in the area that could benefit from master planning. Determining what is meant by `rural character' is important. He objects to Mr. Russell's conclusion and as an ex-ODOT employee, Mr. Russell might be biased. ODOT would like to restrict access off the highway altogether. He had a motorcycle track there at one time. Uses change over time and there needs to be a planning process. Chair Baney said that the Board did ask for this to be pursued and Mr. Russell has no personal agenda in the issue. Ms. Craghead asked if the Board wanted any more comments from staff. Regarding collateral attack, it is different to attack previous findings of fact. Commissioner DeBone stated that he wants more information on this issue. He would be comfortable withdrawing and getting to some type of master plan. He wants to know the big picture and wants to know why this is necessary at this time. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 18, 2011 Page 3 of 10 Pages Commissioner Unger said that the Planning Commission had worked on this previously, and clarity is needed. Uses have changed over time and clarification is important. Either there is a community there that can grow and wants commercial there or not, but some of those living in the area do not feel it is necessary. He does not see a residence or a growing, thriving community there. This leads him to affirm the past decisions. The future needs to be looked at in the longer term. There needs to be a clear path for the area, but planning is difficult when there are bypasses established. The traffic needs to flow through to the urban communities and not be attracted to this type of community. He does not see the community as a whole wanting this to grow as a service center. Chair Baney said that it seemed fairly simple at the time, but she felt that it was not meant to be simultaneous with the bigger picture. She also has some angst about analyzing someone's property when they did not want the County to do so. It seems like the County jumped on this without being asked. Indoor plumbing does not have a lot to do with a residence. She does not feel the board should look at the minutiae but the bigger picture, so she feels this should be withdrawn. The underlying zone remains the same, rural commercial. She would like to back off on this at this time, and chalk it up as a mistake. Peter Russell stated that this ends up at the same place. Affirming staff's decision just gives more robust findings. Commissioner Unger said he would be supportive of this opinion because he wants to see consensus and deal with the bigger picture. Chair Baney closed the public hearing. DEBONE: Move to withdraw the application for a decision. BANEY: Second. VOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 3. Before the Board was Continuation of a Public Hearing and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 2011-005, Amending Code to Create Transportation and Land Use Policies for Deschutes Junction. Chair Baney reminded everyone of the continuation, and said that James Lewis sent information last night and needs to be in the record. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 18, 2011 Page 4 of 10 Pages Mr. Russell provided a brief overview of the issue, but had nothing to add. Commissioner Unger said he did not take part in the last meeting on this issue, and asked if he can just listen and learn, and listen to the audio of the previous meeting prior to a decision. Ms. Craghead stated that deliberations or a decision could be made at a later date. Mr. Aceti gave the Board documentation that he said has already been submitted into the record. The main thing is a petition from 94 people who live in the area who support a higher and better use of the land, by up -zoning the use. There were 27 interested previously. These people want to support master planning of the area. There are agreements between him, the State and the County in regard to the overpass, to help safety issues but lose the use of farm land. He cannot do anything else with his land at this time. The big legal and defendable pin was the unincorporated community allowing the County to take the land for other uses. He could use the land as a hog farm or other farm use but does not want to affect people who would be impacted. But those who live over a mile away are not affected by the Junction except for transportation. Most support the overpass but don't want those in the impact area to be allowed to do anything else with their property, which has been negatively impacted by the changes there. Chair Baney asked if he is looking for specific language. Mr. Aceti would like to be included in a master planning area. He has tried for the past ten years to rezone his property, and the simplest way would to be part of an unincorporated community and a determination of which use is better. His land is surrounded by highways and the soil is not good for farming anyway. It would be better used as some kind of light industrial or commercial, something with little traffic impact that might needs a lot of space. An RV sales facility or a day care center would be good, or a small convenience store. The commercial uses in rural areas would work if it was master planned. He has also offered to donate property to the rural fire department. He would like to see master planning, including his property. Commissioner Unger asked if the petition was collected recently. Mr. Aceti said that the petition was done in 2010 for the Planning Commission hearing to show how many people support master planning. It was about 50/50 at that time, at the first town hall meeting. A mass mailing went to residents within a two mile area to find how people feel about it. About 100 people showed up. He asked for a hand count, and there was no input, no pros or cons, but 80 people said they'd like to see master planning. The Planning Commissioners were at those meetings. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 18, 2011 Page 5 of 10 Pages Paul Dewey said he thinks of master planning in terms of Tumalo or Terrebonne. He recommends staff language, as the Planning Commission encouraged establishing an unincorporated community which the Board is not ready to do. He does not see it as appropriate. Chair Baney asked if there are issues with any other policies with Deschutes Junction. He did not think there were. Marian Woodall of Boonesborough took exception to Mr. Aceti's testimony. The letters from those living in Starwood and Boonesborough offset what he has offered. It is clear there is no interest in a community in that area, and she feels they want a lot, but hasn't heard that there is a need. There is no need to have a place to stop between Redmond and Bend, and no rural community is necessary. She supports staff's findings. Mr. Russell said that there are various viewpoints about that area. The language that Mr. Dewey quoted is the Planning Commission's. It would be challenging to establish an unincorporated community in that area based on requirements of the OAR. Mr. Aceti bought the property as EFU, and when the State built the overpass they bought some of the property, and he was compensated for that. His land is goal exception land and EFU has the highest bar for that. It won't be an easy bar to reach. The language is not clear in the OAR for changing boundaries of an unincorporated community. Staff can pursue this, but it will be a difficult path. Chair Baney asked what is included in a master plan. Mr. Russell said the language was purposely left vague. There are land uses, trigger points for change, road issues, and a larger framework. Juniper Ridge could be a trigger point or the development of property south of the Fairgrounds. This changes the road network as well. The challenges of the zoning in that area make it more difficult. Ms. Craghead said there is no definition of master plan. She worries about being too specific because it has to be determined how it matches the goals. Nick Lelack stated that the threshold question is land use, and it is predetermined or what the community wants at the time. A bigger question for policy is who leads that effort, the County, or property owners, and who defends it later. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 18. 2011 Page 6 of 10 Pages Commissioner Unger asked about the transportation planning rule, and its amendments. Mr. Russell said that if there is an unincorporated community, chapter 660 has to be addressed. Commissioner DeBone asked why the year 2015 is specified. Mr. Russell said this project started in 2007 and 2015 seemed a long way off at the time. There are no other dates indicated in policy. Commissioner Unger said that Deschutes Junction is about five miles from Bend, Redmond and Tumalo. He asked what unincorporated communities service and if there is a rule of thumb as to how they are spaced out. Mr. Russell said the rules were determined based on what was already there, recognizing existing uses. Alfalfa and Terrebonne and Deschutes River Woods are some of them. The State came up with Division 22, which in effect grandfathered these areas and uses. Mr. Aceti referred to an oversized map of the area. He rebutted there are 1750 homesites within a two mile area. They knew they could use Deschutes Junction as a hub. There are no other needed services available locally for this amount of population. Why were these properties plotted if not because there was a junction to provide local services. Commissioner Unger said the Planning Commission used its own language and encouraged an unincorporated community. The vote was four to three. Chair Baney said that dates should not be noted within the comprehensive plan but just referenced. She encouraged the County to create a Deschutes Junction master plan, but in partnership with the community. This would have to be initiated by the community, but the County could contribute to the cost, to have better planning for that area. There will need to be more defined land use action in that area in the future. Commissioner DeBone referred to policies A through C, and want to leave the door open for this to be considered later. The "by 2015" could be dropped. Consensus was that the top line remain but drop the 'by 2015' on, and drop `encourage the County'. Anything could happen within the master plan depending on trigger points. Commissioner Unger stated that the last sentence is just a sentence. They have to deal with the LCDC and State policies. Nothing is lost by doing this. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 18, 2011 Page 7 of 10 Pages Chair Baney stated that she feels there needs to be more involvement and that area is changing. Ms. Craghead reviewed the suggested changes. Chair Baney took further input at this time. David Allen said that when you start master planning in this area, for it to be applicant driven, every landowner would have to sign on. This makes it difficult to get that kind of consensus. How do you get community involvement? The zoning ordinance does not address this. More detail is needed. He is not of a fan of deadlines. He is concerned about whether it needs to be applicant driven; if so, it should affordable or the County needs to take it on. Ms. Craghead said it would be the County doing master planning. Chair Baney stated the County would initiate the action. Mr. Aceti said the Board is trying to establish policies for the area, but if left uncertain, it could end up taking 30 years. Calling it a master plan is too vague. There should be a community with boundaries and specific uses within the boundaries, protecting the rural or residential uses outside of that. It needs a call to action. He would participate monetarily. There are those who want to work with ODOT and the County on doing this now. He would like to see the County initiate the determination of the boundaries for an unincorporated community for inner -core master planning but also protecting the rural aspect of the outer core. Most people suggest about a half -mile radius within the area. There is information showing that this is what people prefer, incorporating the nonconforming uses. Private property cannot be held hostage as open space per the State. Ms. Craghead said there could be a study area, but as it is, it is unlikely to qualify as an unincorporated community. Chair Baney said there are commercial and industrial uses already in the area. She would like to see language when there are trigger points to address this area. There are known uses that should be considered. She would like to see defined areas. The question is, what does Deschutes Junction really mean? