HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-09-28 Work Session Minutes
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Page 1 of 11 Pages
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
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2011
___________________________
Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Anthony DeBone.
Also present were Erik Kropp, Interim County Administrator; Tom Anderson, Nick
Lelack and Cynthia Smidt; George Kolb, Road Department; Laurie Craghead,
County Counsel; and about twenty other citizens, including Hillary Borrud of The
Bulletin.
Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:35 p.m.
________________________________
1. Update on Harper Bridge Boat Launch.
Jerry Hubbard and Dave Ogden said that they have no financial interest in any
of the sites being reviewed.
Cynthia Smidt explained that since 2009, they have been looking at alternatives
to the Harper Bridge location. The Board of Commissioners and Community
Development have worked on convening stakeholders for the project. Mr.
Ogden and Mr. Hubbard are the chairpersons to present findings.
At this time, they did a PowerPoint presentation (a copy of the report is
attached for reference).
Chair Baney asked for a greater explanation of the additional factors, such as
the day use area, that were not considered originally. She was advised that the
other sites used for comparison have these features, so to make a fair
comparison the same amenities were included.
An oversized map was then referenced, showing the possible locations.
The Brynwood site is one that is considered viable. It is close to Harper Bridge,
and could include bikeway paths that connect with Sunriver and Three Rivers
Schools. The positives and negatives of this site were discussed.
Potential negatives would be overcoming zoning and wetland area issues, and
the time needed to do this. Several sites have this in common. There would be
ongoing costs to keep the chosen site clean and maintained.
Deschutes River Recreational Homesites has three possible sites. There is no !homeowners association and no easy way to communicate with all the property
owners. Every parcel owns a part of the sites, so deed restrictions would have
to be addressed. I
Harper Bridge would need to be improved to allow bicycle and pedestrian
traffic, and where people are now packing needs groundwork and signage.
There is another area that is owned by Sunriver Owners Association, and if this
access becomes restricted, there would be less parking and a higher risk of
parking issues and traffic problems at Harper Bridge.
The USFS Besson day use site has potential, but the road is poor and the area
lacks developed parking and signage. Improvements might be made by using a
50 1 (3)(c) to obtain funding to help the USFS with this.
If there is another viable site developed, the proposal is possibly closing the
Harper Bridge site due to traffic and parking issues.
There is a dedicated boat launch facility nearby, but it lacks adequate parking or
other amenities.
The County is being asked to review the DRRH deed restrictions; to ask the
SROA not to move their fence at this time; and perhaps for the County to obtain
land for a boat facility near Harper Bridge. I
Mr. Ogden said that on an average weekend, there are 65-75 vehicles parked at [
Harper Bridge, with lots of children. It has been a popular site for decades. 1
Chair Baney thanked the group for their work and how thorough they have
been. She agreed there are problems with the current site. I
Commissioner Unger stated that he sees two tracks. He wondered how many J
are using motorized boats, and whether this should be encouraged. There is Ipotential for damage from waves, plus the noise factor. Mr. Hubbard said that
maybe 80-90% are intlatables, although there are local residents who will use f
small, motorized boats or pontoons for fishing and recreation. Mr. Ogden said
that he uses a small motorized boat himself to go fishing.
I
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 28,2011
Page 2 of 11 Pages
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Page 3 of 11 Pages
Ms. Smidt said there are other stakeholders attending today. There are agency
personnel as well as people who live in the area. Some may have questions or
concerns.
Chair Baney stated that today is not a public hearing, but she has questions for
whoever might be able to answer them.
Commissioner Unger asked if this is the committee’s report or is there more.
Mr. Hubbard stated it is their report. There was a lot of previous talk about
potential real estate development. Their focus was the boat launch and not to
try to evaluate the real property in the area.
Mr. Hubbard said they obtained input, but there was no real appointed
committee. Everything was run through a matrix so there could be a point
system to evaluate each site.
He explained that those who float the river often want to be able to exit within
two hours, and they cannot do that at this time. It can take about four hours
now.
Float times were discussed. Commissioner DeBone asked if the Sunriver
boating area could be used. Mr. Hubbard stated that you have to be an owner or
local resident, or a guest. Commissioner Unger asked what a typical float is.
Dave said that four hours is about what happens but some people do not expect
it to take that long.
Ms. Smidt said the launches in DRRH were put the matrix on for perspective.
They are private but might be ideal for floats. There is another parcel on the
south side of Harper Bridge in DRRH, which is owned by the homeowners. It
is a great location but ownership is an issue. The stakeholders could not come
up with consensus, and there were concerns about the favored site.
Chair Baney asked about the existing facility, who owns it, and how the fence
affects this. Ms. Smidt said that some of it is in the road right-of-way and some
might be owned by Sunriver and Crosswater. Chair Baney asked about taking
private property for public use without buying it. There are a lot of questions
about use and purpose.
Nick Lelack said there could be a public-private partnership, a dedication, or a
real estate development group. There are a number of ways to reach this goal.
Chair Baney asked if the property being considered was part of a land use
action. Mr. Lelack said it is zoned RR-1 O. They applied for a cluster
development, which allows a density bonus in exchange for more open space.
The property was originally 19 acres, but three homesites were allowed in
exchange for the conservation easement and open space. Ms. Smidt said it is
considered open space.
Most all of the land will remain in its natural state. The property was purchased
with this designation. There are three homes, two of which are owned by other
parties. The person owns two plus the open land. There are five tax lots but
four dedicated parcels.
George Kolb said the right of way is probably sixty feet. People can park in the Iright of way except if there is an order for a no parking zone, or a marked bike
lane. This means there is about twenty feet that is not part of the paved road, I
which does not allow for much parking or movement. f
lMr. Lelack said there is a right of way that goes onto Sunriver property and
over the river. This is a County right of way created decades ago that is not
being used. Options regarding this have not been explored. I
Jeff Wieland of Spring River Acres said he met with a representative of
Crosswater. They will propose to the Crosswater HOA to move their fencing
I
south to allow more head-in parking. The tradeoff would be for them to get Iaway from the liability impact of public use. If that happens, it could save
everyone a lot of work. Then the south side could end up being a useable area.
IIfSunriver improves their portion, there is an assumption that the majority of Ipeople using the ramp are guests of Sunriver, and perhaps the USFS could r
expand Besson to make it a better location for take-out. [
Commissioner Unger feels the hope is to have two-hour trips however that f
works out.
Laurie Craghead stated that there could be recreational immunity for people
using property at no charge. The Crosswater attorneys should check the statute.
If they charge a fee, they would lose that immunity. This applies in other ways
when recreational users cross private land. It
f
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, September 28,2011 [
Page 4 of 11 Pages I
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Page 5 of 11 Pages
Ms. Smidt said the USFS is working with some regarding their properties.
Commissioner Unger asked if there are issues with wildlife corridors or
protected species. Ms. Smidt stated that the US Fish & Wildlife would have
input. There are forty acres near Spring River that might work, but Fish &
Wildlife are concerned about impacts on wildlife.
Chair Baney asked staff for recommendations on the best course of action at
this point. If the focus is on the existing utilized sites, there are hazards from
traffic and perhaps calming measures need to be implemented. There was an
original agreement that had to do with a development, specifically Crosswater.
She is not sure a dirt strip that is one car wide is what was intended. She is
sensitive to a public use on private property.
In regard to the Brynwood property, Tia Lewis said she sent a letter to the
Board regarding the property. There is some public expectation about a public
boat launch. The public is already using this particular area heavily, and the
location of the launch is ideal for this. That is why the Byrnwood site makes a
lot of sense, since it is nearby. There is not enough room to put the necessary
facilities now but the Byrnwood site has that potential.
A land use approval for a development at that site has a long path. The process
has been started but it will take a long time. This property is ideal and would
impact less than an acre of wetlands. There will be some opposition, but this
site will not go through private property or affect other communities. It would
require the cooperation of the original owners of the cluster. This property
owner is willing to dedicate it to the public and will improve it at his own cost.
