The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014-08-06 Work Session Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, August 6, 2014 Page 1 of 5 Pages For Recording Stamp Only 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 WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2014 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Anthony DeBone and Alan Unger. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting, Dave Doyle and Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Nick Lelack, Cynthia Smidt and Will Groves, Community Developments; Anna Johnson, Communications; and three other citizens. No representatives of the media were in attendance. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. ___________________________ 1. Discussion of Ordinances No. 2014-021 and No. 2014- 022, a Sunriver Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Forest District to Utility District. Cynthia Smidt provided an overview of the item, which is at the request of the Sunriver Fire Department. They want to establish a facility on approximately 2.88 acres and a Plan amendment is required. The forest district is over 800 acres and was brought in during 1997, with the idea the land would be used for sewage treatment, so there was no Goal exception taken at the time. The Hearings Officer recommends approval. There were two letters of opposition, but no appeal was filed. The Hearings Officer did address those concerns. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, August 6, 2014 Page 2 of 5 Pages The Sunriver Fire Department had previously tried to put a facility within Deschutes River Recreation Homesites, which met with substantial opposition from residents. They have to be within a certain distance of their service area. The exception would include a limited use combining zone for t raining purposes. The public hearing and first reading is scheduled for the August 13 business meeting. 2. Discussion of Leading Edge Aviation Fuel Station Appeal. Will Groves gave an overview of the appeal. The applicant is Leading Edge, and there is a history of the application, appeals and remands. The Board asked to review this on the record with no new evidence. There is a conflicting relationship of documents that affect the Bend Airport, and differences of opinion on how these documents should be applied and how they interact. The argument is that the opponents feel it is a rural master plan and requires the FAA to approve it. However, others feel that this was not the intent of the document. The Hearings Officer said that they are aspirational guides. (He referred to his staff memo and other documents.) Staff is asking the Board to endorse the Hearings Officer’s view, and support the purpose statement relating to the Airport Master Plan and Airport Layout Plan. The Hearings Officer cannot interpret Code the same way as the Board can, but has asked that the Board view it as aspirational. Chair Baney asks who ultimately clarifies what is aspirational and what can then be placed and where. Mr. Groves said the layout plan could prevent certain things from happening. It has to be in a proper location. The Board can render a decision on this definition. Ms. Craghead said the Flight Shop is saying the use has to be in a specific location; Leading Edge and the City argue otherwise, and staff agrees that it is aspirational and was not intended to be an absolute. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, August 6, 2014 Page 3 of 5 Pages Chair Baney asked if other airports have dealt with this. Mr. Groves said there is nothing in the record on this. Commissioner Unger added that it varies by airport, depending on their desire for economic development or on local land use restrictions. Commissioner DeBone asked if there would be associated buildings; Mr. Groves said it would just be a fueling station with a basic shelter over it. It would be where there are hangars and where other similar structures are located. Hangars are on parcels as well, but this would be on leased ground. Mr. Groves will give the Board instructions on how to locate the specific file documents on this issue, and recommend the ones that need more attention. The appellant did not originally provide a transcript, which is now also in the file. Commissioner Unger is concerned about LUBA and their assignments of error. Mr. Groves stated that staff feels the outright uses and conditional uses ar e clear, as does the Hearings Officer. It has become a Code interpretation issue per LUBA. Ms. Craghead said that the appellant is the one who lists and points out the assignments of error, as organized when it was submitted to LUBA. LUBA responds to these issues to either support or deny, and remand it back to the County as appropriate. 3. Other Items. The Board went into Executive Session, under ORS 192.660(2)(e), real property negotiations; and 192.660(2)(h), pending or threatened litigation, at 2:05 p.m. No action was taken after executive session ended at 2:45 p.m. ___________________________ Commissioner DeBone drafted a letter to John Huddle and the Citizens Action Group regarding Lechner Acres and the lot line issues in that development. There has to be consensus of all the property owners to resolve the property issues there, but it comes down to the cost. He said that perhaps the letter should come from the Board. Commissioner Unger feels this is similar to the situation in Tumalo. The County encourages cooperation between owners and neighbors, and will help as appropriate, but is not responsible for the situation. Chair Baney does not want to have it appear that because the County is present, the County is responsible for, or will solve, the problem. Commissioner Unger would like to eliminate the last paragraph of the letter. The first sentence of the last paragraph will be stricken and the rest revised, to include an offer to discuss solutions if requested. I 1 j The Board had a brief discussion of the State of the County meeting and Chamber of Commerce presentation in Redmond on August 7. Anna Johnson said