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 18, 2011 Page 8 of 10 Pages Commissioner Unger said at the last hearing today it was decided that it was not time to do this. He would like to recognize the uses that are there and transportation issues. It does not draw a circle around the area, but when you talk about Juniper Ridge and south Redmond, they will be stand alone. He does not know how they can come up with boundaries. Commissioner DeBone would like to see a master plan there, but first you have to define the area and then deal with transportation. The market will drive this. Chair Baney asked how they defined the mailing area. Mr. Russell said they went to Old Bend -Redmond, south to Boonesborough and north through Whispering Pines. Commissioner DeBone is not so worried about changing zoning, but the existing lands that are there. The economy will determine if those uses should go up. Mr. Lelack said that initiating the master plan is general, and could be defined later. Another option would be to begin to state what the master plan should include. Or, they could determine bubbles, which are general study areas. Or, the County could look at what path in one direction would be appropriate. Ms. Craghead said those could be action items. Consensus was to initiate a Deschutes Junction master plan, take out the 2015 deadline, and anticipate that this will be County initiated. It would serve to clarify what a master plan for this area could include in references to the master plan. Sub (d) should be deleted. Chair Baney closed the hearing at this time. Staff will bring the revised ordinance back for first reading at a later date. 4. Before the Board was a Work Session on the Comprehensive Plan Update, including a Comp Plan Table of Proposed Changes. Because of the lateness of the hour, the Board determined that this item would be addressed at the afternoon work session, beginning at 1:30 p.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 18, 2011 Page 9 of 10 Pages 5. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA None were offered. The meeting adjourned at 11:50 p.m. --) DATED this ( ( -`` Day of -'',-- Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary 2011 for the Tammy Baney, Chair dim Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair aaw g, Alan Unger, Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, April 18, 2011 Page 10 of 10 Pages -VES 0 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., MONDAY, APRIL 18, 2011 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend 1. 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. Citizens who wish to speak should sign up prior to the beginning of the meeting on the sign-up cards provided. Please use the microphone and also state your name and address at the time the Board calls on you to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public hearing will NOT be included in the record of that hearing. 2. CONTINUATION of a Public Hearing and Decision on File #DR -10-3, a Declaratory Ruling on the Permanent Residential Status of a Structure on the Northwest Quadrant of the Deschutes Junction Interchange — Peter Russell, Community Development Suggested Motion: As decided. 3. CONTINUATION of a Public Hearing and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 2011-005, Amending Code to Create Transportation and Land Use Policies for Deschutes Junction — Peter Russell Suggested Motions: Hold public hearing; conduct first reading by title only of Ordinance No. 2011-005. 4. WORK SESSION on the Comprehensive Plan Update — Terri Payne, Community Development (Note: this item may be continued to the 1:30 p.m. Board work session if necessary) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, April 18, 2011 Page 1 of 4 Pages 5. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7- I - I to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. FUTURE MEETINGS: (Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.) Monday, April 18 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, April 20 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, April 21 12 noon Annual Meeting with Black Butte Ranch County Service District Board, at Black Butte Ranch Administration Building Monday, April 25 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, April 27 7:30 a.m. Legislative Update (conference call) 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, April 18, 2011 Page 2 of 4 Pages Thursday, April 28 10:00 a.m. Department Update — Children & Families' Commission Monday, May 2 3:30 p.m. Local Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting Wednesday, May 4 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, May 11 7:30 a.m. Legislative Update (conference call) 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Thursday, May 12 7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the City of Redmond Council, Redmond City Hall Monday, May 16 — Thursday, May 19 9:00 a.m. Budget Committee Meetings — Departmental Presentations Friday, May 20 7:30 a.m. Chamber of Commerce Town Hall Breakfast — State of the City — Bend Country Club 8:00 a.m. (Tentative) Budget Committee Meeting Monday, May 23 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, April 18, 2011 Page 3 of 4 Pages Wednesday, May 25 7:30 a.m. Legislative Update (conference call) 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Monday, May 30 Most County Offices will be closed to observe Memorial Day Wednesday, June 1 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, June 8 7:30 a.m. Legislative Update (conference call) 10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Wednesday, June 15 1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session — could include executive session(s) Friday, June 17 7:30 a.m. Chamber of Commerce Town Hall Breakfast — State of the County Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1- I to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, April 18, 2011 Page 4 of 4 Pages S 0 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: `1)e J Date: `III E/11 Name UEwLY wc4(L. Address ) 5:3(i nv'w J 011 q » Phone #s S y t- '3V) - 1 E-mail address In Favor 'JG(c.,067 C. !% 6.,c)c.c\otL. Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. TES 0 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: o� d //_ / D Name Address M 4,M Al Wil6PM L B�,VLs fou6-:/7' Date: Opposed No Phone #s E-mail address frif< bJ o,P,7 Ll c ' NAc BL c In Favor Neutral/Undecided 1 )( Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Aavt preL'rtruff !ao c,u rn6'0.7-5 / ,ACCO/ No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: Name Address 2 ` / ,✓�'- / Phone #s / Ili tvi Date: E-mail address In Favor t Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? , ' Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: 0.'-d. - c I ,> 05 Date: Name >� 1 ()�"e t t -2d kiG L. Opposed No Address 535 N1-1 v:(3b.,,'� '6.t d /1.7 Phone #s 5 fl- VI- !1 F_f E-mail address In Favor ci( e CA. Neutral/Undecided' Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. No BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING Agenda Item of Interest: Name -z "\' ' r: 1-i fl. 1 Y� REQUEST TO SPEAK Date: C Address 0111-P1t.A1 1.17, '171111 Phone #s E-mail address In Favor VVI Neutral/Undecided Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? Yes No If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest: the -�� _ 7/ lc._ L> Date: `y�� c1// Name :1 Address 7--"--1 • Phone t - Phone #s `7 E-mail address In Favor Neutral/Undecided Submitting written documents as part of testimony? J Yes If so, please give a copy to the Recording Secretary for the record. Opposed No Paul D. Dewey Attorney at Law 1539 NW Vicksburg Bend, Oregon 97701 (541)317-1993 fax (541) 383-3470 dewe bendcable.com April 15, 2011 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Ste. 200 Bend, OR 97701-1960 Re: Declaratory Ruling DR -10-3 Dear Commissioners: As I testified on behalf of Central Oregon LandWatch at the March 28 hearing, we support the Staff's determination, as supported by DLCD, that the "pink building" is not and has not been used as a "permanent residential dwelling." The apparent intent of this declaratory ruling proceeding is to determine whether an essential element of the definition of a Rural Service Center (RSC) under OAR 660-022-0010(8) is met, namely whether the possible RSC "includes some permanent residential dwellings." If a community meets the definition of an RSC and an "unincorporated community" under OAR 660-022-0010(9) then it could qualify as an unincorporated community. As an initial matter, we do not believe that the County's earlier determinations that this is not an RSC can be changed at this point, including the decision in PA -99-2 and TA -99-2 in which the County replaced the RSC designation for the area with Rural Commercial zoning. A determination of whether an area is an "unincorporated community" as prescribed in Division 22 has already been done by Deschutes County. This is an acknowledged land use decision and there is no provision under the rules for resurrecting an RSC that an acknowledged comprehensive plan has found does not exist. Whether or not the PA-99-2/TA-99-2 decision was based on the pink building not being a permanent residential dwelling (the decision presumably was), the facts are that the County made a determination that the area is not an RSC, there was no appeal of that decision, and the County's decision was acknowledged. There cannot now be a collateral attack on that decision. Further, as we argued at the March 28 hearing, the premise of the "unincorporated community" rules is that there be a "settlement" with at least "some" permanent residential dwellings. Even two permanent residential dwellings would not meet the standards. Regarding the inquiry of whether the pink building is/was a permanent residential dwelling, we agree that for purposes of OAR 660-022-0010(10)(e) that the inquiry is of uses prior to April 15, 2011 Page 2 October 28, 1994.1 That does not mean the Staff's evidence of use after that date is irrelevant where it reflects on the earlier alleged uses and the "permanency" issue. We find particularly compelling the Staff's determination that in reviewing 30 years of land use applications none was found for a residential use. While the March 28 letter on behalf of Mr. Fagen argues that uses in the early 1900s should have been considered, he offers no evidence of use of the pink building prior to 1980 or any evidence of permanency. The Staff's point that the building was not a permanent residential dwelling is well -taken. If no county permitted residential use is shown in records dating back to approximately 1981, then presumably there was not use of a "permanent" residential dwelling as of October 28, 1994, there.2 Any actual residential use was secondary to commercial uses of the property and was not applied for as an outright or other permitted use. The purported evidence of residential use from 1980-1997 (Letter from Eugene Carsey) was clearly shown to prove the opposite when Mr. Carsey testified at the March 28 hearing that there was no bathroom in the pink building and there was no functioning bathroom when he moved out. Indoor bathroom plumbing is a basic requirement for a "residential dwelling." Considering all of the previous decisions of the County determining that this area is not a Rural Service Center and all the evidence accumulated by the Staff, the Staff's conclusion, as supported by DLCD, that the pink building is/was not used as a permanent residential dwelling should be adopted by the Board. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Very truly yours, PAUL DEWEY PD:ao It is not clear from the declaratory ruling application whether the inquiry of the permanent residential dwelling use is directed at any particular time. Determination of use from 1984 to the present may also be of interest to the County, particularly if there is any future application for a goal exception to allow further development of the area. 2 Contrary to the argument in the letter on behalf of Mr. Fagen that the focus of analysis is on the structure and not the use, OAR 660-022-0010(l0)(e) is clear in referring to "uses" as of October 28, 1994. If the structure is vacant or is in commercial use, then it is not in use as a permanent residential dwelling. For the record, 4/18/11 TA -10-6 Public Hearing Dear Deschutes County Commissioners: Mis.Baney, Mr.Unger and Mr.DeBone; I am submitting the following papers to the record as proof and back ground materials. A. Petition and Attachment A with 94 names of people in support of Master planning Deschutes Junction core area for development. B. Suggested Goal and Polices letter for Deschutes Junction C. Nov. 25th 1998 Letter from Tony Aceti to Commissioner Linda Swearingen. D. March 26 Letter from James Lewis to Planning Commission: Transportation issues at Deschutes Junction. 1. May 13th 2010, email from James to Staff. 2. May 12th 2010, email from James Harrison to Peter Russell. 3. May 11th 2010, email from Steve Scott to Peter Russell. 4. May 3rd 2010, email from Tony Aceti to James Lewis. 5. Sept. 9th 2010, letter from Tony Aceti to Planning Commission 6. Jan. 22nd 2010, letter from Lisa Harris to Planning Dept. 7. Jan, 12th 2010, email from Tony Aceti to Planner Kristen Maze. 8. July, 8th 2010, email James Lewis to Teri Payne & K. Maze. 9. Sept. 15th, 1996 letter from ODOT to Thompson Pump & Irrigation Co. 10. Sept. 20th 1996 reply letter from Thompson Pump to ODOT. 11. April 30th, 1997 letter from Tony Aceti to Deschutes Co. Commissioners. 12. May 5th, 1997 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT between Tony Aceti and Deschutes Country. This agreement allowed the Overpass across Aceti property, in good faith for me to put the land to a higher and better use and "pay it foreword" for the Safety of the Community! Thank you for consideration in this matter: 3M7.' is Tony Aceti PETITION for Attachment A: Issues Affecting Deschutes Junction As residents and users of the Deschutes Junction area, we the under signed agree to the stated information provided by Attachment A: and would like our voices heard_ Name Address .r ; Ph. or Email „ - • ,---- . ,f." .---- ' l _ :•:::: ... ....___,__, . , __vis-, ‘..._ ...• - ----' s" / •• (.1 f / / .• —:.' ;----. .:,. (-: '---.L._ ,2 0 ,....., c,,,L,_„....,..:15.-;.,..„....t..4_ . r / r, I : --, —;...., - -.1 -- . , s f - :- • ' : . r• ' ''-' i .1 ' / • -/-; • 12/ dfetrae&A) • , . • 7 " • • et-kgeo tiwk),tiEzc. , 3ro • 7' - ATTACHMENT A: Issues Affecting Deschutes Junction As Residents of the Deschutes Junction Area We appreciate all the work that County Planning Staff has done thus far, but do not believe that the information considered and questions asked were representative of all issues. The questions asked by staff were pointed toward garnering specific responses and were not easy for the public to understand (including the matrix questionnaire) Therefore, We Believe The Following Must be Taken Into Consideration Now While Comprehensive Planning is Being Undertaken by Deschutes County for the Deschutes Junction Area: • There has been dramatic development, population growth and overall change in the Deschutes Junction area over the past 10 —15 years • The character of the area, particularly near the highway interchange, has been altered as a result of the changes to the transportation system/pattern and resulting congestion from growth • Additional inevitable development (such as: 19`h Street extension; Juniper Ridge; Department of State Lands property in south Redmond; future Highway 97 interchange improvements; Pleasant Ridge Road/61st Street highway access closures, driveway access closures, etc.) will all further affect Deschutes Junction in a dramatic way — IN A WAY NOT BEING RECOGNIZED by the County during the Comprehensive Planning process • The population growth has generated a need for additional services and economic development in the area in a manner that is efficient and convenient for Deschutes Junction residents • Necessary services and changes to the land use pattern would be most effective in the area surrounding the Highway interchange where most of the impacts have been and will continue to be experienced — THIS SHOULD BE IN A MASTER PLANNED FASHION • The character of the outlying rural residential neighborhoods should be PRESERVED TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE • Deschutes County should acknowledge these factors AND THE INEVITABLE IMPACTS THAT ARE COMING at this time and PLAN FOR THEM NOW instead of ignoring them and putting them off— this will give more certainty to residents of the area about their future PETITION for Attachment A: Issues Affecting Deschutes Junction As residents and users of the Deschutes Junction area, we the under signed agree to the stated information provided by Attachment A: and would like our voices heard. Name Address Ph. or Email - ,C.1? _ ) r � , ) / l• C ) - -, I v ` ` ' • ic- ..moi J t l r `f dlqoSodOKeourtf l@�rnnG0, �/2 • IPETITYON for Athichiiit A: Issues Affecting Deschutes Junction As residents and users of the Deschutes Junction area, we the under signed agree to the stated information provided by Attachment A: and would like our voices heard. Name Address Ph. or Email 6294g CdLas r1,r . 97701 , 387---80q1 PPL <'-50) -14-f-e-tX -6s7.-- Fc}k-s1- 6g- , if6-0 / I _ 1. o� 1. .. `-'J', -,- ` - d ?J. 1 , il./� t j: , j b:'" ' (t. "::,/1/61-.1,1 li . \ ! 1 ' , ,,,i ----/`=-"=- , 4. %..-,.....-1t„' �: / Irv: -� t.,--2-, V\ L y, f✓ / .r -/it --vv %i/`•'. iJ `,` .7...a7 c ,_:.3 - , 620-S62 Sc.c1d (- i) r1 - ic' �i ► 7� t , 322 -y/37 s� ' i �,, V i C J �.� ire !�:.-i• -1,• , - / - e d z-/ !-3,‘,--z---'1/ 5 7 Jt � ,5-5/7L _ Z. r:• fr :s :JC• ver PETITION for Attachment A: Issues Affecting Deschutes Junction As residents and users of the Deschutes Junction area, we the under signed agree to the stated information provided by Attachment A: and would like our voices heard Name i7z."(/... f - 1\!\.bo 44-5 Address Ph. or Email Sszt--) //-P,--J )?f/.', '773.i 6 Z.)/ Sf/at, $"'"1-7 Ali lie (1V ) 5del 2_65-(e( c.)S0ecT , 5 -All -8/57-11, e r - • jr 79 &nclij crno , gitt-eigg-8-re • ••:„„/ , ••/ , 11' ra; ,54%:.•:41.-"i' • r"••••• / • - 1 • L. "77 ; --••• 7" .."-) 7 .7e7 4 L ;71-•'• ../;..5."--fe.„."-..„........„1::.•........1;;L:-...--,,-;,-L. . = . .,-, ., L.,...../ • ,..; ,.„... .:.-- /2( ..,. „,.., „,-, ,-_,A71 _,•. „ ,... .., ,2;.. - - , ,,,-- ,_-,./ ,.. ...„."....-- _...... t,-• ._.•.-il-, '5 -1 ) ---- .. 1......, • • .- , <--k•i'i , j -_,-,....A..; 5.' ‘."... '; 4,-.:-i-F-i-i t, --,r '4,,-..,--.7:- ,--‘ ; , i - i , PETITION for Attachment A: Issues Affecting Deschutes Junction As residents and users of the Deschutes Junction area, we the under signed agree to the stated information provided by Attachment A: and would like our voices heard_ - . . ; 9frC Ph. or Email 7.40.osiviA/k0Ai 412).0 hA 44c._ , #2r9• %& Jo Ls °At , 9,8 &ins oiv givo 8Pro., oie . _ • , • . 7 z -1.4b1 (Co ikrw-kiy 7 .L714 ti Crilf CA 410:7? Ca (CC. 7 PETITION for Attachmentk: Issues Affecting Deschutes Junction As residents and users of the Deschutes Junction area, we the under signed agree to the stated information provided by Attachment A: and would like our voices heard. Name Address Ph. or Email s`ir- co -tog 111 3 R.s &w/o/d 9Th(0, ;5s 7- 013 _Pe_gct tres • PETITION for Attachment A; Issues Affecting Deschutes Junction As residents and users of the Deschutes Junction area, we the under signed agree to the stated information provided by Attachment A: and would like our voices heard. Name Address -777 -r, • L. Ph. or Email r +v • _J - / �'/6.. PETITION for Attachment A: Issues Affecting Deschutes Junction As residents and users of the Deschutes Junction area, we the under signed agree to the stated information provided by Attachment A: and would like our voices heard. Name Address Ph. or Email ASseAt4til) Me6cAim,,, Ifco 3' i dn . ifencc OR, 3 caa.--(0?S5 -r/'. '; L � � -�•=' . PETITION for Attachment A: Issues Affecting Deschutes Junction As residents and users of the Deschutes Junction area, we the under signed agree to the stated information provided by Attachment A: and would like our voices heard. Name GI')R 79/ 9f '1*9b3 git.X, A5250.136 'tce K_Igie4 6a 2 5446 /2.17 y' yg 71 e Se,J , 46,446Q" 6k 77-7gI 5v1-518' 5L(3 0 Address Ph_ or Email Suggested Goals and Policies — Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Deschutes Junction Purpose and Intent Listed below are a few suggested Goals and Policies (that may be appropriate for multiple chapters of the Comprehensive Plan in general as they apply to multiple areas of the County), as well as additional ideas that I believe provide the basis for necessary future planning for Deschutes Junction in particular_ Goals • To provide new and expanded economic service centers (Industrial and Commercial) in areas of the County where existing and planned transportation facilities will allow convenient and energy efficient provision of such services to multiple population centers. • To provide new and expanded economic service centers in areas of the County where large populations reside on nearby Exception lands • To designate Areas of Transportation Influence along Highways and Arterial roads where specific transportation improvements are planned • Acknowledge that changes to transportation systems and other public facilities have a significant effect on the highest and best use of adjacent and nearby properties • To examine the overall impacts of transportation improvements on the ability of existing uses to continue on nearby properties, as well as the potential to change the Plan and Zoning designations so that the highest and best use of the land is considered. • To recognize and plan for the fact that as the economy of Deschutes County changes, certain Industrial uses are better located outside of intensely developed urban areas. Policies • Pursue changes to land use designations, including Exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals as necessary, for those properties whose underlying highest and best use has been adversely affected by public facilities/transportation improvements • Pursue changes to land use designations, including Exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals as necessary, to re -designate lands deemed necessary and appropriate for economic service centers that can effectively and efficiently serve multiple population centers of Deschutes County from one location • Provide for the needs of the traveling public who utilize the transportation