Just because there is development tied to it does not mean it is bad.
Chair Baney said the letter talks about an RV park, but anything that comes
before the County has to be considered. Ms. Lewis said the private
development would fund the improvements, but they are seeking a
private/public partnership to make these improvements. If the site makes sense,
the land use hurdles might be overcome.
Chair Baney said the public boat launch was the original idea without a day use
area and more. The idea was to provide public access to the river. They are
now headed towards something that was not originally considered, outside the
scope of what the Board asked.
Commissioner Unger sees this as two different conversations. Day use and
public facilities are needed there. This could lead to a higher level of day use.
Originally, it was a safety issue with traffic and parking at Harper Bridge.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Page 6 of 11 Pages
Separately it is a discussion with Sunriver and Crosswater, and whether
improvements are felt important enough to the community. It does not exist
today.
Chair Baney does not see the second conversation as County-driven. Some of
this will come before the County and therefore a short-term plan is more suited.
The second part should be driven by the community.
Tom Anderson said that no firm decisions need to be made at this time. The
Harper Bridge situation was originally targeted at safety. In a perfect world, a
facility there would be more complete. There are three possibilities. The
Byrnwood site should be encouraged. The SROA has a proposal in the works.
They would prefer not to have a public location. There is a right of way issue
to the County. He was not aware of the Crosswater idea of moving their fence.
Staff can follow through with these but no one is ready to select an ideal
location yet.
Mr. Ogden stated that the conditions of approval in the Crosswater development
application in 1994 stipulated a public boat launch facility would be there. In
1991, the ODF&W indicated this intent as well. This could include restrooms,
etc. depending on interpretation. Mr. Anderson said the verbiage was to
dedicate land for this use, so it is much simpler to interpret.
Mr. Lelack said an answer needs to be made to the question of what happens to
Harper Bridge if another site is utilized. They will follow up with Crosswater
and look at short-term solutions to improve the Harper Bridge area.
Chair Baney wants to be supportive of the private use, but it cannot be County-
driven. The stakeholders will have to work on this issue. Commissioner Unger
does not see access at Harper Bridge going away.
2. Discussion of Sunriver Business Park Text Amendment Request.
Mr. Lelack said the Board was approached regarding a text amendment within
the SR zone, to add a church to the business park district as an outright use.
Some feel this should be handled differently.
There is a list of outright uses already. Per the Comprehensive Plan, it is a
commercial district for those purposes. Commissioner Unger said it is similar
to an incorporated community. He asked how cities look at this.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Page 7 of 11 Pages
Mr. Lelack explained that they are typically allowed with a conditional use
permit in residential zones. Usually they are not allowed in industrial zones.
Sunriver has a mix of uses. There are non-commercial uses allowed there now.
A church may exhibit characteristics similar to what is already there. Often
church peak times are different from other uses. If the use was expanded to
include a school, they would have to come back in for approval.
Typically the County originates text amendments that have a broad impact. If
narrowly applied, an applicant usually comes in for the change. The difference
is who pays the fees and who prepares the application. There has to be a burden
of proof, and the County has to involve the public. It is unknown if there would
be much public interest.
If the County initiates the text amendment, it is a land use regulatory issue and
the transportation planning rule has to be considered.
Ms. Craghead said that Doug White has volunteered to do this work.
Mr. Lelack said the County could allow a partial or whole fee waiver. Staff
feels that any process should begin before a Planning Commission meeting to
get a feel for how the public looks at it.
Commissioner Unger asked how the religious nature of this applies. Ms.
Craghead replied that if the use is similar or has similar impacts, if not allowed
there could be a resultant court case. Who originates the text amendment does
not matter.
Commissioner Unger asked if it should be allowed as a conditional use in all
zones. Ms. Craghead said it may depend on what other uses are there and
should not be applied that broadly.
Doug White, representing the applicant, provided a handout.
Staff suggested that it is felt that this should be applicant-driven due to the
narrow nature of the request. There would still be a public hearing. Ms.
Craghead feels that this should follow the process in order to not set
precedence. Chair Baney asked if there is a way to expedite the process. If
every commercial area was allowed to have a church, it could have far-reaching
ramifications.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Page 8 of 11 Pages
The Board was open to the use. The discussion then came to the fee and a
potential waiver. Mr. Anderson said he could track staff time, and charge it
against a deposit.
Commissioner Unger said a fee is established to cover costs. If the applicant
can do some of the work, the fee should not include what the applicant is able to
do. This recognizes the costs that cannot be avoided but allows the applicant to
carry some of the burden.
He does not want to set precedence for others who may want the same
consideration. If the Board initiates the amendment, the County would bear the
cost. Chair Baney said there could be other uses come before the Board that are
not protected. She feels it is easier to do this because of the circumstances, and
the fact that it is probably more easily defended. Other uses are not protected,
so perhaps this is different.
Mr. Lelack said this text amendment would just be within the Sunriver zone. A
bigger discussion Countywide would be different.
Mr. Anderson said the fee schedule is in place and it would not be wise to
arbitrarily charge a different amount. A partial fee waiver could be offered but
there has to be a benefit to the public. The Board could find that this should
have been addressed when the zone was created. They may want to include the
new Town Center as well.
Chair Baney would like to have this not remain silent. Commissioner Unger
would want to address the Town Center at the same time since it is similar. In
regard to fees, to the public the fees are high. He would like to see the actual
cost recognized. He does not feel a fee waiver is appropriate, but would like to
provide oversight.
Chair Baney asked if it would be better for this to be County-driven even
though it is a narrow issue. Mr. Lelack said this also should concern public
perception and feels that it should be applicant driven. Chair Baney said a fee
waiver could be considered because perhaps this language should have been
included already or it just never came up. It probably would not have been
excluded at the time the language was drafted if someone had thought of it.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Page 9 of 11 Pages
Commissioner DeBone asked about it being a conditional use instead. Mr.
Lelack said that this would be considered during site plan review. If the church
is over a certain size, a conditional use permit would be needed anyway.
Mr. Lelack said that if this is initiated by the applicant, the process would be
faster as it would not have to go on the work plan.
Chair Baney feels that perhaps this language should have already been
included, and because of this fact, they should allow for a waiver.
Commissioner Unger agreed. Commissioner DeBone said that the lion’s share
of the work should be done by the applicant, however.
Mr. Anderson stated that the fee can be waived, and CDD could track its time
and be reimbursed by the Board. There is no simple way to reduce the fee
schedule. If the applicant prepares some of the documentation, that amount
would be less.
DEBONE: Move that the fee waiver be allowed since this should be have
considered in the original language; and this being a public benefit
under protected use and nonprofit status. Further, that Community
Development is to be reimbursed by the Board of Commissioners
for the actual cost of work provided by the Department.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: UNGER: Yes.
DEBONE: Yes.
BANEY: Chair votes yes.
3. Other Items.
Chair Baney said that ABHA met regarding strategic planning on how to
facilitate the success of the local region. There are questions as to whether
membership in the current configuration of five counties is adding to this
success. The needs have been identified and the appropriate structures are in
place. It was felt that things could be done better within a different structure.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Page 10 of 11 Pages
Commissioner Unger said that ABHA was a solution for the past. Chair Baney
said that Mental Health Organizations will look different very soon. The
dollars are now flowing through Pacific Source, so the coordinated payment
structure is in place.
Scott Johnson stated that mental health dollars were handled differently in the
past but the idea is to look at these holistically, along with other medical needs.
The same question is being asked all over the State.
Chair Baney asked what risks are there if transitioning out of ABHA and how
to hold harmless Lincoln and Benton counties. A lot of parts are not entirely in
place yet, trying to restructure what is currently provided by ABHA. There
needs to be an orderly transition.
Mr. Johnson said that if the five-member board decides to separate Central
Oregon from the other counties, there needs to be a window of sixty to ninety
days to develop a business plan. This should address how risk is handled.
There need to be legal agreements with Pacific Source, with assurances of what
would be provided. The discussion with Pacifi c Source has not happened. The
parties need to be sure further steps should be taken.