the cost for the employee bar-b-q at the Fair was about $14,000. $10,000 was for food, but unfortunately, some people did not show up. The balance was to cover Fair entrance fees. They thought there would be about 600 attendees, but it was perhaps 400. The average cost for food per person was $16. The entire package was $21.50 per adult. The Board wants to remain committed to the process, but wants to see solutions on how to get this cost down, or have people show up if they have committed to be there. They feel this was successful, but it needs to be refined for next year. Erik Kropp said the County has revised the signage that will be posted on the perimeter of the County's property near the River in Tumalo, to indicate the public can use it at their own risk. Commissioner DeBone said he spoke with the people working on the Deschutes County Rodeo. They are excited about using a rural or rodeo theme. Being no further items discussed, the meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, August 6,2014 Page 4 of 5 Pages DATED this /~ Dayof ~2014 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. L ~ Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair ATTEST: Alan Unger, Commissioner Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, August 6, 2014 Page 5 of 5 Pages ______________________________________ 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; or other issues under ORS 192.660(2), executive session. ______________________________________ Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners’ m eeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. _________ ______________________________________ Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This eve nt/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation poss ible, please call (541) 388-6571, or send an e-mail to bonnie.baker@deschutes.org. _________ ______________________________________ Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6, 2014 ___________________________ 1. Discussion of Ordinances No. 2014-021 and No. 2014- 022 , a Sunriver Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Forest District to Utility District (Hearing on August 13 Business Meeting) – Cynthia Smidt 2. Discussion of Leading Edge Aviation Fuel Station Appeal – Will Groves 3. Other Items Executive Session, under ORS 192.660(2)(e), Real Property Negotiations – Susan Ross '" '" OJ I.. "C "C co co E I OJ ~ OJ C o .c a. r '" '" OJ I.. "C "C « j -t t r --1+ t-I Q)'" co a. 4o Q) co a. Community Development Department Planning DivIsion Building Safety Division Environmenbll Soils Division P.O. Box 6005 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, Oregon 97708-6005 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes Board of County Commissioners FROM: Cynthia Smidt, Associate Planner DATE: July 29, 2014 RE: PA-14-1 and ZC-14-1, Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Forest District to Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Utility District, and an exception to Goal 4, Forest Lands, for Sunriver Service District The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board) will hold a public hearing on August 13, 2014 at the Deschutes Services Center, starting at 10:00 a.m. A work session will be held on August 6, 2014 to present the proposed plan amendment and zone change and answer the Board's questions. The Board will consider plan amendment (PA)-14-1 and zone change (ZC)-14-1, proposed by Sunriver Service District. Sunriver Service District proposed to amend the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan to change the plan designation of approximately 4.28 acres from Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community (UUC) Forest to Sunriver Urban Unincorporated Community Utility. The applicant is not proposing to expand the Sunriver UUC boundaries. The amendment includes a "reasons" exception to Goal 4, Forest Lands. It also includes a zone map change, to rezone the 4.28 acres from Sunriver Forest District (SUF) to Sunriver Utility District (SUU). If approved, the plan amendment and zone change will allow for a fire training facility for the Sunriver Fire Department on the subject site. Two draft ordinances, Ordinance Nos. 2014-021 and 2014-022. embody the proposal. Ordinance 2014-021 contains amendments to DCC Section 23.01.010, Introduction, Comprehensive Plan Sections 5.10, Goal Exception Statements. and 5.12, Legislative History. Ordinance 2014-022 contains a text and zone change to DCC Title 18 and the county zoning map to reflect the rezone of the subject site from SUF to SUU and to add the LU Combining Zone to allow a fire training facility for the Sunriver Service District and Sunriver Fire Department. The proposal was reviewed by the Deschutes County Hearings Officer at a public hearing on April 22, 2014. The Hearings Officer found the application met, or could meet, all relevant criteria and approved the applicant's proposal, in a decision dated June 13, 2014. Under DCC 22.28.030(C), a plan amendment and zone change requiring a goal exception shall be heard de novo before the , Board without the necessity of filing an appeal, regardless of the determination of the Hearings Officer. ATTACHMENT: 1. PA-14-1 and ZC-14-1 Hearings Officer Recommendation Quality Services Perfonned with Pride MEMORANDUM DATE: July 15, 2014 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Will Groves, Senior Planner RE: The Flight Shop and Aero Facilities Appeal / Hearings Officer’s Decision (File Nos. SP-13-7, A-14-2 and A-13-4). Before the Board of County Commissioners (Board) is an appeal filed by The Flight Shop and Aero Facilities (Appellant). The appeal was submitted in response to a Deschutes County Hearings Officer’s decision on remand from LUBA that a fueling station proposed by Leading Edge Aviation Inc. (Applicant) at the Bend Airport complies with all applicable regulations. The Board agreed to hear this matter on the record under Order No 2014-105 and extended the record period under Order Number 2014-018. The record is closed as of July 9, 2014. REMAND