facilities at Deschutes Junction • Ensure that new economic areas have adequate facilities and services to support the projected level of impact Page 1 • To work with State officials and agencies to amend land use laws where they do not acknowledge and allow for the needs of rural populations to be met • Establish criteria for Areas of Transportation Influence and map such areas in order to adequately plan for adjoining land uses while at the same time prnvidiri protection of the transportation facilities • Prior to the development and construction of any major transportation improvements or issuance of land use permits for such facilities, there eh01 l be a collaborative master planning process between Deschutes County, ODOT and affected property owners. The party initiating the improvement project shall coordinate the master planning effort The end result of the effort shall be the basis for the improvement proposal. • Recognize that past transportation and public facility improvements that have been constructed in the area have had a detrimental affect on certain properties ability to be utilized as historically designated. Thus, changes to the land use designations should be sought so the land can be used efficiently and for the highest and best purpose • When establishing new land use designations to provide services to residents of the area and for economic purposes, the County shall look first to those properties that have had their ability to be used as designated/zoned compromised by transportation and other public facility improvements • Establish criteria for existing rural population centers and map such areas in order to adequately plan for essential service needs of the designated area Suggested Ideas • Create rural population density maps for use in defining population rural population centers. This should include projected build -out of potentially developable lots. • Establish criteria to define what rural population centers are and how services should be provided. • Establish a boundary for Deschutes Junction — primarily an "inner" Deschutes Junction boundary that extends in an approximate '/2 smile radius from the center of the Highway 97, Tumalo Road, Deschutes Market Road and future 19th Street interchange. This will be the master planned/study area for potential changes to land use designations as a result of where the pressures will be the greatest from impacts that will affect the underlying highest and best use_ This will also protect the outlying residential neighborhoods from encroaching development. • The County should proceed forward with changes to the Comprehensive Plan Map and Zoning Map to fulfill the Goals and Policies of the Plan text. Page 2 3% ANTHONY J. ACETI 21235 Tumalo Road Bend, OR 97701 Telephone (541) 419-0858 November 25, 1998 Linda Swearingen Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1130 NW Harriman Street Bend, OR 97701 Dear Commissioner Swearingen: The Deschutes Junction overpass will be open for public use in early December. This is a wonderful, life-saving amenity for the community, visitors, and commerce of Central Oregon. I have always acknowledged the importance and the life-saving value of this project. That is why I dropped the LUBA appeal. The cost to the taxpayers to ensure safe and adequate access to the Aceti and Cascade Pumice properties is small when weighed against the timely completion of the project. You and your staff, myself, and others have survived a bumpy ride to see the opening of the Deschutes Junction overpass. I commend your work and humanity for taking the. position of County Commissioner and solving problems. On October 21, 1998, Tom Blust, Director of Public Works, disclosed to me that the location and new alignment of Deschutes Junction was designed to not only solve an immediate problem, but also to facilitate an "upgrade" interchange for future population growth and need. I believe this to be true. Invariably, the upgrade will mean more of my land will be needed. I have read ORS 215.283 regarding uses permitted in EFU zones and interpret it to mean that reconstruction or modification of public roads and highways is allowed ... where no removal or displacement of buildings would occur, or no new land parcels result. My interpretation tells me that I could place buildings in potential right-of-way for the upgrade, or the County/ODOT can condemn most of the highway frontage area so as not to create separate parcels of my land. My nature is not to play games, especially when people's lives and livelihoods are concerned. In spite of the hearings officer's decision to approve CU 96-45 with the oversight of addressing the criteria as to affect the least amount of EFU land, or not to force significant changes in accepted farm practices, or not to significantly increase the cost of accepted Linda Swearingen November 25, 1998 Page 2 farm practices, this project did significantly affect farm practice, farm costs, and the usability of the EFU-zoned land. The project drastically changed the usability, character, and efficiency of Lot 201. This impact has created a hardship to me. The location, proximity to nearly 1,000 platted home sites, and the commercial amenities of the property still remain. A higher and better use of this land would be to convert it to a higher -density use such as Rural Service Center and/or Rural Industrial. The people in this area need an RSC to obtain goods and services to insure their welfare and quality of life. RI use would create jobs for these people. A full-service bedroom community is a benefit to the dwellers and others because it reduces the average daily trips "to the city" for articles of life. Enclosed is a copy of a notarized statement from a former prospective purchaser of my land, asserting that neither the County nor the State had any objections to his proposed industrial use of my site. I have simply described the overall benefits of a higher and better use of my land. I fear that a suppression of the value and use of my land for future County and State use (interchange upgrade) is an unfair reason to not rezone the land. I am willing to work today toward a common goal: an upgrade interchange and a rezoning of the remainder of the land so that benefits can be achieved by all. I would like to work together so that energies to carry out plans will complement efforts, rather than oppose them. Your input, thoughts, and directives would lift the frustration and ill will that have tainted my good nature. Sincerely and respectfully, Enclosure: notarized statement from Stalick International, Inc. FORETERRA LLC Real Estate Investment, Development and Land Use Planning March 26, 2009 Deschutes County Planning Commission 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97701 RE: Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update — Comments on Transportation Issues as they Affect Deschutes Junction Dear Commissioners: I am submitting the following testimony regarding Transportation Planning Issues in Deschutes County, specifically as they affect the Deschutes Junction area. 1. Deschutes Junction has a Historical and Continual Importance as a Transportation and Economic Development Hub that Efficiently Serves the Bend and Redmond Markets. Transportation Influence The Deschutes Junction area has historically been a crossroads for transportation and economic development in Deschutes County. The roads leading to/from Deschutes Junction (Highway 97, Tumalo Road, Deschutes Market Road and 19t1i Street), all County Arterial Roadways and a US Highway, lead directly to the communities of Bend, Redmond, Tumalo and heavily populated "rural subdivisions" in the surrounding area. This historic road network has been perpetuated and enhanced in the recent past by the following: • The construction of a major highway interchange and overpass from the Highway to Deschutes Market Road and Tumalo Road • The planned extension of 19t Street between Redmond and Deschutes Junction The historic and enhanced road network is a result of the importance of the Deschutes Junction area as a vital transportation link between the business markets of the aforementioned communities. Economic Influence Notwithstanding the importance of Deschutes Junction as a transportation link, Deschutes Junction is also a center for businesses that provide goods and services to the surrounding communities. The area is home industrial development and new businesses on the west side of Highway 97 which include among others: Willamette Graystone, United Pipe and Supply, and Jack Robinson and Sons. All of these businesses provide goods and services to the Bend and Redmond markets (the population centers of Deschutes County). It is Page 1 FORETERRA LLC Real Estate Investment, Development and Land Use Planning assumed that these businesses have located at Deschutes Junction due to the ease of transportation access and serviceability to the Bend/Redmond areas. In short, Deschutes Junction has continuously been a vital location for efficient operations for those businesses serving the Bend and Redmond markets. 2. The Continual Importance of Deschutes Junction as a Transportation and Business Hub in Deschutes County is not Expected to Change and is Being Perpetuated and Enhanced by Local and State Governmental Bodies. As stated above, the Oregon Department of Transportation has done improvements to the interchange at Deschutes Junction in the past, and Deschutes County is planning to complete an extension of 19th Street between Deschutes Junction and Redmond. These improvements provide not only US Highway access to/from the area, but also County Arterial Road access. As a result, Deschutes Junction will be one of the only places in the County with multiple roadways leading to/from the primary community and business centers (Bend and Redmond) in the County. 3. The Deschutes Junction Area Should be Examined as an Expanded Industrial Center that can Efficiently Serve the Bend and Redmond Markets — Particularly with Businesses that have a Great Deal of Service Transportation Needs and that are not Conducive to City Center Locations. The Deschutes Junction area is in close proximity to the primary service markets in Deschutes County (Bend/Redmond) and thereby provides a location for efficient business operation for those businesses that regularly serve each community. Such a location has many benefits in that efficient business operations cuts down on fuel and operating costs for businesses, limits the need for multiple business locations in each community, and provides an area for businesses that are not deemed conducive to intensive urban locations (limits impacts such as traffic, noise, dust, odors). Also, when looking at the size and assemblage of parcels at Deschutes Junction, it is evident that there is ample area for the location of such businesses to meet the objectives stated, while at the same time minimizing any impacts to surrounding properties. Additionally, many of the properties in the immediately surrounding area are not conducive to the agricultural designation that is currently applied. Thus, it makes sense for the County to examine the potential expansion of the Rural Industrial or other similar zoning for the Deschutes Junction area to take advantage of the existing and planned transportation system, and it's central location out of intensely developed urban areas and proximity to existing markets. Page 2 FORETERRA LLC Real Estate Investment, Development And Land Use Planning 4. County Comprehensive Plan and State Transportation Planning Rule — The Influence of New Transportation System Improvements on Existing Land Uses and Land Use Designations Should be Elevated in its Consideration. When reviewing the State Transportation