In the west side of the State, other ABHA members will be reevaluating how
they are structured. This prompts discussions with the others.
David Givans said that some time ago this was discussed when Commissioner
Daly was on the ABHA Board. Mr. Johnson gave an overview of the
population served by this group and how it presently works.
Chair Baney asked that staff come back in sixty days with a plan.
________________________________
Discussion occurred regarding upcoming meetings involving the individual
Commissioners.
Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
I
DATED this I1-~ Oayof TJfh~ 2011 for the
Des f hutes County Board of Commissioners.
Tammy Baney, Chair a
Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
Alan Unger, Commissioner ~~
Rec b rding Secretary
Minutes of Board of Commissioners ' Work Session Wednesday, September 28,2011
Page 111 of 11 Pages
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, SEPTEMBER 28,2011
1. Update on Harper Bridge Boat Launch -David Ogden, Jerry Hubbard and
Deschutes County Planning staff
2. Discussion of Sunriver Business Park Text Amendment Request -Nick Lelack,
Community Development
3. Other Items
PLEASE NOTE: At any time dwing this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192660(2) (e), real
property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labornegotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues.
Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board ofCommissioners' meeting rooms at
1300 NW Wail St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated Ifyou have questions regarding a meeting, plelJSe caII388-6572.
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TN.
Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or ilr further information.
Work Session
(Please Print)
Name AS!encv MailinS! Address
1 ~e,J~.p v'1-u;~ ~~"O A
te" (,,0 c-f\o>1 l..o-2. 1
6:t-11.6.
~~~ ~~ce..R '7'
.$ttAJ"/'?CV"£A 4~x. .:3b/~
jf~L.Z="A'<
I h:,u~ wk~ c. . 0 . Pte......,N~ ~t:>7f,,"2 KJ\)~~
~\~'.......... ~f.,.)D 't\C2.
'~tJ ~~uJfJl 11hc. J>~!l?wia2; \c:r,co kio~ d
i.J-.? .,1; z-
S\.rs.~~ S1"LO~ ~D S~~~Jf\.'f(~~ 3?(
~ 0. u
1LA., I E:C K.. cSKO% P c) g D Y-~&7 f!J
1-1k~~ ?A.-L(}~ <;flDR ~2...""7-8
\tD L\S N€ ~vbQ...S ~
.~_~~-Th " l)e.v\ . s~~c:; S\e.-\\1... ~, °'1'''1")01
C?le I ~'A.5~~ 61.1't~1 (.!t VfP~ p,. 0 8 0-1-'35"----r;?
,GJ S l ~V\.--\6 v M "j vp"(' O~
7~"'':''''7 A''c~~/ t 7 C7:Jf$ C·e:N(/p~./
Je f'~ a/jC""/~rl J I" <'f": 4C 1 r /Jr
."1A 1::6 }(el UiA
o W !.IJ :rr S"r,fO'otJsl{!~' t.
re. II! ( IJ ;;..rr If~.~ ltr·""",,'-1~
Clrt'S -4D?IJlit-{e I< e-li
#" , ? S% It e5i J t '1 + s-, '}, 5" ~ a e-' 5 a-It r..,
SdJi"t' ... , AlveY'
_ \fl ~L~' s
I s.r..J~ ~wW 3&.0 'SvJ t30rJ. LJoo
Page # of Pages
City Zip
d"S'v"\"-.7 ___ Q,iC17
_~ntP-rv.l--~ . 97.:?~7
S£~O 177lrz.
E.etrJD 17702
~~Cfl'7 01
S Rql"7 D7
5~ ~7-?o1-
-'6er.,.d 9\lQ\
b \I "v-j~V" ,. 'l '9 fJ?
6>~J Q770"7
~ /( \4Aj "l 7 7 0
.J Be YV£I '17~-
~ crl7d(
Phone #
~A \-~'l~ -) ~
&-y/
St?d -c;; / .y/
9't\c:;4~-5(P~
9i1 ~YB3~L 5
6'65 -~31
5131:-'1/1
573 -21/1/
S'-\ \-:?:.~ro · to :H ~
~{ 1~~~1n
7
5 i'/-~?&'J 3'<3
{"II , -?{tJ~L{DfJ}
'S i.( I -S" q '3 :t:;.2,
S' l/ (. 7t.{tr; -1o l(~
-
Wed., Sept. 28, 2011
e-mail address
h 4::9 j ,' ,< h:i, ' Co W\
?'€H-~7 Lf) " C/I/jS!)/4 E~S ~Ad£E.._"'....
hOY\blu:ke ~·w+r~
-?"' ~r b ~~ ~. k r3r-.u
~v~ .o-v-z:t
BIL (,P€SR6W~
" o~6
h"8t..pflSr,,(,.Jvt~~
~. \-o.vr\~@s-
c a ... \j @ SI!';nIc \. .
~~~<!, / 11\ ~ .. C
w f ly J ?&
7 v q'1,C/ti>. CD"fl"l.o
~
Il'-.ll.l {, ~ t; IV. (lJ~ {6f,.,
C). "'; jb/iL..~'" .I<e.-{'
r ~ Cd-{}h-ao. CoW\..
+I.ew i<; ec;c bloe. .u
-
~
?"
.or
L.L~
tv'\.
I
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils DIvIsion
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 8, 2011
TO: Board of County Commissioners <d)
FROM: Cynthia Smidt. Associate Ptann~
RE: Update on Harper Bridge Citizen Committee
Before the Board is an update by the Harper Bridge Citizen Committee regarding the goal of
establishing a public boat ramp in the general area of the unimproved Harper Bridge boat
launch area.
BACKGROUND
In 2007-08, a group of citizens tried to organize a public boat launch project (potential funding
by State Marine Board and overview by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife) on the
northeast side of Harper Bridge. This property, however, is under the Sunriver Homeowners
Association ownership. Therefore, this citizen group needed approval by the HOA Board but
only found concern and opposition to the proposed boat launch idea. This location is still being
considered as a potential boat launch site.
Based on community concern regarding the existing unimproved boat launch at Harper Bridge,
interest in establishing a better site continued. Therefore, on October 29, 2009, the County
assisted in putting together the first meeting of interested parties and public agencies to discuss
the issues and options for an alternative boat launch. This group of stakeholders include over
25 individuals, private citizens, business owners, or public servants. At the October 2009
meeting, the group created a list of about seven sites to review as alternative locations for a
boat launch. The list included, for reference, existing private boat launch sites, in particular,
those found in the Deschutes River Recreation Homesites subdivision. Two public citizens,
Jerry Hubbard and David Ogden, stepped up to proceed with the next steps. Community
Development Department Planning staff, Cynthia Smidt and Will Groves, provided basic
information and maps to Mr. Hubbard and Mr. Ogden regarding the seven alternative sites.
Jerry Hubbard and David Ogden compiled information and reconvened a smaller stakeholder's
group on February 17, 2010 to review their findings. They provided a presentation, which
included the review of alternative the sites (including existing private sites) and review of their
self-created scoring matrix of each site. Agency staff (e.g. ODFW) to included additional
information to the scoring matrix such as wildlife impacts and wetland impacts. Community
Quality Services Performed with Pride
Development Department staff provided additional information on the scoring matrix and other
documentation.
Jerry Hubbard and David Ogden directed Planning staff to convene the larger stakeholders
group for a final overview of the alternative sites. At this July 27, 2011 meeting, they indicated
the most ideal alternative boat launch site was private property owned by Ron Bures (a.k.a. the
Brynwood property). The Brynwood site is located on the northwest side of Harper Bridge. Ron
Bures was present at the meeting and together with Keith D'Agostino, provided a brief overview
of their proposal. This proposal includes a RV park together with a public boat launch. At the
July 27 meeting, Nick Lelack informed the group that there is extensive land use issues involved
with the development of this site.1 The stakeholders group did not vote on the proposal.