FROM LUBA: The remand from LUBA identified the scope of issues before the Hearings officer and now the BOCC to as follows: 1) Whether the airport master plan includes any applicable standards or requirements with respect to the proposed fuel storage facility, and 2) Whether the airport master plan precludes approval of a fueling station on the west side of the runway in the proposed location. The Hearings Officer found that the airport master plan (AMP) does not include any standards and criteria applicable to the applicant’s site plan, and that the AMP does not preclude approval of the applicant’s fueling station on the subject property. Staff notes that the AMP includes the Airport Layout Plan (ALP), a depiction of the preferred alternative to airport development, as exhibit 1. The Appellant’s notice of appeal describes several assignment of error in the Hearings Officer’s decision on remand. These are listed below in bold below, followed by a summary of the legal argumentation presented to the Board. The Appellant argues that the Hearings Officer erred: a. By finding that the Bend Municipal Airport (AMP) does not include any standards and criteria applicable to the Applicant’s site plan; File No.: A-14-2 (A-13-4 and SP-13-7) Page 2 of 5 Hearings Officer: The Hearings Officer extensively reviewed language in the Comprehensive Plan, TSP, AMP, and ALP and concluded that the AMP does not include any standards and criteria applicable to the applicant’s site plan. Applicant: The applicant concurs with the Hearings Officer’s findings, noting that the airport master plan (AMP) is aspirational and is a “guide” as described in the County Transportation System Plan (TSP). The Comprehensive Plan, of which the AMP is a part, states that it is “not intended to be used to evaluate specific project developments”. Appellant: Although the Comprehensive Plan states that it is not intended to be used to evaluate specific development projects, that language is simply a statement of general intent, and does not rule out that some portions of the Comprehensive Plan might be made to apply as independent criteria, for example, if an ordinance such as DCC 18.76.010 imposed it, or where the Comprehensive Plan itself imposes another document such as the Airport Master Plan as a planning document to be applied. The Transportation System Plan incorporated in that Comprehensive Plan allots a specific function to the 2002 AMP update. Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Hearing’s Officers Findings on this issue and include specific code interpretations as described below. b. By finding that the AMP does not preclude approval of the Applicant’s fueling station on the subject property; Hearings Officer: The AMP does not preclude approval of the applicant’s fueling station on the subject property. Applicant: The AMP would only preclude the fueling station if it contained relevant criteria. It does not. Appellant: The LEA fuel station is not consistent with the AMP and does not comply with it. The 2002 AMP update and its incorporated ALP designate future fuel storage for the east side of the Airport, not the west side. The 2002 AMP and ALP adopted by the County specifically designate a location on the east side of the Airport for a new fuel station. It designates the subject property for the LEA fuel station for small hangar space. The plain language of the 2002 AMP and ALP rebut the Hearings Officer’s conclusion that those documents allow for ad hoc development that blatantly deviates from the AMP and ALP, such as the Leading Edge application. Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Hearing’s Officers Findings on this issue and include specific code interpretations as described below. The remaining assignments of error discuss detailed points that are used to reach the conclusions in (a) and (b), above. File No.: A-14-2 (A-13-4 and SP-13-7) Page 3 of 5 c. By concluding that policy 16.2(h) of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and TSP should be interpreted to not prohibit development except as specifically designated on the Airport Layout Plan; Hearings Officer: Policy 16.2 encourages the county to adopt AMPs for the county’s public-use airports, and requires the county to designate on any such plans “proposed airport facility relocations or expansions.” It is not clear to what extent Policy 16.2(h) applies to the applicant’s private development proposal. Policy 16.2(h) could be interpreted to apply only to relocations and expansions of airport infrastructure and not to private development such as the applicant’s fueling station. The Hearings Officer found that this more limited interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the ALP. Applicant: Policy 16.2(h) is ambiguous. The Applicant requests that the Board adopt the Hearings Officer’s findings on this policy and expressly interpret policy 16.2(h) that private development does not “constitute and airport facility” in this context. Also, that this policy does not require designation on the AMP or ALP prior to approving otherwise compatible private development. The subsequent to an ALP after private development occurs satisfies this policy since it does not require the update before the private improvement occurs and is consistent with the ALP acting as a guide for development that needs to be flexible to adapt to changing market conditions. Appellant: There is nothing in the TSP that would limit airport facilities to runways, taxiways, and runway and taxiway service lighting, as found by the Hearings Officer. The County is required to apply an airport master plan map to development projects at the Bend airport. Whether Deschutes County has in fact allowed private development to occur in deviation of the 2002 AMP update and ALP is irrelevant. The Comprehensive Plan, AMP, and the AD zone ordinance indicate a clear intent to use the adopted ALP map as a criterion to guide future development, whether private or public. Staff Recommendation: Policy 16.2(h) requires the County to, “Specifically designate any proposed airport