Planning Rule and the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan (as provided to you in your packet this evening), there is much discussion about the effects of surrounding land uses on the transportation system. As stated in the memorandum to you tonight from Peter Russell: "[tjhe TPR encourages plans to balance the variety of transportation choices, protect exiting transportation corridors and facilitate the flow of freight and services in and through Oregon. The TPR also requires local jurisdictions in their planning process to protect existing and planned transportation facilities. Facilities must operate consistent with their identified functional classification." While all that is true and is important in maintaining an efficient and vital transportation system, it does not take into account the effects of transportation system improvements on the surrounding properties. While it is valiant to consider the effects of adjoining land use on the functional ability of the transportation system, shouldn't it also require the effects of new transportation amenities on the adjoining and nearby properties? It seems that when new transportation facilities are considered or constructed, the overall affects on the ability to use the adjoining land for historic or new purposes is minimized. As was the case with Mr. Aceti's property at Deschutes Junction, an overpass/interchange was constructed which limits his ability to effectively use his property for farming (as it is currently zoned) or for other uses due to its proximity to the actual interchange — at the last steering committee meeting ODOT officials alluded that Mr. Aceti's property was too close to the interchange for driveway access thereby limiting other potential uses. In this case, the improvement was done without much regard for the impact to adjoining land uses (or ability to use the land for other purposes). The same issue was raised from other residents of the area about proposed medians and driveway closures associated with ODOT and County planned transportation improvements. Thus, it would be appropriate for the County to adopt goals and policies that strengthen the review of impacts to surrounding properties when transportation improvements are planned — the focus should not only be on the health of the transportation system, but also on the affects to the surrounding area. Changes to land use designations should be considered (including up -zoning) when the transportation system changes prevent the designated land uses from happening and when new land use opportunities present themselves. I believe that if the historic development pattern of Deschutes Junction been physically built out as it is today prior to the implementation of State land use laws 36 years ago, we would have many more services and commercial/industrial businesses in that area. Page 3 FORETERRA LLC Rest Estate Investment, Development and Land Use Planning 5. Goals and Policies Goals and Policies The following goals and policies were discussed in previous correspondence to you from me specifically in regard to Deschutes Junction (letter of February 26, 2009). They are pertinent for this discussion concerning Transportation elements of the Comprehensive Plan as well. The following Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan goals give direction to the area deemed Deschutes Junction and are contained in the Economy chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. 1. To diversify and improve the economy of the area. 2. To enhance and maintain the existing natural resource, commercial and industrial segments of the local economy. The rationale provided previously in this letter indicates that due to factors such as the existing and planned transportation facilities, the availability of land, the proximity to Bend and Redmond, efficient business operations, and the minimal impact to surrounding properties, it makes sense for Deschutes Junction to be considered as one of the areas where the above listed goals can be met. Suggested Goals and Polices Listed below are a few suggested Goals and Policies (that may be appropriate for multiple chapters of the Comprehensive Plan), as well as additional ideas that I believe provide the basis for Deschutes Junction serving as an enhanced economic hub that efficiently serves the primary population centers in Deschutes County Goals • To provide new and expanded economic service centers (Industrial and Commercial) in areas of the County where existing and planned transportation facilities will allow convenient and energy efficient provision of such services to multiple population centers. • To designate Areas of Transportation Influence along Highways and Arterial roads • Acknowledge that changes to transportation systems and other public facilities have a significant effect on the highest and best use of adjacent and nearby properties • To examine the overall impacts of transportation improvements on the ability of existing uses to continue on nearby properties, as well as the potential to change the Plan and Zoning designations so that the highest and best use of the land is considered. • To recognize and plan for the fact that as the economy of Deschutes County changes, certain Industrial uses are better located outside of intensely developed urban areas. Page 4 FORETERRA LLC Real Estate Investment, Development and Land t/se Planning Policies • Pursue changes to land use designations, including Exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals as necessary, for those properties whose underlying highest and best use has been adversely affected by public facilities/transportation improvements • Pursue changes to land use designations, including Exceptions to Statewide Planning Goals as necessary, to re -designate lands deemed necessary and appropriate for economic service centers that can effectively and efficiently serve multiple population centers of Deschutes County from one location • Ensure that new economic areas have adequate facilities and services to support the projected level of impact • To work with State officials and agencies to amend land use laws where they do not acknowledge and allow for the needs of rural populations to be met • Establish criteria for Areas of Transportation Influence and map such areas in order to adequately plan for adjoining land uses while at the same time providing protection of the transportation facilities Request Based on the rationale provided in this letter, I respectfully ask that you consider Goals and Policies, and changes to the Plan and Zoning Maps, that allow the properties in and around Deschutes Junction to be utilized in a manner that is efficient and respective of the physical circumstances of the area. Thank you for your consideration of the materials I have submitted. Sincerely, James J. Lewis, Principal Foreterra LLC Page 5 Tony Aceti rage 1 or .s From: "james lewis" <jamesjlewisl 1 @gmail.com> To: <tony@minglegame.com> Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 12:15 PM Subject: Fwd: Deschutes Junction comments FYI Forwarded message From: james lewis < Date: Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:59 AM Subject: Deschutes Junction comments To: Cc: Hi Peter and Nick: Before I begin, I would like to say that I want this e-mail forwarded to the Planning Commission today. I will be raising these same issues tonight at the Planning Commission meeting. I would like confirmation that this was forwarded to both groups. I have the read comment letters from respondents and the e-mail responses from staff in the past few days regarding Deschutes Junction - I have some real concerns. You know that I have always followed protocol in working with staff and through the proper processes and procedures. However, in this case I have to switch gears - that is why I am asking this to be forwarded directly to the PC. This is not something I typically ever do. This is not any form of sour grapes on my part - I do not play that game. Rather, it is my perception based on experience over the past year and a half. Regarding your responses about the Deschutes Junction planning process, I have to say that I am in disbelief that the County does not consider all the comment letters and other information submitted by participants (including oral testimony, particpation at community meetings, etc.) a formal record. Rather, you have said that the formal record will begin when public hearings are scheduled in a month or so. So then, what has been the purpose then of all the work, participation and information prepared/submitted over the past year and a half? This issue and all of the materials prepared/submitted, public meetings, stakeholder meetings, planning commission discussions, etc., is part of the overall Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Update - that is a very formal record and a County initiated project. As part of that project, you were directed by the Board of Commissioners to study/plan for Deschutes Junction. So, then, are all these materials not part of the "formal record" of the Comprehensive Plan Update project? I very much believe that it is - if there were an appeal on this issue in the future, I truly believe that it would be considered part of the record by the review body. It should be organized, categorized, tabbed, numbered, lettered, copied, recorded, bound, etc., and available for public review as part of the formal record. In regard to all the information prepared over the past year and a half, some of the statements from staff give the appearnce of a personal or departmental agenda/direction about Deschutes Junction. 1 do appreciate the portion of your last memorandum to the Planning Commission that includes some of the history of the process, but the suggested policies and continued direction to do no planning for Deschutes Junction until later (with no specificity as to how or when it will be 5/13/2010 ragc 3 ui 3 Amendment/Zone Change to add Rural Industrial Lands at DJ is being reviewed - wow, lots of change, huh? All of these will have major impacts to Deschutes Junction and its residents, property owners and those using the area - why not get ahead of these changes? In conclusion, these are not just my comments - these same thoughts are shared by others who have participated in the process - I have just ended up being the one who has been chosen to articulate it. Thank you, James James J. Lewis, Principal Lewis Planning Services 2051 NW Cabot Lake Ct. Bend, OR 97701 541-647-7831 James J. Lewis, Principal Lewis Planning Services 2051 NW Cabot Lake Ct. Bend, OR 97701 541-647-7831 5/13/2010 done) leaves me with a particular perception of the entire process. Essentially, it is as if the department is not taking all materials into consideration - it's as if the materials or comments submitted that don't fit the "do nothing" at Deschutes Junction rationale are disregarded. Past examples include draft policies and reports prepared by staff that were based only on the community meeting (October 2009) where the narrow County initiated suggestions/ideas were presented to the public for consideration - ideas that were so narrow that they pushed respondents into a desired result_ If you remember, many people there asked about other options or responded with a dot "on the line" between options. They were all told that their "vote" would not count - is this then not a directed response? Many comments submitted to the staff during the entirety of this process are rational planning ideas from those that apparently do not fit into the "do nothing" or "plan to plan later" categories - these ideas were never presented to the public and are evidently not part of the record since there is no record. I have asked a