Furthermore, it was not clear that the stakeholders believed the Brynwood site was the most
ideal alternative. However, Mr. Hubbard and Mr. Ogden would like to present their findings to
the Board at the September 28, 2011 work session. Planning staff indicated to the group that
written comments could be submitted prior to and shared with the Board in connection with Mr.
Hubbard and Mr. Ogden's presentation to the Board. These comments and additional
information are included.
Attachments
1. GIS maps illustrating existing and alternative boat launch sites
2. Harper Bridge Boat Launch -Alternative Sites
3. Deschutes River boat launch site review (scoring matrix)
4. Comments regarding the proposed Brynwood development
1 Mr. Bures, Mr. D'Agostino, and more recently, attorney Tia Lewis, have met with Planning Division staff
regarding the development of the Mr. Bures property.
Harper Bridge Alternatives Page 2 of 2
Public Boat Launch
Site Alternatives
South
o Public Boal Launch SileAU ... native
®
Public Boat Launch
Site Alternatives
North
o Public Boat launch Sile Alternative
®
Harper Bridge Boat Launch -Alternative Sites updated 11 116109
Site Name Tax map & tax lot Address Ownership Zoning Comments
I
I
I
1 Harper Bridge (north) 20-11-060-110 No address Sunriver Owners Association
Sunriver Community Recreation (SUCR)
Sunriver Flood Pta in (SUFP)
Flood Plain (FP)
Landscape Management Combining (LM)
Airport Safety Combining (AS)
·
2 Brynwood property 20-11-060-8200 17410 Spring River Rd Brynwood llC
Rural Residential (RR 1 0)
Flood Plain (FP)
Landscape Management Combining (LM)
Wildlife Area Combining (WA)
Airport Safely Combining (AS)
• Pace Estates is a Ctuster Development (see file nos . CU9028 and
TP90741). The subject property was platted as Open Space with a
restriction on building .
• Wetlands significant on majority of property .
• Owners would like to develop an RV park in conjunclion with public
boat launch.
• Conservation Easement Recorded with County Clerk .
3 lunar Drive 20-11-07B-1200 No address Property Owners of ORRHS Inc.
Rural Residential (RR 1 0)
Flood Plain (FP)
Landscape Management Combining (LM)
Wildlife Area Combining (WA)
Airport Safety Combining (AS)
• Limited wetlands present.
4
Spring River Rd &
lunar Dr intersection
SE corner
20-11-07A-200 No address Sunriver Resort Limited
Partnership
Rural Residential (RR 10)
Forest Use (F2)
Flood Plain (FP)
Sensitive Bird & Mammal Habilat (SBMH)
Landscape Management Combining (LM)
Wildl~e Area Combining (WA)
Airport Safety Combining (AS)
• Property is together with and under the same ownership as the
Crosswaler open space property on the east side of the river (same
as the land south of Harper Bridge for boat launching).
• Extensive wetlands present.
5 Satterlee Way (west) or
Snipe Road (east) 20-11-18C-15600 No Address USA (US Forest Service)
Rural Residential (RR 1 0)
Flood Plain (FP)
Landscape Management Combining (LM)
Wildlife Area Combining (WA)
• Wetlands and Flood Plain on west side
• Coming from Satterlee (west), you will need to cross private lands
to get to public land .
• High bank on east side.
6 Spring River Road 20-11-06-800 No address USA (US Forest Service)
Rural Residential (RR10)
Forest Use (F1)
Flood Plain (FP)
Landscape Management Combining (LM)
Wildlife Area Combining (WA)
Airport Safety Combining (AS)
• No wetlands or flood plain in the southern region .
7 Besson Boat launch 19-11-00-100 No address for this
specific site. USA (US Forest Service)
Forest Use (F1)
Flood Plain (FP)
Open Space & Conservation (OS&C)
Landscape Management Combining (LM)
Wildlife Area Combining (WA)
Airport Safety Combining (AS)
• OS&C zone does not apply at the launch location.
• Wetlands may be present.
~;,
.;,
ORRHUnit9.
Solar Dr. ParK
~~.
0;
2O-1'-18C-I800 1720~, Milky Way Deschute8 R iver Rec, Homeslles.
Inc.
Flood Plain (FP)
Rural Residential (RR10)
Landscape ~ment Combinillg (lM)
WIldlife Area Combining (wA'J
I
• PrlVClte park.
• Wetlands present.
'JI
~
..
P~RH
l:unai/Elsi nore Pai'k
......
2-O-11-07C-3 0 0
-
56580 lunar Drive Property Owners of DRRHS Inc_
---
Flood Plain (FP)
RtnI Resldenllal (RR10)
I,andscape Management Combinln9 (LM)
WlklRle Area Combi1!ng (WA)
AIrport Safety Combining (AS)
---
• Privata park.
• WellandS may be present
----
Page 1 of 1
Deschutes River Boat Launch Site Review I I
2/18/2010 ;
-. - -_.. .
Scoring Points Harper USFS Spring ISR Resort SROA
j Benham Falls
Saterlee Solar Drive
Public Needs (Max) Elsinore Milky Way Lunar Bridge Brynwood River Rd Besson Marina Circle 7 Road Park
Pu.blic Use 10 0 0 0 10 10 lO i 10 i 0 ' 0 10
Close to Harper Bridge , 10 5 5 10 10 10 8 2 2 2 2
Safety 10 10 10 10 4 8 8 8 8 8 6
Traffic 10 10 10 8 4 8 8 8 8 8 10
Fast Water 10 1 8 8 8 4 8 8 4 8 8 4
Two Hour Float Time 10 8 8 8 8 8 8 5 5 5 5
Restrooms 10 1 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 1 0 0 10
Changing Rooms I 10 0 0 0 0 10 oi 0 0 0 0
Car Parking I 10 , 8 5 0 4 10 0 8 5 0 8
Trailer Parking 10 8 5 0 4 10 0 8 5 0 8
Possible Points 100 i 57 51 44 48 92 50 63 41 31 63---
Scoring Points I
Public Wants (Max)
Picnic Area 10 i 01 7 0 0 10 4 10 0 0 10
Play Ground I 10 i 0 7 0 0 101 0 OJ 0 0 0
Connection to bike paths 10 0 0 0 10 10 1 lO i 0 10 10 , 5
Swimming area 10 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Possible Points 40 0 14 0 10 38 14 10 10 10 15-Total Points i 140 57 65 44 58 130 64 73 51 41 78-
Scoring Points I
A&~cyWants -(Max) ,
ODFW
Impact on wetlands 10 6 1 5 10 1 1 5 10 5 8 1 7
Impact on wildlife 10 7 1 7 10 1 1 5 10 5 8 1, 6
Impact on habitat 10 7 1 5 10 1 1 5 10 5 8 1 6
Opportunity for viewing 10 7 1 7 10 1 1 5 10 5 8 1 6
Opportun ity for fishing 10 7 1 7 10 1 1 5 10 5 8 1 6
0flPortunity for hunting 10 7 1 7 10 1 1 5 10 5 8 1 6
ODFW Total Points 60 41 6 38 60 6 6 30 60 30 48 6 37
County COD 4/14/2010
Federal Jurisdiction? YIN N N N N N Y Y N Y Y Y ?
Land Use Permit Required? YIN Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N N N ?
Is the property a legal Lot of Record? YIN Y Y Y Y Y -. -Y ---?
Note: The scoring for the Public Needs and Public Wants sections were conducted by David Ogden and Jerry
Hubbard, the selected citizens to lead the boat launch alternatives project.
The scoring for the ODFW section was Jack Williamson and staff from the Bend office of ODFW.
The County COD section was comJllet~by Cynthia Smidt and William Groves. , --.-
crDFW
Cynthia Smidt
From: Nancy E Doran <nancy.e.doran@state.or.us>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17,201111:27 AM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Cc: HARRINGTON Bethany; Michael Harrington
Subject: RE: Harper Bridge Boat Launch Alternative -Stakeholders Meeting July 27 at 2pm
Hi again,
Mike Harrington and I met after the stakeholders' meeting and here are a few comments that we wanted to make;
• The current option to develop the Brynwood property would displace fish and wildlife and have a significant
impact on the wetland in that area (2-3 acres is what Keith specifically mentioned). With this being spotted frog
habitat, there are concerns and issues that USFWS should be weighing in on with regards to this sensitive
species. ODFW is concerned as well and even if the final plan proposed let impact, we still feel the impact would
be significant.