facility relocations or expansions within County jurisdiction on an airport master plan or airport layout plan map, as amended.” Staff recommends that the Board: 1) interpret “airport facility relocations or expansions” to apply to airport infrastructure elements provided by the airport owner, in this case the City, and not to private development such as the applicant’s fueling station; and 2) interpret this policy as contemplating that the ALP will be updated after development occurs thus functioning as an “as-built” map. d. By finding that Deschutes County has revised, or has approved revisions, of the Airport Layout Plan several times since the 2002 version in order to reflect actual development at the Airport, most recently in 2013 with the addition of the Applicant’s fueling station on the subject property; Hearings Officer: The ALP has been revised by the city and county, and approved by the FAA, several times since 2002 version in order to reflect actual development at the airport, most recently in 2013 with the addition of the applicant’s fueling station on the subject property. File No.: A-14-2 (A-13-4 and SP-13-7) Page 4 of 5 Applicant: Opponent is correct that the Hearings Officer made a harmless misstatement. Although the City has updated the ALP several times and the FAA has approved those updates, the last County approved ALP revision was in 2002. Appellant: The Hearings Officer’s finding that “the ALP has been revised by the City and County, and approved by the FAA several times since 2002 version in order to reflect actual development at the airport, most recently in 2013 with the addition of the applicant’s fueling station on the subject property,” is simply wrong. It is irrelevant whether the City of Bend or the FAA have approved revisions, because Deschutes County hasn’t. Staff Recommendation: Correct the Hearings Officer’s harmless error to say, “While Deschutes County has not completed adoption of any revisions to the ALP into the Comprehensive Plan since adopting the 2002 update, it is in the process of adopting the 2013 update, which depicts the Applicant’s fueling station on the subject property”. e. By concluding to not consider the Airport Development Zone Purpose Statement (DCC 18.76.010) in connection with the issues on remand, including whether the AMP or any of its contents must be applied as an approval criterion because of the purpose statement; and Hearings Officer: The Hearings Officer did not address this issue. Applicant: Recommends that the Board include a finding interpreting the purpose statement as relating to consistency between the development code and the Comprehensive Plan, AMP, and ALP not consistency between those overarching planning documents and site-specific development. Furthermore, the Board should not interpret the purpose statement as elevating aspirational language in the identified planning documents to mandatory approval criteria. Appellant: DCC 18.76.010 separately references the 2002 AMP update as a plan for airport growth and is an indication of intent to apply and enforce the 2002 AMP and ALP for any development in the AD zone. By failing to address and consider that code provision as an independent source for mandatory approval criteria for the application, the Hearings Officer decision was in error. Staff Recommendation: Make a Board finding that the language of the purpose statement in DCC 18.76.010 is somewhat ambiguous and requires interpretation to guide development review at the Bend Airport. Then, adopt the following findings: DCC 18.76.010 is intended to signify that the code language of Chapter 18.76 is consistent with the planning goals and objectives outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and the 1994 Airport Master Plan (as amended by a 2002 supplement) (the “AMP”). The purpose statement in DCC 18.76.010 is not intended to establish the Comprehensive Plan or the AMP as criteria for evaluating a specific development proposal or to otherwise elevate the aspirational language contained in those planning documents to mandatory approval criteria. Chapter 18.76 fully implements those planning documents as they relate to development File No.: A-14-2 (A-13-4 and SP-13-7) Page 5 of 5 in the Airport Development Zone and there is no need for a consistency analysis for individual development proposals except where otherwise expressly required by the Code. In summary, the Board interprets DCC 18.76.010 as simply a purpose statement and not and not as approval criteria for a development proposal such as the Applicant’s fuel facility. f. By finding that the “AMP and ALP are intended to describe recommended airport developments to meet identified needs and to accommodate development that may not have been foreseen at the time the update was adopted”. Hearings Officer: The AMP and ALP are intended to describe recommended airport improvements to meet identified needs and to accommodate development that may not have been foreseen at the time the update was adopted – such as the applicant’s proposed fueling station. Applicant: The AMP and ALP are “guiding documents” that offer “recommendations” for meeting forecasted aviation demand. Accordingly, they are not intended to provide site-specific approval criteria for airport development such as the Applicant’s fueling station. This is evident from the express language of the AMP cited by the Hearings Officer. The AMP and ALP will continue to serve their intended function of identifying goals and objectives for the airport that in turn guide legislative code language. Appellant: It is hard to imagine that an airport master plan and airport layout plan that specifically designates and projects areas for future growth after careful consideration of alternative plans would then undermine itself by “accommodating future development” that is contrary to that plan, as the hearings officer suggests. Rather than using the adopted 2002 AMP update and ALP as the guiding document for airport planning, as required by the Comprehensive plan and DCC 18.76.010, the Hearings Officer decision would relegate that document to a meaningless guess as to future development, with no planning function at all. Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Hearings Officer’s findings on this issue. Attachments 1. Hearing Officer’s decision on Remand (File no. SP-13-7) 2. Arguments submitted by parties during this “on the record” appeal. 3. Summary matrix. 1 LEADING EDGE AVIATION DECISION MATRIX The remand from LUBA identified the scope of issues before the Hearings officer and now the BOCC to as follows: 1) Whether the airport master plan includes any applicable standards or requirements with respect to the proposed fuel storage facility, and 2) Whether the airport master plan precludes approval of a fueling station on the west side of the runway in the proposed locati on. The Appellant’s notice of appeal describes several assignment of error in the Hearings Officer’s decision on remand. These are summarized in the matrix below. Issue Information in Record Board Options Staff Comment 1. Does the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan say that the Bend Municipal Airport Plan (AMP) includes standards and criteria applicable to the Applicant’s site plan? Hearings Officer: The Hearings concluded that the AMP does not include any standards and criteria applicable to the applicant’s site plan. Applicant: The applicant concurs with the Hearings Officer’s findings and adds that that the AMP is aspirational and is a “guide” Also, the Comprehensive Plan, , states that it is “not intended to be used to evaluate specific project developments”. Appellant: In this case, the Comp Plan imposes the AMP as standards and criteria for all development at the airport and, thus, is applicable to the Applicant’s site plan. a. Adopt Hearings Officer’s findings, with or without modification. b. Find that the Hearings Officer erred and AMP does have standards and criteria applicable to the Applicant’s site plan. Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Hearing’s Officers Findings on this issue and include specific code interpretations as described below. Sample motion for BOCC: “Move that the Board adopt the Hearings Officer’s findings.” 2. Does the AMP preclude approval of the Applicant’s fueling station on the subject property Hearings Officer: The AMP does not preclude approval of the applicant’s fueling station on the subject property. Applicant: The AMP would only preclude the fueling station if it contained relevant criteria. It does not. Appellant: The LEA fuel station is not consistent with the AMP and does not comply with it. a. Adopt Hearings Officer’s findings, with or without modification. b. Find that Hearings Officer erred and the AMP precludes fueling on the subject property. Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Hearing’s Officers Findings on this issue and include specific code interpretations as described below. Sample motion for BOCC: “Move that the Board adopt the Hearings Officer’s findings.” 3. Should policy 16.2(h) of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and TSP be interpreted to prohibit development except as specifically designated on the Airport Layout Plan? Hearings Officer: It is not clear to what extent Policy 16.2(h) applies to the applicant’s private development proposal. The Hearings Officer found that Policy 16.2(h) could be interpreted to apply only to relocations and expansions of airport infrastructure and not to private development such as the applicant’s fueling station. Applicant: Policy 16.2(h) is ambiguous. The Applicant requests that the Board adopt the Hearings Officer’s findings on this policy and expressly interpret policy 16.2(h) that private development does not “constitute an airport facility” in this context. The Applicant also that the Boar d find that this policy does not require designation on the AMP or ALP prior to approving otherwise compatible private development. Appellant: There is nothing in the TSP that would limit airport facilities to runways, taxiways, and runway and taxiway service lighting, as found by the Hearings Officer. The Comprehensive Plan, AMP, and the AD zone ordinance indicate a clear intent to use the adopted ALP map as a criterion to guide future development, whether private or public. a. Adopt Hearings Officer’s findings, and Staff’s recommended interpretation. b. Find that the Hearings Officer erred. Staff Recommendation: Policy 16.2(h) requires the County to, “Specifically designate any proposed airport facility relocations or expansions within County jurisdiction on an airport master plan or airport layout plan map, as amended.” Staff recommends that the Board Provide an interpretation through the following motion. Sample motion for BOCC: “Move that the BOCC: 1) interpret “airport facility relocations or expansions” to apply to airport infrastructure elements provided by the airport owner, in this case the City, and not to private development such as the applicant’s fueling station; and 2) interpret this policy as contemplating that the ALP will be updated after development occurs; thus, functioning as an “as-built” map.” 2 Issue Information in Record Board Options Staff Comment 4. Has Deschutes County revised or approved revisions of the Airport Layout Plan several times since the 2002 version in order to reflect actual development at the Airport, most recently in 2013 with the addition of the Applicant’s fueling station on the subject property? Hearings Officer: The ALP has been revised by the city and county, and approved by the FAA, several times since 2002 version in order to reflect actual development at the airport, most recently in 2013 with the addition of the applicant’s fueling station on the subject property. Applicant: Opponent is correct that the Hearings Officer made a misstatement as to the versions adopted by the County but the error is harmless. Appellant: The Hearings Officer erred in finding that “the ALP has been revised by the City and County, and approved by the FAA several times since 2002 version. It is irrelevant whether the City of Bend or the FAA