number of times for the actual materials (posters with County created questions and dots) used at the October 2009 meeting to be presented to the Planning Commission when also considering the draft policies presented by staff - so they can determine for themselves if the scope was focused and directed toward an outcome. Conversely, there were two other meetings where there was overwhelming support for changes to the area (February and December 2009) - including support from residents that live in the neighborhoods in the area which are typically classified by staff as adamantly against any changes or commercial development in the area. The input at these meetings, which has never been refelceted in the draft policies or documents (has gone against past staff sentiment) regarding Deschutes Junction, is never mentioned by staff or used as the basis for policies. The fact is, the area is changing daily by virtue of uncoordinated projects - the residents and property owners of the area will ultimately bear the impacts of these unplanned for "changes" that are already occurring - I am guessing that is the reason the Board of Commissioners asked staff to address Deschutes Junction as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. In your e-mail from yesterday (12th) where you have forwarded the four comment letters to participants in the process, you refer to the comments as follows: "one finds the policies acceptable and three call for more commercial development." The reference to three of them calling for more commercial development is blatantly untrue. One of the letters does - that is the letter from James Harrison. The other two, one from Steve Scott and one from me, expressly do not make that statement. Mr. Scott's letter merely makes a point on what he sees as the nature of the "irreconcilable differences" that you refer to in your report. Essentially he disagrees with your rationale as to why there are differences and provides his understanding of that issue. He further suggests a refinement plan for the area to sort out the planning issues among all parties (a solution!). As for my letter, I did the same as Mr. Scott - I offered my recollection on the nature of any resident/property owner differences regarding commercial development (they were primarily focused on neighborhood protection), but also discussed areas where they are in agreement - that is in relation to the suggestion for master planning the area (as discussed at the last Stakeholder meeting - a solution!). Overall, when I see a process that does not appear to be considering all ideas and that has the appearance of a pre -conceived outcome - meaning that even though people are heard they are not listened to, and that information submitted to the record (as relied upon by all participants) is not part of any formal record - I become a skeptic of that process. Rather, the appearance is that selective participation and only certain information/meetings are being used as a basis for new policies that perpetuate the past policy of continuing to do nothing at Deschutes Junction. In the mean time, the 19th Street/TSP amendment is moving forward (with construction to most likely soon follow), Juniper Ridge will eventually develop, the Department of State Lands is planning for future development of their 900 acres on the south side of Redmond, ODOT is closing drieway access/installing turn barriers in highway 97, a soccer facility is planned, traffic is increasing on Highway 97, further improvements to the Deschutes Junction/Highway 97 interchange are being contemplated and a brand new application for a Plan 5/13/2010 Tony Aceti ragc i ui� From: "Jim Harrison" <jim@helpwithyoursite.com> To: <tony@minglegame.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 6:48 PM Subject: Fw: Planning Commissioners meeting, May 13 Hey, Tony, what does this mean?? Jim ---- Original Message ---- From: To: Cc:• Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 9:27 AM Subject: RE: Planning Commissioners meeting, May 13 Peter Russell Senior Transportation Planner Deschutes County Community Development Dept. 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97701 ph: (541) 383-6718 FAX (541) 385-1764 From: Jim Harrison [mailto:jim@helpwithyoursite.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 3:40 PM To: Peter Russell Subject: Planning Commissioners meeting, May 13 Dear Mr. Russell, I would like the attached document entered into the record at the planning commissioners meeting on May 13. I will not be able to attend, but would like to share my input on the Deschutes Junction Community Plan. 5/13/2010 1 � / • Peter Russell Senior Transportation Planner Deschutes County Community Development Dept. 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97701 May 11, 2010 Re: Deschutes Junction Community Plan Dear Mr. Russell: I understand there will be a meeting this Thursday, May 13, 2010, to review the Deschutes Junction Community Plan. I will not be able to be at that meeting but would like to share some input. Next week I will be closing on the purchase of a building site on 85th Place in the Whispering Pines subdivision. It's my intention to build a retirement home there some time in the next year or two. I'm looking forward to this rural setting, but would like to see more commercial development nearby, similar to what is currently in Tumalo. I understand that there is land adjacent to the Deschutes Junction overpass that could be rezoned and used for this purpose. I would like to weigh in strongly in favor of this and encourage you to do all you can to promote commercial development in the Deschutes Junction area. As I was shopping for building sites in the area I was surprised to see how many homes are within a short distance of Deschutes Junction. Given the population of the region it just makes sense to allow the area to mature into an unincorporated community similar to Tumalo, with commercial use and services in the proximity of the interchange. This would enhance the livability of the area, not to mention create jobs and tax revenue. Please enter my comments into the record at the planning commissioners meeting on May 13. Thank you. Sincerely, James C. Harrison PO Box 613 / 69335 Silver Spur Sisters, OR 97759 Deschutes Junction 9/9/2010 Dear Deschutes County Planning Commissioners; I would like the following comments, information and photos entered in to the Record for Deschutes Jct. At the 8/26/10 meeting, Staff reported that, "no support for increased commercial was tallied" at a Community meeting at the SDA School. I refute this statement. I personally placed a "dot", in the category that appeared to support adding commercial lands at DJ. And I witnessed 7 other people do the same. As to the 660-22, unincorporated rule; at least 2 homes must be located in the area that are not on EFU lands to meet the test to implement the RSC Rule. The facts are: Hundreds of homes have and exist on Rural Residential (non-EFU lands) since the 1994 Administration Rule was established. AND the homes are contiguous to the Historic RSC zoning. All but one of the homes and businesses along Hwy 97, South of the Bob Fair's RSC property, were ever intended or had any connection (water rights or fuction) to a Farm use... in spite of Deschutes County's mis-zoning of the Historic... Present & Future use of the area. I am including Assessors archive PHOTOS, RESIDENIAL APPAISAL CARD and PLOT PLAN for tax lot 500 (the Fagens' property). And a letter from County Assessor, Eric Sexton, referencing to the information found that clearly notes the House & Living area of the existing "Pink Building" prior to 1995. I suggest that the evidence Bob Fair is submitting, as to his RSC Zoning, be considered as binding or included in the Declaratory Ruling along with the Fagen's property. With all of the evidence, history and impacts to Deschutes Junction, now is the time to correct the County's mis-handling of the area in 2002 and recommend RSC designation to the Board of Commissioners so as to comply with State Law and Master Plan the area for highest and best use. The question always comes to mind... Way is Staff resistant to this Necessary Planning at Deschutes Junction, when all factors & tools exist to resolve and Plan for the "Bull's Eye" area. Thank you for your time. Tony Aceti To: Deschutes County Planning Department From: Lisa Harris Re: Deschutes Junction Jan. 22nd, 2010 Please enter this into the record. Over the past year, I have attended several meetings regarding Deschutes Junction. The first meeting when the mail out was done (Feb. 10, 2009) had an overwhelming attendance. A hand count was taken with the question of how many would like to see any development at the Deschutes County Junction. Well over half of the people present showed support of some sort of development at the Junction. In answer to the question of how many would like to see NO change, a much smaller number of hands were held up. maybe 25%. Since this meeting showed the most number of people responding to the mail out, I feel this meeting should be counted as the most representative for accuracy of what the people really want. On October 29th, another meeting was held on the same subject. It was not a mail out and hardly any people attended. Yet, Kristen Maze concocted a matrix form to try and record what the community wanted. This matrix was so confusing for the general public. Not one person was shown to have been in favor of development at the Junction. This is an automatic red flag as at least half the people that I knew of were in favor. Yet, this matrix seems to be what Kristen feels shows representation of what the people want. It's almost as if she has her own agenda? December 15th was the last meeting I attended on the subject of development at Deschutes Junction. Her matrix results were revealed and most of the people in attendance were astounded at the skewed results when most of these people have been attending these same meetings for years. Actually astounded is an understatement. People were downright angry over it. Deschutes County Planning needs to face the fact that the majority of people would like to see a rural service center in the area. If this was planned with say a half mile radius around the junction, everyone could benefit. Growth is inevitable but planned growth is beneficial to the entire community. Who would want to put a house at that junction? Who could farm it? No one. Time has come for the county to keep up with the population and continued growth in our community. A fair estimation can be achieved by counting the meeting where the mail out was done. The mass majority showed they DID want to see some growth changes to the area. More people attended than any other meeting. It would be irresponsible to discount it. Please submit for the record. Thank you for your consideration Lisa Harris 643 NE 10th Bend, Ore. 97701 (Former long time Deschutes Junction area homeowner) Tony Aceti From: "Tony Aceti" <tony@minglegame.com> To: "Kristen Maze" <Kristen_Maze@co.deschutes.or.us> Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 7:18 PM Subject: Deschutes Jct. meetings & input Kristen Maze; CDD Planning staff for Deschutes Jct. Dear Kristen, I am asking for a correction of the "DJ listening session" publicized notes, dated 2-10-09. And that this letter be put into the record. Under the CDD Comp Plan webpage for Deschutes Junction, note or bullet, #33 states that "42 people out of 100 would like to see economic development in the area." I recall very well asking for a hand count to the topic or question. The question was ask by staff, by my request. Mr. Peter Russell stated that he counted about 40 hands on the west side of the room in favor of the stated question. Ms. Terri Payne counted about 44 hands on the East side of the room in favor of economic development. Then Mr. Russell asked for a hand count as to how many people were against development in the area. I remember he said about 20 were for no change. I have spoke to many people lately (especially after the Dec. 15th meeting) about the "hand count topic" of the Feb. 10th meeting, they too recall similar responses. 