• Development of the Brynwood property would encourage increased use and potentially a higher volume of
motor boat users. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the increase in motor boat use may contribute to
erosion along the riverbank, both upstream and downstream of the launch site. There is also minimal
enforcement so that be an issue as well.
• Removing the Brynwood property from the existing conservation easement may set a very dangerous precedent
and one that we are very concerned about. This property is in an easement for a reason and we would like it to
remain that way, for the sake of the resources in the area.
• It is very difficult to mitigate for wetland loss, even with the dollar amount that DSL calculates as the cost for
mitigation per acre. You can never replace what was lost to the same degree.
• ODFW does not want to be held liable for any safety Issues that arise as a result of developing the Brynwood
property. We realize there are safety concerns now, but there will be different concerns if this project is
completed. We know there are traffic flow studies to be done, as well as other studies and analyses, but we just
wanted to state this for the record.
• There are other options available with potential funding and partnerships for development. Besson Day Use is
one of the options and although it is not in the same immediate area as Harper Bridge, it is only two miles from
the main road, not too far from Harper Bridge in terms of river miles, is already designated as public land, has
existing parking, pit toilet, access and a primitive boat ramp and is an area that both ODFW and the USFS would
like to pursue.
I hope these comments are helpful. Thanks for the opportunity to provide comment.
Nancy
Cynthia Smidt
From: HARRINGTON Bethany <bethany.harrington@state.or.us>
Sent: Tuesday, September 06,2011 10:03 AM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: RE: Brynnwood property comment
Hi Cynthia,
I typed that message via an i-phone so I corrected my errors I could not see on the phone below ....
Thank you, Bethany
From: Cynthia Smidt [mailto:Cynthia.Smidt@deschutes.org]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 12:04 PM
To: 'HARRINGTON Bethany'
Subject: RE: Brynnwoocl property comment
Thanks Bethany.
cynthia
From: HARRINGTON Bethany [mailto:bethany.harrington@state.or.us]
Sent: Friday, September 02,201111:10 AM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Cc: bethany.harrington@state.or.us
Subject: Brynnwoocl property comment
Cynthia,
Thank you for this opportunity to comment to the Board of County Commissioners. Based on available information and two sik
visits to the Brynnwood property, it appears there are jurisdictional wetlands and waterways located on the site. If more than 50 cubic
yards of removal or fill will occur within jurisdictional waters, a removal-fill permit will be required. As part of the permitting
process, the applicant will have to demonstrate how the proposed location and design will first avoid then minimize impacts to waters
ofthe state with mitigation required for all unavoidable impacts. There were several other sites/designs proposed during the July 27
meeting that appeared to have less impact than the Brynnwood property and so we would ask these be explored as alternatives during
the permitting process.
I have shared the requirements and risk associated with applying for a removal-fill permit for the Brynnwood property with both the
developer and landowner. Thank you again for the opportunity to further comment. Please feel free to call or email if you would like
more information regarding permitting the Brynnwood property.
Sincerely,
Bethany Harrington
Resource Coordinator
Department of State Lands
1
fit SUNRIVER OW"'E~ ASSOCIATI 0lIl
MAINTAINING SUNRIVER AS A PREMIER RESIDENTIAL AND RESORT COMMUNITY PROTECTING
AND ENHANCING ITS QUALITY OF LIFE, NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND PROPERlY VALUES.
August 29, 2011 RECEIVED
Cynthia Smidt SEP 01 2011
Deschutes County Community Development
117 N.W.lafayette Ave.
Deschutes County CDD
Bend, Oregon 97701
Reference: Harper Bridge Boat launch Site Alternative
Dear Ms. Smidt:
As Central Oregon has gained in popularity, access to a major southern Deschutes County resource, the
Deschutes River, has become increasingly difficult. The Sunriver Owners Association (SROA) acknowledges this
situation and has joined with other south Deschutes County stakeholders and interested parties in seeking a
solution for an access site near the Harper Bridge. SROA wishes to commend the task force leadership and
Deschutes County staff for their efforts to date. However at this time, it is apparent to SROA that a significant
amount of study remains to be accomplished before any course of direction can be supported.
The task force has been diligent in identifying possible river access points for public launching of
watercraft both upstream and downstream from Harper Bridge. Although the report heard on July 27 gave
explanation of the merits and potential obstacles for each of the identified access points, the evaluation process
appears to be lacking in substantive detail such as specific requirements that may come from other regulatory
agencies. Without an understanding of agency compliance requirements and the results of neighborhood
impact studies, SROA believes that it is premature to prioritize any of the candidate sites.
We understand that the focus of the task force is now being directed towards a singular potential site
northwest of Harper Bridge, i.e. the Brynwood property. As one ofthe proximate neighbors, Sunriver will be
directly impacted by several aspects of this plan, and our owners must be given a comprehensive report on the
Brynwood proposal before a meaningfulle"el of support can be determined.
SROA underscores the importance of having a more thorough evaluation of this matter before moving
forward with any specific proposal, and reaffirms its commitment to the County in its effort to establish better
river access in our region.
Sunriver Owners Association
57455 ABBOT DRIVE • P.O. BOX 3278 • SUNRIVER,OREGON 97707 • (541)593-2411 • TOLL FREE (888) 284-6639 • FAX (541) 593-5669
www.sunriverowners.org
Cynthia Smidt
From: jay bowerman <jbowerman@bendbroadband.com>
Sent: Thursday, September 01,201111:42 AM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: Brynwood project
Thank you (and Paul) for taking the time to update me on the status of the Brynwood property.
As I indicated briefly while at the counter, my principal concern lies with the wetland. As a field biologist
deeply involved in studying the Oreogn Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa), I am concerned for developments that
adversely impact wetlands that may serve is either foraging habitat or refuges along movement corridors. The
particular wetland that is included in the Brynwood property meets both of those criteria. Until recently, I would
have considered it unlikely to find spotted frogs utilizing this site. I had to revise that opinion, however, when I
was asked by a nearby property owner to visit his property to assess impacts to a similar but less susitable
wetland less than a mile upriver from this site. I was surprised when I found a juvenile spotted frog within my
first 10 minutes on the site. Other researchers and I have routinely found that visual encounter surveys of this
species detect less than 10% of the frogs at a given site within an hour of survey time, and for many sites
multiple surveys of a single site are sometimes necessary to detect any of the frogs even when known to be
present.
My opinion is that this site likely serves as a seasonal refuge for OSF. The presence of introduced predatory fish
(mostly Brown Trout) in the Deschutes has likely been a major contributing factor to the decline of OSF along
the corridor of the Deschutes. Still, the area from Sunriver south to Wickiup holds perhaps the most extensive
metapopulation of OSF, thanks to the remnant oxbow ponds and marshes of the Little Deschutes. On the main
river, it is the marsh wetlands such as both upstream and downstream of Harper Bridge that can serve as active
season foraging sites and migration refuges for OSF, and providing stepping stone sites that allow gene flow
between individual populations.
My concern for the Brynwood wetland is two-fold.
First, any kind of high-intensity development, such as a Recreational Vehicle Park, dramatically increases the
numbers of people, especially children, likely to enter and alter the wetland, especially during the summer
months, the same season that this site is most biologically active.
Second, extensive paving and/or the presence of large numbers of motor vehicles inevitably contributes to
runoff containing petroleum products, detergents, and solvents, all of which are potentially damaging to
sensitive wetland species, most especially amphibians.
Please keep me informed on the progress of planning for this parcel.