have approved revisions, because Deschutes County hasn’t. a. Modify the Hearings Officer’s findings to correct this factual error but find that the error is a harmless error. b. Modify the Hearings Officer’s findings but find that the error is not harmless. Staff Recommendation: Correct the Hearings Officer’s harmless error to say, “While Deschutes County has not completed adoption of any revisions to the ALP into the Comprehensive Plan since adopting the 2002 update, it is in the process of adopting the 2013 update, which depicts the Applicant’s fueling station on the subject property”. Sample motion for BOCC: “Move that the BOCC find that while Deschutes County has not completed adoption of any revisions to the ALP into the Comprehensive Plan since adopting the 2002 update, it is in the process of adopting the 2013 update, which depicts the Applicant’s fueling station on the subject property.” Additionally, the Hearings Officer’s findings regarding the adoption of versions subsequent to the 2002 ALP was harmless error. 5. Must the AMP or any of its contents be applied as an approval criterion because of the Airport Development Zone Purpose Statement (DCC 18.76.010)? Hearings Officer: The Hearings Officer did not address this issue. Applicant: Recommends that the Board include a finding interpreting the purpose statement as relating to consistency between the development code and the Comprehensive Plan, and, therefore, merely aspirational and not mandatory approval criteria. Appellant: The language of DCC 18.76.010 applies the AMP as mandatory criteria because that zoning code provision purpose statement separately references the 2002 AMP update as a plan for airport growth and is an indication of intent to apply and enforce the 2002 AMP and ALP for any development in the AD zone. a. Adopt Staff’s recommended interpretation. b. Adopt other findings and/or interpretation. Staff Recommendation: Make a Board finding that the language of the purpose statement in DCC 18.76.010 is somewhat ambiguous and requires interpretation to guide development review at the Bend Airport. Then, adopt the following findings: Sample motion for BOCC: “Move that the BOCC find that DCC 18.76.010 is intended to signify that the code language of Chapter 18.76 is consistent with the planning goals and objectives outlined in the Comprehensive Plan and the 1994 Airport Master Plan (as amended by a 2002 supplement) (the “AMP”). The purpose statement in DCC 18.76.010 is not intended to establish the Comprehensive Plan or the AMP as criteria for evaluating a specific development proposal or to otherwise elevate the aspirational language contained in those planning documents to mandatory approval criteria. Chapter 18.76 fully implements those planning documents as they relate to development in the Airport Development Zone and there is no need for a consistency analysis for individual development proposals except where otherwise expressly required by the Code. In summary, the Board interprets DCC 18.76.010 as simply a purpose statement and not and not as approval criteria for a development proposal such as the Applicant’s fuel facility.” 6. Are the AMP and ALP intended to describe recommended airport developments to meet identified needs and to accommodate development that may not have been foreseen at the time the update was adopted? Hearings Officer: The AMP and ALP are intended to describe recommended airport improvements to meet identified needs and to accommodate development that may not have been foreseen at the time the update was adopted – such as the applicant’s proposed fueling station. Applicant: The AMP and ALP are “guiding documents” that offer “recommendations” for meeting forecasted aviation demand and are not intended to provide site-specific approval criteria for airport development such as the Applicant’s fueling station. Appellant: The Hearings Officers’ interpretation could result in “accommodating future development” contrary to the AMP. Thus, the Hearings Officer decision would relegate that the AMP to a meaningless guess as to future development, with no planning function at all. a. Adopt Hearings Officer’s findings, with or without modification. b. Find that the Hearings Officer erred. Staff Recommendation: Adopt the Hearings Officer’s findings on this issue. Sample motion for BOCC: “Move that the Board adopt the Hearings Officer’s findings.” REDMOND Supporting the Redmond Businesses for More Than 100 Years! Contact: Eric Sande, Executive Director Redmond Chamber of Commerce & CVB Phone: (541) 923-5191 Email: eric@Visitredmondoregon.com FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, July 10,2014 Redmond Chamber to host County Commissioners at State offhe County Luncheon REDMOND, OR -Deschutes County Commissioners will discuss local issues and answer questions during the Redmond Chamber of Commerce State of the County luncheon on Thursday, Aug. 7 at Juniper Golf Course in Redmond. The noon event is open to the public, with lunch costing $15 per person. RSVP's are required. Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Tony DeBone will each take a turn speaking at the event, which will focus on the successes of the past year while addressing opportunities and challenges for the coming year. Likely topics include property taxes, public safety, emergency and disaster preparedness, economic development, consolidated county services in Redmond, etc. topics relevant to the county in general and the Redmond area specifically. Those in attendance will be given an opportunity to address additional subjects, as well, during a question-and-answer session following the presentations. "We're honored to host our Deschutes County Commissioners in a forum that's both open and informative where citizens can learn about county topics relevant to the Redmond area while engaging in a dialog with our leaders," said Eric Sande, executive director ofthe Redmond Chamber of Commerce & CVB. "I look forward to learning about Deschutes County's vision for the future now that we're once again facing growth." According