1s this conflicting "data" issues keeps arising, as to how many people are for planned development or no change at Deschutes Junction... I feel that after you disclosed at the Dec.15 meeting, that a mass mailing contributed to the success of the Feb.10, 2009 meeting; those effort making, interested and attending people is the true consensus of the people, because the results were truly organic. We discussed a lot of the issues and good feed back was recorded, hence the 50 noted bullets. As to the the "results of the voting of the Oct. 29th meeting", I feel that most people must have been duped, including myself because the wording was confusing. You are quit aware as to my position of DJ., but there is not a single vote in the "allow more commercial development" at Deschutes Junction category presented on the 11 "X17" summary hand out for the "voting" results of the Oct. 29th, 2009, meeting, that was available at the Dec. 15th meeting. My point is that every time there are questions asked on "paper", especially now with the matrix, The statements or questions are reaffirming "little or no change" or more restrictive to State law. Most people don't understand or even want to understand OAR Chapter 660, Division 22, the "Unincorporated Communities Rule" or that OAR 660-022-0010 significantly notes that "counties may amend these designations as circumstances change over time". One of the big issues to be addressed at the stake holders meetings and community meetings, was to determine the boundary of DJ. and determine the appropriate economic area to best serve the present and future growth at Deschutes Junction. And adjust for impacts and land uses as changes occur in the area over time. At no time was there an explanation as to the State land use laws that allow the expeditious planning process for counties to reduce the need to take exceptions to statewide planning goals and be within the legal right of the land use process by establishing a RSC by implementing the UCC rule. Lastly, I have tried to respond to the "MATRIX" in the fashion that it suggested, but it was to complex and to suggestive to an end results that I do not support. All except the last three, "citizen initiated policies". The underling results give me no rights to rezone my land, tax lot 201 because even the transportation policies, as stated would "lock up" my land for a future taking as an up grade to a ODOT/County transportation facility. Just as you said to me at the Dec. 14th Tumalo meeting... "it will be 50 years before Deschutes Junction needs a diamond interchange". Yet, all polices lend to "keeping the rural setting" and "accommodate new and increased traffic flows for urban uses"!! You can't have both without mitigating and addressing land use change for the impacted lands!!! This would be construed as: "PRE -CONDEMNATION". looking foreword to your response Signed: Tony Aceti, 1/12/10 4/10/2011 rage i011 Tony Aceti From: "James Lewis" <james@foreterra.com> To: "'Terri Hansen Payne"' <Terri_Payne@co.deschutes.or.us> Cc: "'Kristen Maze"' <Kristen_Maze@co.deschutes.or.us>; <taceti@bendbroadband.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 2:54 PM Subject: Deschutes Junction Question Hi Terry/Kristen: This is a follow up to some information discussed and submitted to the Planning Commission at the February 26th and March 26th meetings — and for discussion at tomorrow's stakeholders group meeting. At the Planning Commission meeting on February 26th, Tony Aceti submitted a letter into the record from William Kabeiseman, attorney, regarding Deschutes Junction and the Unincorporated Communities Rule. In short, the letter described the process for making a determination as to whether or not Deschutes Junction qualified or met the requirements for an unincorporated community. This was commented on by staff, as well as Doug White (DLCD) who was in attendance. Everyone agreed that the letter stated the process correctly and that Deschutes Junction could qualify as an unincorporated community — except, that it was further stated that one of the requirements was that there be two or more residences within the area referred to as Deschutes Junction (more or Tess defined as the lands that are currently RI and RC zoned). The assessor's records currently show only one residence within this area. Thus, due to this factor, you indicated that Deschutes Junction was prevented from being considered under the Unincorporated Communities Rule. It was stated that if there were evidence of more than one residence, that the Rule could be applied and Deschutes Junction could be evaluated, and probably meet the requirements for an unincorporated community of some type (as they are listed in the rule). At the March 26th meeting, Mr. Aceti submitted a variety of materials, all showing evidence of other dwellings being located within the area referred to as Deschutes Junction. We are hoping that this evidence is justification for Deschutes Junction to now be considered for unincorporated community status. We have not heard any response in this regard and were wondering what your thoughts were, and if this would be something the County would consider taking on as suggested by the Planning Commission. If we could briefly discuss this at tomorrow's meeting we would appreciate it. Feel free to give me a call if you like. 541-647-7831. Thanks, James 7/8/2009 1-7 I� ACETJB. ERRE i IE3.RIGAT QN SYSTE�vi„'. ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED: • With the roadway constriction. the property will be separated into two parcels with access to either parcel along the Nest end of the roadway. phis there will be the existing access to the hay storage barn from Tumalo Road. (see attached map) • Can the current irrigation system be modified to (rater two separate parcels? If so. please outline how this could be done and the cost to modify the existing system. The modified system needs to be similar to what's there now. if possible, and not more labor intensive (like going from wheel Tines to hand lines), if possible. • To maintain the current mainline set-up, a pipe could be constricted under the new roadway and then the mainline pipc nm through this. is there a point along the new roadway where the pipe would work best? Would more than one pipe be necessary and if so. where? • The irrigation equipment is owned by the Barretts and they arc irrigating the property. If, atter the roadway construction is completed, the Barretts elect not to irrigate the properly and Aceli assumes that task. what would a similar system (new or used) cost Accti using your proposed modification to the existing system? • Plcasc outline how the water would be dclivcrcd to Accti's property from the canal/hcadgate assuming he would not have use of Barrett's pond, mainline. and did not have access over Barrett's property to deliver the water to his property and include the cost of the equipment from the canal/hcadgate to deliver the water to his property. Plcasc contact Todd or Ross (ditchridcr) at Swallcy Irrigation District, 388-0658, for information on how the water is delivered to the property and how it niiglrt be dclivcrcd if not able to continue delivery through Barrett's property. 9" y6 ��S 1 j L= Linda Drake . 4 -96 F:LI 05:15 PM Barrett Cor 503 382 4139 P-01 THOMPSON PUMP & IRRIGATION, Inc, "Sales 8 Service" "The Bast Equipment Properly Installed' 63002 Sherman Rd_ 2425 SW Highway 97 - Madras, Oregon 97741 • Bend, Oregon 97701 - Phone (503) 382-1438 • Phone (503) 475-1215 Oregon Department of TransL'ortatinn RCETI/BARRETT IRRIGATION SYSTE:1 ITEMS TO BE CONSIDEREC: Irrigation sysLem can be modified to water in two separate Parcels. The main lino would have to be extended approximately 700' north. The .Tse. of Hi ee.l. lines would Oe pretty mucro prohibited because of the shape or the fields_ First the use of hand lines would be t.hA ,economical. The cost to add mainline and hand line would Po approximately 98,000.00. If hand lines are not suitable .3iLher, a hose traveler, cost approx. 921,000 plus new pumo = a-ic,; solid set. fiMlds with nand lino at a cost of $40,250_ -10,t F.zt two prices of equipment would net snow a profitable reIurn for those small parcels of land and [he type of crops grown in the. :,ria. * Tne bast place to run pipe under roadway is the east silo of the field where the main line run now."1t may also be a benefit to run a pipe under west sid0 c1 +Told. In either case..•this is riot a very big expense if done when the roadway is constructed. { To replace irrigation equipment: that presently is in field and hand line equipment without pump station _ is approximately $13,000.00 new and used runs about 8,9000.00--10.000_ The only way water can be delivered to Aceti's property according to Ross, ditch rider, at Swalley Irrigation is across lir Barrett's property via one of 2 options: 1. Divert the water ou': of a ditch behind Barret's barn into =. buried pipe across Mr Oarr:tt's property to the S.W. corner of Aceti's property where Mr. Aceti. r: -.':,Id build a pond and install a pump station estimated cost or $.7"000-$80,000. 2. Aceti could install his ov:I: pump station at Mr Barrett's pond and bury a supply line to Lie SUS corner of Mr Aceti's property estimated cost $90,000-OO,0OO.00_ her. Barre t is willing to give easement for option it 2 but at present t me is against giving easement for option # 1. Prepa smith cc: Ba (ret 'c 0pT V4141-04W 1964 Pumps: JACUZZI GOULD BERKELEY CORNELL Irrigation Equipment:: WADE RAIN CROWN AM RAIN BIRD GHEEN TRAVIS April 30, 1997 NANCY SCHLANGEN ROBERT NIPPER LINDA SWEARINGEN Deschutes County Commissioners: I am a farmer. I make my living growing and selling hay. You understand it is my duty to protect my property rights. Finally, important issues were addressed at the press conference. I have no desire to hold up a project that is important to all the people who must use the intersection at Highway 97 and Deschutes Junction. I am, therefore, willing to sign the agreement you have prepared. It is signed and is enclosed. I have negotiated a settlement with you which I believe is fair. Unfortunately, what you have agreed to, ODOT wants to take away. I intend to defend what has fairly and in good faith been negotiated. I trust you will sign the agreement so that the people can have their intersection in a timely manner. It is for them. It is for their safety. If you do not intend to sign your agreement, I must know immediately. Thank you. Sincerely, d.e+e4 TONY . TI cell phone: 419-0858 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into on the date set forth below by DESCHUTES COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Oregon (County), and ANTHONY J. ACETI (Aceti). RECITALS 1. Aceti is the Petitioner and County is the Respondent in Aceti v. Deschutes County, LUBA No. 96-218, currently pending before the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. The subjects of the appeal are the September 16, 1997, Decision of the Deschutes County Officer approving Application CU -96-45 submitted by Deschutes County Public Works, and Order No. 96-115 of the Board of County Commissioners of Deschutes County, Oregon, dated October 17, 1996, declining to hear Petitioner's appeal application. 