Jay Bowerman
541 593-8302
1
Cynthia Smidt
From: Jeff Wieland <wilyj8@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, August 19, 201111:18AM
To: Pete Gustavson
Cc: Cynthia Smidt; s.jeffries@fs.fed.us; Tammy Baney; Tony DeBone; Jeff Trant; John
Vanlandingham; Bob Russell; Chris Kell; Carl Jansen; Dave and Becky Wilkins; Rick and Sue
Braithwaite; larry and Caroil Malcom; Vacation Discover Sunriver Vacation Rentals
Subject: Harper Bridge launch alternatives; proposed Brynwood RV Park
Attachments: Harper Bridge -Brynwood RVv1.0.docx
Good Morning Pete
Here's the info that I promised. Let me know if! can provide additional info or assistance.
Jeff Wieland
541-280-3237
Guide, Fly and Field Outfitters
Shop: 541-318-1616
www.flyandfield.com
See www.deschutespassages.com for Chinook, Sockeye, & Steelhead restoration info.
1
08-19-2011, v1.0jw
Background:
1. Harper Bridge launch: No question that there is a safety issue for the
people of Deschutes County and a liability issue for
SRlSROAlCrosswater. These need to be addressed.
2. Hubbard/Ogden have proposed re-zoning 8.6 acres ("The Brynwood
Property) on the SW side/downstream of Harper Bridge (directly
across from Sunriver) to an 87 space RV Park. The property was
originally zoned R 10, but a request by the previous owner was
approved years ago to permit three 2 acre homesites with 2.6 acres
of riparian buffer. Brynwood is requesting a rezone to allow the 87
space RV Park. In exchange, Brynwood will build and maintain (so
he says) a double launch ramp (power & non-powered) with
changing rooms, restrooms, and parking. He intends to connect
bathrooms and the RV Park to the Boondocks sewer system across
Spring River Rd. You can dress it up, but the "free" launch ramp is a
bribe to secure the innappropriate zoning change.
Alternatives:
1. Any alternative public launch area must be conditional on closing the
current, informal Harper Bridge launches on both sides of the road.
Otherwise, locals will just continue to use it notwithstanding the safety
and liability issues.
2.Besson Camp: Already a USFS Day Use area with a launch ramp.
The existing ramp has current and upstream logs, works but is not ideal,
and should be left in place. There is a "slough" connected to the Day
Use Area upstream of the existing ramp that would be ideal for
launching and retrieving non-powered watercraft. It would simply need a
ramp. There is space for changing rooms in the Day Use area as well
as picnic tables, and a tlplay area" that just needs some TLC. The
access road (Rd 41) off Spring River Rd is passable, but realisticall, it
would need improvement. I envision gravel, something like the road out
the the Sparks Lake launch.
3.Lunar Dr: This existing ramp may be within the boundaries of one of
the nearby HOAs. It's unknown if they would support public use. The
home on the upstream side uses the launch road as their driveway but
are probably not entitled to do so. The county apparently owns the 2
acres downstream and adjacent to the existing launch ramp. I have
been told but have not confirmed that it was originally intended as a
park/play area. It's clearly a safer alternative to both the impromptu
Harper Bridge launch & the Brynwood alternative. The wild card is
understandable neighborhood opposition.
4. Existing Harper Bridge launch: SROA could give up some of the
fence line and allow construction of a proper parking and launch facility.
This could be viewed as the responsible thing to do as it mostly benefits
their guests and boat rental concession. They already have the
infrastructure in place as far as hosting public activities including a
sewer system, police force, fire dept., insurance policies, etc.
Why SRQA should formally & publically oppose the zoning change:
1. The proposed RV Park is a separate issue from the need for a
safer public launch area. Although Brynwood has the right to
request the rezoning, he is not entitled to either the change or a
profit on his speculative land purchase. Building the currently
authorized 3 homes would have impacts but, IMHO, would neither
completely disrupt the deer and elk migration route nor present the
noise & nuisance of essentially paving 86 acres. County
Community Development would still have say over the specific
plans for each home, including buffers and river access.
2. The RV Park will create significant noise and light issues for
Sunriver residents. Sound carries long distances at night along the
river, and SR will surely be subjected to the nearly continuous drone
of generators, barking dogs, and lights. Then there is the inevitable
trash, etc.
3. The re-zoning of 8.6 precious riparian acres to RV Park is both
inappropriate and completely unacceptable. Approving the request
would not only violate the county's own zoning standards, but would
also be a gross betrayal of the public trust and ongoing efforts for a
healthier Upper Deschutes.
4.Those of us that regularly drive Spring River Rd do not believe that
the Brynwood Launch alternative would be safer, but that it would
simple change from a pedestrian safety issue to a cross-traffic safety
issue.
5. The mostly paved Brynwood RV Park would create surface run-off
that would surely include oil and household chemicals. Leaching it
through our porous soil won't filter the contaminents.
6. The proposed power boat launch is incompatible with the 990/0+
rafts, tubes, kayaks, and canoes. If you buildladveritise it, they will
come. My personal observations (as a power boat owner) are that
the 5 mph -No Wake rule is largely ignored and that enforcement is
almost non-existant. Power boat traffic is both more common and a
hazard near the Solar Dr launch.
6. This project will need EPA approval due to wetland and flood
zone impact. EPA will not consider any mitigation such as a boat
launch that further impacts wetlands. In fact, they should require an
Environmental Impact Study, which also would need review and
approval by ODFW.
7. It is ludicrous that the developer offers the Boondocks septic
system as a valid receptor to 80 trailer sites. The Boondocks system
was designed and approved for Boondocks and certainly cannot
arbitrarily be considered as useful capacity to accept 80 trailers and
also the added restrooms for the boat launch. The trailer park I boat
launch needs to have a system approved on it's own side of the road
and that is highly unlikely given that the property is 90% flood plain.
8. The request to change RR-10 zoning to a commercial use will
need active opposition. Change of zoning is of no benefit to anyone
living on either side of the river. How would this be any different that
building a 7-11 at the end of Cooper Dr.? Once the zoning change
has been achieved there is no stopping further development of the
site on further applications.
9. There are 3 other zoning overlays that require approval in addition
to the RR-10, Landscape Management, Airport Safety, and Wildlife
Management. Each of these will be scrutinized in a planning review,
and I don't see how the county can whitewash 4 zoning overlays in
favor of a launch ramp mitigation offer to build a RV park.
10. County traffic engineering will also be reviewing this proposal.
There is no guarantee that they will approve the entrance I exiting of
are probably not entitled to do so. The county apparently owns the 2
acres downstream and adjacent to the existing launch ramp. I have
been told but have not confirmed that it was originally intended as a
park/play area. It's clearly a safer alternative to both the impromptu
Harper Bridge launch & the Brynwood alternative. The wild card is
understandable neighborhood opposition.
4. Existing Harper Bridge launch: SROA could give up some of the
fence line and allow construction of a proper parking and launch facility.
This could be viewed as the responsible thing to do as it mostly benefits
their guests and boat rental concession. They already have the
infrastructure in place as far as hosting public activities including a
sewer system, police force, fire dept., insurance policies, etc.
Why SROA should formally & publically oppose the zoning change:
1. The proposed RV Park is a separate issue from the need for a
safer public launch area. Although Brynwood has the right to
request the rezoning, he is not entitled to either the change or a
profit on his speculative land purchase. Building the currently
authorized 3 homes would have impacts but, IMHO, would neither
completely disrupt the deer and elk migration route nor present the
noise & nuisance of essentially paving 86 acres. County
Community Development would still have say over the specific
plans for each home, including buffers and river access.
2. The RV Park will create significant noise and light issues for
Sunriver residents. Sound carries long distances at night along the
river, and SR will surely be subjected to the nearly continuous drone
of generators, barking dogs, and lights. Then there is the inevitable
trash, etc.
3. The re-zoning of 8.6 precious riparian acres to RV Park is both
inappropriate and completely unacceptable. Approving the request
would not only violate the county's own zoning standards, but would
also be a gross betrayal of the public trust and ongoing efforts for a
healthier Upper Deschutes.