to Anna Johnson, Deschutes County Public Communications Coordinator, the commissioners have been involved in similar events in the county, including a recent State ofthe County event in Sisters. "The biggest piece ofthis is letting community members ask the tough questions and the transparent questions during the Q and A sessions toward the end," Johnson said. She added that a humorous "Deschutes County Top 10 List" will round out the event. Attendees are encouraged to RSVP for the Redmond Chamber State of the County luncheon by Monday, Aug. 4. Contact Karen Sande, Redmond Chamber Events Director, at 541-923-5191 or karen@visitredmondoregon.com. For more information, visit visitredmondoregon.coml?State-of-the-County. I About the Redmond Chamber of Commerce & CVB Over more than 100 years, the Redmond Chamber of Commerce & CVB (Convention Visitors Bureau) has grown to I become the largest chamber of commerce in Oregon, per capita, and the fifth-largest overalL With 730-plus current members from throughout Central Oregon, the Redmond Chamber serves in support of business, the community, and f families who choose to live and play in Central Oregon. For more information about the Redmond Chamber of Commerce, its members and the community of Redmond, visit www.visitredmondoregon.com. #### Grant to focus on Redmond's north downtown; Possible brownfield sites carry potential f... Page 1 of2 Grant to focus on Redmond's north downtown By Leslie Pugmire Hole The Bulletin Published Ju125, 2014 at 12:03AM I Updated Jul 25, 2014 at 07:06AM REDMOND -Historically, the northern section of Redmond's city center has been quite different from its charming, brick-fronted shopping area to the south. From Black Butte Boulevard to the North V, for years the area that city officials have begun calling "midtown" consisted of roadside motels, junkyards, dry cleaners, gas stations and other utilitarian uses needing large parcels of land. Now, a portion of a $400,000 grant obtained by Deschutes County to identify and promote redevelopment of potential brownfield sites will be used to create a master plan for Redmond's midtown with the aim of filling its empty or underused properties with more viable uses. Brownfield sites are defined as land having industrial or commercial uses that may be contaminated by hazardous waste. The Department of Environmental Quality lists about a half dozen potential brownfield sites in Redmond's general midtown area. "Don't let the word 'brownfield' scare you," Clark Henry of CIII Associates, a consulting firm, told the Downtown Urban Development AdVisory Commission in a recent meeting. Merely being on a list doesn't mean a site is a brownfield, he explained. "However, even the word 'potential' can scare off a buyer," Henry said. The goal of the grant is to help determine if there are problems in the area and figure out how they can be mitigated so redevelopment can occur. The $90,000 grant does not pay for a full environmental assessment or cleanup, but there are other funds available for that, he said. Property owners can decline to participate in the planning effort, Henry said, and at this point the I city doesn't plan to focus on any specific sites because it doesn't want to alarm owners. According to Heather Richards, the city's community development director, the next step in the process is to create two citizen advisory groups in a manner similar to the recent master planning efforts for S. u.s. Highway 97 and southwest Redmond. One group would be focused primarily on the technical aspects of the planning, the other on the big picture. Basic steps in the process, Henry said, include working with citizens to develop a vision for the area, creating draft concepts and developing an action plan. He expects the project to take about a I year. Midtown is perfect for redevelopment that can't occur elsewhere in the city center, Richards said, because there are so many large lots, including entire blocks in control of a single owner. I "My hope is that we'll identify things the community would like to see happen in that area and the market can respond," she said. I I http://www.bendbulletin.coml1ocalstate/226 7296-153/grant-to-focus-on-redmonds-north-do... 8/112014 ~",,,,,,~_",,,_,",,~""""'~_~~._~~<'~'''''~''''''*i_'''' '9 ~"''''.'"...-1'''''''''''''~~~~o...'''~A-'-'''''''__· _,"""'(._~"""".:,,,'>f.,t~"'""_A_"">Ii'r~~~~ii.l\.uw.~~~,..-r...~'\oI,.._·._':~~~~~~..~.~""_.",,.,",'''',", '"'~~ REDMOND CHAMBER State of the Cou nty REDMOND CHAMRfR Of r01,p.IFRCF & f\£!· Presentation August 7, 2014 County vs City Government Roles • Public & Behavioral Health • Sol id Waste • Adult &Juvenile Corrections • Deschutes County Jail • DA's Office • Tax Collection • Tax Assessment • Elections • Fair & Expo Center Veterans' Assistance ________ Accomplishments 1 . Room Tax Passage: *Fair & Expo Center-F&E Marketing 2. Jai I Expans ion: ;'<Conservative Staffing ;'<144 additional beds ;'<Alternatives to Incarceration ;'<No new taxes $11 million project '''''~~"11t~" $'\1P',M;ti$,'A~l!hAittA .S$,UIA4f .;il$ ;11 """,, ,>J','I1l"" ~~"'."'~'k"_."''''''.____ _ .. ""'''''_'.----~~'~-'~"~~-'.~'.~-~--' .... -----------.. -~_,~1<!_~;_~_"' ~~~_""..,''''._~ ... ''''''.x.,.".~."..¥_~ .. ___________________ __ _...._.___"'_,' Accomplishments 3. 9-1 - 1 Levy 4. Economic Development ~'(Cascade Ave. Rebuild j(Ventu re Conference/Fou nder's Pad ~'(City staff economic development funds ~'(General flex funding to EDCO Accomplishments ~ Economic Development Cont'd o Business Loan Program · BasX: $50,000-50 jobs created · Consumer Cellular: $50,000-200 jobs · MEDISISS: $48,000-24 jobs created · Central OR Truck Co.: $50,000-35 jobs "",11. A"'*iiiF"*.i,ij._",,,,,,,,, ""-~~I'II'~"I4ii!!A!. J,.»_ (ll$tAA 'i"~tt: q,*"i"$H~III@""·~"!,#<II!;~,~!t4 ijiI'AA:;;ilfIiIU;",n _.1IMjii 4lU.H\IA!UW,A""!""JfP Jiilii",",'!;''1!!1'1!~~q!i''_ ~----,---,------ __ Accomplishments 5. Health Transformation a. Redmond School Based Health Centers b. Coordinated Care Organizations c. Affordable Care Act • Med icaid / Oregon Health Plan • 30,000 approx. enrolled in 2013 • 1 0,000 enrolled in January alth " "'''ti.",R''''_'''''''~IINilfiYIi\Wi!ii£U i l\i; u, Itt Ai. 1"'~"'I'l\!It. $15l'f\,.fhM4ii, tii/4$ H~ j, ~~'~~h:&.itf\iii"4"Y*1\1 ,¥ Ji ,$;;:«.