2. Aceti is the owner of a 22.8 -acre tract of land (Aceti property) in Deschutes County, located at 21235 Tumalo Road, further described on Deschutes County Tax Assessor's Map 16-12- 26C as Tax Lot 201, and more particularly described on Exhibit A hereto incorporated by this reference. 3. The decision appealed from, as described in the November 6, 1996, Notice of Intent to Appeal, is "the approval of a conditional use permit to replace the intersection of Deschutes Market Road and Tumalo Road at US Highway 97 with a grade -separated interchange and the failure to accommodate the' specific rieals of Petitioner contrary to the purposes and intent of the Deschutes County Ordinance 18.128.015(A)(B)." 4. Aceti's specific concern is the hearings officer's approval of a passage adequate for livestock, but inadequate for farm vehicles through the interchange ramp, which will bisect the Aceti property. 5. The County is willing to make an engineering design change to accommodate Aceti's understanding that an underpass sufficient to allow passage for large hay trucks and related farm equipment was to be included in the final engineering design. 6. Bruce G. Barrett and Gary W. Barrett hold a purchase money security interest in the Aceti property. PAGE 1 - SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (Deschutes County/Accti) AGREEMENT IN CONSIDERATION of the above premises and of the undertakings below, the parties agree as follows: 7. The parties will jointly move for a prompt entry of a final order dismissing the above appeal. 8. Notwithstanding Paragraph III(C), Pages 11-12, of the September 16, 1996, hearings officer's decision, the County agrees to increase the size of the required underpass to provide, at no cost to Aceti, a 16 -foot -wide by 16 -foot -high under -crossing structure consisting of a concrete floor slab, walls, ceiling and wing -walls. 9. The County agrees to the following additional property improvements: A. To relocate the existing entrance to the Aceti property at a distance of four hundred feet (400') to five hundred feet (500') to the east on Tumalo Road. The exact location will be determined in consultation with Aceti. B. To construct a turn lane for westbound trucks at the location of the new entrance to the Aceti property. The length of the turn lane shall be sufficient to handle a ninety -foot (90') hay truck. C. To reestablish the existing driveway to the property by placing crushed rock from the relocated entrance to the hay barn area at an appropriate grade in consultation with Aceti. D. The County will place a multi -stranded barbed wire fence across the entire property as it fronts both Tumalo Road and the relocated Deschutes Market Road. The County will also provide metal gates about 120 feet into the Aceti property at three locations: (1) the new access onto Tumalo Road; (2) & (3) two new accesses off the relocated Deschutes Market Road. E. The County will provide a culvert pipe under the existing Tumalo road near the relocated entrance and under the relocated road at no cost to Aceti to accommodate future extension of water lines and related utilities. The County will also provide, after execution of this agreement, the sum of $2,000, payable to Aceti, to help defray costs of tapping into the existing water line and running said line in the culvert to the northern boundary of the Aceti property. The size, depth, and location will be determined in consultation with Aceti. F. The County will provide a utility pipe for electrical and telephone connections under the new road. The location will be determined in consultation with Aceti. PAGE 2 - SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (Deschutes County/Aceti) G. The improvements to be provided by the County as specified in Paragraphs 9A -F will be provided at no cost to Aceti, except as limited in Paragraph 9E. H. Public Works agrees it will not oppose Aceti's retention of his deeded access to Highway 97 or future relocation of said access to Tax Lot 200, Deschutes County Assessor's Map 16-12-16C, presently owned by Mary D. Lawrence. I. Subject to paragraph 12 hereof, Public Works agrees not to oppose a subsequent comprehensive plan change or rezoning of the Aceti property from EFU to rural service center, rural industrial, or other similar plan or zone designation. 10. Aceti agrees to do the following: A. Dedicate all property necessary to accommodate the turn lane and the increase in the radius at the northeast corner of the property, if that is later determined to be necessary. B. Release the County for any and all claims for breach of contract and immediately dismiss the LUBA appeal. C. To not refile an appeal to LUBA, assist in the filing of an appeal to LUBA, or commence legal proceedings unrelated to the eminent domain proceedings which would delay the interchange project. D. To modify or withdraw his pending application for a land use permit for the purpose of constructing an agricultural building so that it does not encroach upon the proposed interchange right-of-way or required setbacks therefrom. 11. Immediately upon request therefor, Aceti will sign and provide to the Oregon Department of Transportation permits of entry in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B. 12. Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall be construed to constitute an agreement by the County to take any legislative or quasi-judicial action with a particular outcome; nor shall this Agreement in any way authorize or obligate any instrumentality of the County to violate applicable substantive or procedural obligations of the County in any administrative, legislative, or quasi-judicial action or proceeding. 13. This agreement is subject to the conditional precedent that Bruce G. Barrett and Gary W. Barrett signify their approval of this settlement by signing the approval line provided on a photocopy hereof and deliver same or a facsimile of same to the offices of Deschutes County Counsel. 14. In the event of litigation arising under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorney fees upon trial and upon any appeal thereof. PAGE 3 - SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (Deschutes County/Aceti) 15. This Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement of the parties and shall be binding upon them, their agents, successors and assigns. 16. This agreement may be executed in counterparts. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereto set their hands on the dates set forth below. DATED this / `-f day of M , 1997. DATED this 32 day of DESCHU COUNTY, a political subdivisio the S : to of Oregon Boar SCHLANGEN, Chair ounty Commissioners APPROVED this 3 day of f / c -x , 1997. B CE G. BARRETT, Security Holder PAGE 4 - SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (Deschutes CountylAceti) April 18, 2011 Alan Unger, Commissioner Anthony DeBone, Commissioner Tammy Baney, Commissioner Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 Dear Commissioners: 1 wish to weigh in on the Declaratory Ruling Process for Deschutes Junction and have this testimony entered into the public records. My wife and I are residents, property owners and taxpayers in Deschutes County since 1989 and reside at 65115 N. Hwy 97 at Deschutes Junction. In respect of the Commissioners' time. I wish to make my comments brief. First and foremost we wish to address the `'NIMBY" argument (Not In My Backyard) expressed today, which points up the emotional aspect of any development. The review of the changes at Deschutes Junction show that in prior times, it was a hub for business and commercial uses. Times do change, but we feel the argument to protect the rural character has been greatly over -emphasized. Spot zoning and non -conforming uses are the order of the day. In most cases. landowners are only trying to utilize their property to the highest and best use. My wife and I have tried farming and raising livestock, which has proven unsuccessful over the years. Further. we have stated in the record the difficulty of accessing our property due to increasing highway speeds and amount of traffic. We accept these things as changes that occur naturally. What we object to is the inability and unwillingness of Deschutes County to consider a Master Plan for the area around Deschutes Junction. We see many opportunities to be environmentally correct, not the least of which would be to serve the needs of our neighbors. At the same time we could eliminate unnecessary trips. use of energy and wear and tear on the State highway system. At this time, as Attorney David Allen points out in his March 28, 2011 letter to the Board of Commissioners, the Fagen's do not have any land use application for their property. We urge the Commissioners to take a look at the bigger picture. It is apparent from the written testimony and the direct testimony by Mr. Carsey that, in fact, the pink building was a residence. My family feels that this debate is splitting hairs and we should be Page Two looking at the bigger picture such as cleaning up the area, establishing a clear-cut public process and giving the landowners who own property on Highway 97, the opportunity to enjoy a more balanced input into the process. We believe that the pink house was originally and historically a permanent residential dwelling. We personally witnessed this fact. Please consider this and take appropriate action. Sincerely. March 31, 2011 Deschutes County Commissioners Tammy Baney, Tony DeBone, Alan Unger 1300 NW Wall Street #200 Bend, OR 97701 Re: Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Update (TA -10-6) Dear County Commissioners: We have heard that the County Planning Commission is recommending more commercial development in the Deschutes Junction area—contrary to the recommendation of their staff and public input. We wanted to again voice our opinions. A number of residents in this area—including us—have expressed opposition to additional development. We participated in a public meeting and expressed our concern and objections at that time. We are part of what we believe is an overwhelming consensus to keep the rural character of Deschutes Junction as it is. We are concerned that the wishes of a number of concerned citizens are going unheeded. While there are over 1000 residents and property owners in the Boones Borough and Starwood areas, and many submitted letters and/or emails expressing their opposition to this zoning change, it appears that only a very small number of landowners want to change the zoning to commercial. We have been, and continue to be opposed to this change for the following reasons: 1. Unnecessary sprawl. 2. Diminished Quality of Life. 3. Increased noise and pollution. 4. Increased vehicular and truck traffic. 5. We are very concerned that commercial developments will become empty buildings and ill -kept unused properties, in part because of the relative isolation of Deschutes Junction. This will adversely impact our property value. 6. [Very awkward] design of the Deschutes Junction interchange. We moved to Oregon because, at least at the time, the state and this particular area offered a great mix of lifestyle and commercial opportunities. We specifically moved to Boones Borough for its rural lifestyle and quality of life. Zoning changes allowing increased commercial or industrial uses would directly and negatively affect the rural quality of our neighborhoods and the surrounding community; hence our strong opposition. Redmond and Bend both offer substantial commercial (shopping, eating, etc.) opportunities. We strongly urge you to listen us and numerous other residents and make no zoning changes to the General Plan for Deschutes Junction. Silnc ;ely • Abbott and Margaret Schindler 21623 Boones Borough Drive Pr/G�G'2.1a:y LLQ APR 2011 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ADM1NIS1RAT1ON LJ