4.Those of us that regularly drive Spring River Rd do not believe that
the Brynwood Launch alternative would be safer, but that it would
simple change from a pedestrian safety issue to a cross-traffic safety
issue.
5. The mostly paved Brynwood RV Park would create surface run-off
that would surely include oil and household chemicals. Leaching it
through our porous soil won't filter the contaminents.
6. The proposed power boat launch is incompatible with the 99%+
rafts, tubes, kayaks, and canoes. If you build/adveritise it, they will
come. My personal observations (as a power boat owner) are that
the 5 mph -No Wake rule is largely ignored and that enforcement is
almost non-existant. Power boat traffic is both more common and a
hazard near the Solar Dr launch.
6. This project will need EPA approval due to wetland and flood
zone impact. EPA will not consider any mitigation such as a boat
launch that further impacts wetlands. In fact, they should require an
Environmental Impact Study, which also would need review and
approval by ODFW.
7. It is ludicrous that the developer offers the Boondocks septic
system as a valid receptor to 80 trailer sites. The Boondocks system
was designed and approved for Boondocks and certainly cannot
arbitrarily be considered as useful capacity to accept 80 trailers and
also the added restrooms for the boat launch. The trailer park / boat
launch needs to have a system approved on it's own side of the road
and that is highly unlikely given that the property is 90% flood plain.
8. The request to change RR-10 zoning to a commercial use will
need active opposition. Change of zoning is of no benefit to anyone
living on either side of the river. How would this be any different that
building a 7-11 at the end of Cooper Dr.? Once the zoning change
has been achieved there is no stopping further development of the
site on further applications.
9. There are 3 other zoning overlays that require approval in addition
to the RR-10, Landscape Management, Airport Safety, and Wildlife
Management. Each of these will be scrutinized in a planning review,
and I don't see how the county can whitewash 4 zoning overlays in
favor of a launch ramp mitigation offer to build a RV park.
10. County traffic engineering will also be reviewing this proposal.
There is no guarantee that they will approve the entrance / exiting of
the number of proposed vehicle trips created by use of the 2
proposed facilities. 3 entrances onto Spring River Rd are proposed,
although Brynwood has stated that he has fallback positions with
fewer RV spaces and entrances onto Spring River Rd.
11. This proposal does not solve the goal of creating a 1-2 hour float
trip. The launch location is essentially unchanged and there is no
provision for a satisfactory public take out location before the Benham
Falls site.
12. Building a public boat launch on private property is bad in so
many ways. Ownership has the potential to default on tax payments,
maintenance, insurance and security of the stream banks and
surrounding area.
Submitting Comments to Deschutes County NL T 9-2-2011 :
Jeff Wieland
541-280-3237
Cynthia Smidt
From: Bev Barmore <bevfritz@peak.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 20118:34 AM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: 87 space trailerpark at Harper Bridge on Spring River Rd.
Please add our names to the strong objectors to this trailer park south of Harper Bridge. We have owned a home for 30
years on Spring River itself...46868 Spring River Drive and regular hike out to the point where Spring River meets the
Deschutes and all over that wonderful and still wild piece of property. Elk take refuge in there in winter and spring ....deer
all year ducks etc. We drive Spring River Road everyday and are horrified about the proposal to build the trailer
court. We can find a better place for a launch ramp with the trailer park. And yes we do need another launch ramp on the
upper Deschutes, but not attached to a huge trailer park .....yuk ........Thanks .....Fred and Beverly Barmore
1
Cynthia Smidt
From: Howard Finck <hfinck@chamberscable.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 25,20112:10 PM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: Harper Bridge Boat Launch alternatives
These are my objections to the vacation of the Harper Bridge site and the construction of a large boat launching area with
'amenities';
1. Free vs fee. We've hand launched for 25 to 30 years now, just again twice this week. We don't intend to start paying
fees for hand launch and will look for other alternatives. The schematic in the file screams 'fees are coming'. Not for us they
aren't.
2. Alleged Harper Bridge dangers. We've never had a close call with the traffic. A single vehicle doesn't seem to be at
risk, in our judgement. We generally drop one or the other off, and pick up where the river runs close to our home. Even at
our age, after well over 100 launches, we've never experienced risk in or near the water edge. It couldn't be easier to get into
either one of our kayaks or the canoe at Harper Bridge. It appears to be set up as a danger to push agreement on the other
plan (the one that is the obvious choice) and the 'amenities' noted. It feels like a project designed to make money at our
expense. Getting in and out of the present dirt parking areas is no more of a challenge than exiting hundreds of drives onto a
45 mph road (like 3rd, or 27th, or ...). No tickets, no accidents, no close calls. Just usual driver caution.
3. Boats. We have both an outboard and a jet boat that are legal on the Deschutes, but never have touched that
water. Here's why: slow speeds result in big wakes that erode banks and more importantly, imperil the paddlers (the novices,
particularly). Since we live next to the river, and one of us walks it almost daily, we're familiar with the wakes, the substantial
amount of floating traffic-particularly by the tourists (increasing the risk), and the erosion of the banks. I would wonder
whether the fish fry would also be imperiled by the erosion and the added petrochemicals. The schematic looks less like a
better alternative than now, and rather, a way to launch more trailered boats with motors. ,just don't think the report is very
forthcoming in the developers' agendas for fees and water traffic.
, strongly believe the risk inherent in more motorboats on that section of the water greatly exceeds any risk imputed to the
Harper Bridge hand launch site.
I have dealt with wetlands issues before retirement, and will follow the implementation plans closely; perhaps things are more
easily complied with in Oregon.
Howard Finck
28 Siskin lane
Sunriver
1
Cynthia Smidt
From: Julie Glover <mackinacspirit@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, August 26,2011 8:33 PM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Cc: Chris Kell; Jeff Glover
Subject: Opporsition to proposed Brynwood RV Park
Dear Cynthia,
As homeowners in the Spring River area, we strongly oppose the proposed Brynwood RV Park near
Harper Bridge on the Deschutes River. The reasons are numerous:
• Unacceptable noise, light, traffic and natural habitat disturbance;
• Wetlands destruction;
• Deschutes river pollution from RV runoff and possible sewage overflows or seepage;
• Increased powerboat traffic, causing more danger to non-powered watercraft (especially
kayaks, canoes and rafts);
• Inadequate sewage capacity if connected to Boondocks sewer system;
• Increased traffic hazards caused by huge increases in traffic on Spring River Rd.;
• Existing adequate river access at Besson Camp and further south on the Deschutes;
• Destruction of our peaceful, natural environment in the Spring River area ...
I could go on and on!! Please deny this ridiculous request.
Sincerely,
Julie and Jeff Glover
Besson Road residents
1
Cynthia Smidt
From: Jens Jorgensen <gDorg@mac.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11 :35 AM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: Subject Proposed Rezoning of the Brynwood Property at the Harper Bridge Site
Cynthia Smith
Deschutes County Development
Subject Proposed Rezoning of the Brynwood Property at the Harper Bridge Site
As home owners for more that 25 years in the Sunriver/Spring River area we are strongly opposed to the
proposed rezoning of the Brynwood Property on the SW side downstream from the Harpers Bridge. For years
we have enjoyed paddling down the Deschutes from up-river spots to either Harpers Bridge or our property on
the Spring River. The development of a RV park on such an environmentally sensitive property would do
irreparable harm to the river and the wetlands that is and integral part of the aquatic system for maintaining the
health of the Deschutes river and the wildlife that depends on it. Fish and Wildlife, the Forest Service and the
County, in cooperation with the residence of the river system, have made great strides in recent year to improve
wildlife restoration, preservation ofland, and the river system. The RV development would directly fly in the
face of all the work carried out over to preserve the resources. In addition, the RV Development would result in
a substantial increase in the pollution and nitrite load in the Deschutes River regardless of whatever attempt to
address and limit pollutants.
In addition, the proposed development will significantly impact the traffic and safety issues on the stretch of
road at Harpers Bridge. Currently, the safety of boaters parking at the bridge is an issue and is clearly not
improved with RV development regardless of the developer's promise of additional parking and the boat ramp.