#1$11#4 ;;W,;fl('1,!fI1!~iif"i44 \iA'''''''''''''''-_~_''1!!.''''7~ II: ------·_ffl'------~~ 2014-1 5 Challenges & Opportunities 1 . Project Wildfire-Fuels Reduction 2. Radio Communication System Consultant assessment of regional radio communication systems 3. Demo Landfill-OSU Cascades Expansion PARTNERSHIPS IN MITIGATION '* ,x;; ,ff'i( itt? ;"'WiiIi :;;;YP $14)l,u.4( PM", Q.'IilII\lhMl!tt"'II;M~',4 !S,IiIfII!M\.,i#.Ut.JW;S; "m;; sz W"""M' ~!,,"'ttiW; (A 14;:UJ!P,14(4 ••". M1:!\A!$@ ,.., 2 0 1 4 - 1 5 C h a II eng e s & 0 p port u nit i e s 4. Emergency/Disaster Prep. & Planning 5. 9-1-1 Levy-Future Permanent Funding 6. Redmond Permitting Response Time a. Sheriff's Office Services b. Perm itti ng 7. North County Econ. Development a. Large Lot Industrial b. S8 1 544 Land ------------------.,..,....."...----_"i"'__"""___________________...._...________-----_______.........__-_____....________ f_""'",,_,....""_,~,~,....,__""'-......,.0. ;;;. '1ft. •. \ ..... ,AWi4M;:;c ."""M '"U'.,i• .o,I(R<,","' ;, '."'" .." ,'.,•••'" """" ~~HI!I fl'" bCP C;;;t1A¥lMfl't\i" 1 f i 4 -o '--: .a..J '- t.n rtS t.n CIJ ~ > ClJCl Z --c: oE , 0 c.. u OCIJ I-f; UI.... Q ,0 , I #1 0 City, County & District officials storm Bu lIeti n office in outrage over exclusion from secret meetings of the editorial board. ,-<I'·,..·~·t··.'"Y j, '\ ' " hn:lt 12 'f lQ 14 Blah blah blah blah blah~, blah Blah blab. blah blah blah faa foU, Editorial, board locksoutloc 'HH"l ____...,._____...., ..... ______.,.._~_,,~~-, I!!NAA"¢ ,i· *t,'""4!i"''llfh N) ! r Il1O> ,Ak)44 .s lIPt.,' ...'~!~....-1l',...,.,~'!I'~,.,..ii"'.<;J:ii'!UM!~~,.....-,...,1""'_, .$,1 _~1"'':''''''''-'-~'''I~~...'...~',...''-·'''''''''~~_..~'1'''''...'''$..'''',...,_,.., #9 The cost for a new Redmond City Hall triples after a citizen-initiated design standards vote passes. ~-__ __ __ . _'''~'' __01"4_-···_-'''''''~''''~~_'_'~~.o'''~''''''m''''':''''"'''''-'~.~'''''''"~';'-''''.".. ___._. ._•.__"","_'__ =._._,*,__"",...'~._'""....~"'-..-'iI'" ·_-"'''' #8 Deschutes County capitalizes on new "Natural Disaster Extreme Wedding Venue" niche. ~li""i!l,;!'~' J \It!l;;~~;___.....",~"",,"';""':Il~~lii:i.lioJa~ #7 OSU Cascades west side campus site embraced by neighbors after County announces plan to reopen the landfi II. ----*----~---·~-"~·.---""'-.....-,.".,."."""'...,~~"'~"""-.........~_~~,;4H:.~'Tht;,~~....~1"4~,.r;...."'''''''''''*;;~~~",_"",,,,_,,,,,,,,,',,,_,,,,__ ","~.,",.:~.,.m:'"__~''''''''''_'''''''''''''r~ #5 Hallway floors outside of City Engineering offices to be resurfaced. Access to offices will be limited for six months. The patience of the City's engineers during the resurfacing is appreciated. 1!l1'1'\'I""~'!I'0!l;"_--'*"1'"i'i I!iI fI,""*'; r ,d ~ ~O«l :_ -- .c :J c.. S Q) I. ICO oaev I.- :::s rtSc::C ~~ ....., U · t: -c .-t: evo .~ Q) U ::> Q) C > I.-:J Q) en 0 Z~c: r• [ tM>s:: ::tt-:UJrtS -- ~ « c..- o '-· ......, L.. ro Q) t: E ~ ,-""'" Cl) V) ......, Q) x..c LLI ......, ro ......, t: 8 .2 --....., -oro t: c: ~ ~ NQ) ::t:I: c: • • • f, I #1 Bend tourism greatly increases after Ale Trail promotional campaign is expanded to include Reefer Road ... ~,-" < ¥ \i).4if ~!.'t? ..ok ~t ;& ~~, ,~'lIJilh"'f!jilSAAw:;a MhL ,Pl[1Uhi\! ,At MiII~lt.~ $.J£y;;tJ U -- V) '- OJ('-- Vl ~ Z V) 0 c res ...,r- Vl 0 L.LJ C) ::> Ci OJ ---.> OJ S Contact us! ~ Find us at www.deschutes.org ~ Interact with us on Facebook ~ Receive County news directly- sign up at Anna.Johnson@Deschutes.org ~ (541) 388-6571 ~ Reach the Commissioners at Board@co.or.Deschutes.org o!'!'>-'~'-~~~-'''-<=''II'_~''~~'II':q'~''''''_'1)'''·\''O:'''''·''___'''~~,",~?1 .e,~Jjjlt' '''",4''''''1_~'' 'll'i "'!"O!'l!__~)\~l!,,~W 1 "l"""'V-""""'"""~"NI"'''''''''"''''''''-~~IA:1:''''''''''''OW;:'')f_~ ''''''''''''''_'''''__ Board of Cou Commissioners P.O. Box 6005 • Bend, OR 97708-6005 1300 NW Wall St, Suite 206 • Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570· Fax (541) 385-3202 www. deschutes . org board@deschutes .org August 12, 2014 Tammy Baney Anthony DeBone Mr John Huddle, President Alan Unger Deschutes County Citizens Action Group P .O . Box 493 La Pine, OR 97739 RE: Lechner Acres De;::" John , and the Citizens Action Group, The Board of Commissioners would like to thank you for your invitation to participate in a meeting regarding Lechner Acres and possible solutions to the lot boundary issue . We commend CAG for wanting to get involved in this difficult problem. There are no easy answers, and finding consensus on a solution will be a challenge. Your willingness to try demonstrates your commitment to the people of southern Deschutes County. The Board does, however, have some concerns about the meeting . We believe that any solution must involve Lechner Acres property owners themselves, ideally from the beginning of any discussion of possible solutions. Deschutes County would be reluctant to be involved in any solution that did not have near unanimous acceptance of those property owners . CAG is aware more than anyone of the peril of Deschutes County imposing a solution without broad support. Please make sure current Lechner Acres property owners are invited . Requests for a solution need to come from the owners of the parcels. We therefore believe it would be premRt 'Jre to participate in, or frankly ,:ven schedule a meeting without the presence of multiple Lechner Acres residents. We have been involved in discussions related to the Lechner Acres lot boundary issue for many years. The County has the background and technical expertise that we believe might be very helpful in discussing solutions. Please keep us informed of the status of the proposed meeting or any future meetings . Sincerely, Commissioners ~ ~- Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair ~~ Deschutes County Board Tammy Baney, Chai Alan Unger, Commissioner Enhancing the Lives of Citizens by Delivering Quality Services in a Cost-Effective Manner