Previous attempts by Sunriver to develop a minor off-street parking and small boat ramp for canoes and light
boats came to naught but should, in our opinion, be reconsidered along with road signs that declares "Congested
Area" and limits speed to 25 MPH during the summer moths.
Please urge the Deschutes County to deny this proposed rezoning as it is terrible idea.
Glenda and Jens Jorgensen
17090 Cooper Drive,
Bend
1
Cynthia Smidt
From: Bob Russell <cprmtr@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30,2011 6:23 PM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: Proposed RV Park at Harper Bridge
As a long-time (20+ year) property owner on Spring River (17050 Wright Point Way), I am writing to express my very
strong opposition to the proposed RV Park at Harper Bridge. This pleasant semi-rural neighborhood has enough vehicle
and boat traffic as is, and the Harper Bridge location is far too sensitive a marsh and river area to impose the substantial
additional human and vehicle demands of an RV park. Moreover, there is no need for either RV spaces or river access at
the location, as other locations are already available nearby.
Please do not let this RV Park receive approval from the County.
Robert Russell
1
Cynthia Smidt
From: Kathy Halford <kjhalford@wkpyc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 30,20116:32 PM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Cc: carlj@searchna.com; thal@pacbell.net
Subject: Harper Bridge RV Park
Dear Ms. Smidt: My husband and I reside at 17014 Cooper Drive and regularly travel Spring River Road past Harper's
Bridge. We are deeply concerned about the increased traffic and potential for accidents in the event this project is
approved. In addition, I would think that there should be some concern for the preservation of open spaces along this
route. There are plenty of other areas in the County and adjacent to Sunriver for the building of an RV park. Kathryn and
Hugh Halford
1
Cynthia Smidt
From: Cynthia Smidt
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:26 AM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: Harper Bridge RV
Phone call received 8/31/11
Anne Bialous
17060 Wright Point Way (20-10-01D-571)
She expressed opposition of the possible RV park near Harper Bridge location. Traffic will be difficult.
CyJlt.thiP Smidt
Desclilutes couV\,t!j covv-vv-uV\,Lt!j Developvv-eV\,t
11:7 NW UlfCl!jette Ave.
1Se~, oregoV\, 37701
PliloV\,e: (541) 317-3150
FCI)(: (541) 3f?5-17G4
EVV-Cla: ctJ v\'tIilLCls@co.ciescVtutes..or.us
webs[te: Vtttp://VvWW.co.ciescVtutes.or.uslccicV
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. Ifyou are not the intended
recipient or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please reply to sender indicating that fact
and delete the copy you received In addition, you should not print, copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use the
information without first receiving authorization from the sender. Thank you.
1
Cynthia Smidt
From: cheryl griffiths <cheryl.g@mac.com>
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 8:58 PM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: proposal for 87 RV lots
Dear Cynthia,
Both my husband and I are appalled that this could even be considered! The area under consideration is a
lovely meadow, a part of the Elk migration path, and orne to numerous birds and other small wildlife.
An RV Park in that area would make it an eyesore and destroy the ambience of the river by Harper's Bridge.
We just want those who are making the decision on this project to know that we are unequivocally against it.
Best Regards,
Cheryl Griffiths
Kenney Griffiths
cheryl.g@mac.com
541-593-2070 house
541-641-0350 mobile
1
Cynthia Smidt
From: Borovicka, Carla <cborovic@lesley.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 02,20115:28 PM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: Comment on Brynwood RV Park
Hello Cynthia,
I am adding my comments regarding the proposed Brynwood RV Park:
I am opposed to the re-zoning of the Brynwood Property for the following reasons:
1. The Harper Bridge launch area issue is a separate public safety and public recreation site issue and should be
addressed independently by Deschutes County Community Development.
2. Spring River Rd. is currently unsafe for foot and bicycle traffic and proposing an 87 space RV Park needs
further review of the consideration for bike paths and challenges with local and tourist traffic.
3. The negative impacts on wetlands, water quality, fish and wildlife habitats do not appear to be well thought
out or supported with sound mitigation efforts. For example, connecting launch area bathrooms and RV Park to
the Boondocks sewer system seem unrealistic.
I plan to attend public meetings so please keep me informed of dates.
Carla
Carla Borovicka
Lesley University
Northwest Regional Director
AK, HI, ID, MT, OR, WA
866-600-3245
cborovic@lesley.edu
1
Cynthia Smidt
From: anthony FARINA <captnkelp@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday. September 02.2011 9:40 AM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: RV Park at Harper Bridge.
Hi Cynthia,
I live on Sringriver and from a safety stand point it is a bad idea. I am opposing the propose 87 space RV
Park at Harper Bridge for two reasons. #1 Having RV 's enter and exit at that point would only add to already
dangerous spot. The Bridge is so over used already in the summer time both from the road side and from the
river side. So to add more danger to the problem is not what we need. We need help in controlling and
minimize the in pack that is already happening from the over use. #2 On a good summer weekend it is wall to
wall people on the river already. It is over capacity already. And it is hard enough to clean up the river now
from the over use, let alone add more to the over load. There must be better use for the money in these hard
times. Or at lease a better spot.
Yours Truly
Anthony E. Farina III
Member ofthe
Springriver Fire and Safety Ass. and the UDRC
1
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
360 SW8Qnd Street. Suite 400, Send, OR 9n02 t Phone 541.749.4044 t Fax 541.330.11531 WWW.schwabe.COOl
TIAM. LEWIS
Oregon
Dir«t Line: 541-749...w48
E-Mail: tlewiS@Schwabe.c:om
September 8, 2011
c/o Cynthia Smidt
Deschutes County Planning Dept
117 NW Lafayette
Bend, OR 97701
Re: Harpers Bridge Boat Launch Relocation
Re: Brynwood Site
Dear Commissioners:
Our ollice represents Brynwood, LLC, owner of the property locatedjust west of the
existing Harper's Bridge boat launch and across the street from the Spring River commercial
plaza. We encourage you to support the Brynwood site for the relocation of the existing
Harper's Bridge boat launch.
We are surc you are aware of the significant safety and capacity reasons to relocate the
existing launch. The deVelopment proposal offered by the Brynwood site provides the best
solutions to the problems created by the existing launch and can provide additional positive
community and public benefits. The owner of the Brynwood site has offered to develop and
dedicate the boat launch to the public as a part of an adjacent motorcoach development in a
public-private partnership that offers the public benefit without the expense of public dollars.
The attributes that make the Brynwood development proposal the best site for the public boat
launch include:
• adequate area for safe parking ofcars and boat trailers;
• safe and convenient vehicular access from Spring River Road and internal access
area to provide loop maneuvering and prevent backing onto public roadways;
• safe access to the river for kids and families -staging area to inflate rafts and
power sources;
• public restrooms and changing facilities, family changing areas;
Portland, OR 503.222.9981 I Salem. OR 503.5404262 I Bend, OR 541.149.04044
5ealtle. WA 206.622.1711 I Vancouver, WA 360.694.7551 I Washington, DC 202.488.4302
PDXlI22964/17907IlTMLlB046469.1
c/o Cynthia Smidt
Deschutes County Planning Dept
September 8, 201 ]
Page 2
• no traffic through neighborhoods;
• across from commercial area in an already developed area -little impact to
residential properties;
• opportunity for multi-use path along Spring River Road frontage to serve
demonstrated community need and address pedestrian safety;
• easy to gate for after hours closure;
• public-private partnership development in conjunction with motorcoach park will
provide funds for boat launch development. on-site presence of employees and
security;
• ideal location on the river between put ins and take outs to allow for reasonable
float limes (under two hours);
• presence of wetlands and riparian vegetation can provide opportunities tbr
creation of interpretive signs, riparian and wetland enhancement through
mitigation programs and public education opportunities for river users and guests
in the area from outside the region~ and
• undeveloped site provides opportunity to work with stakeholders to determine
type/nature of facilities and types of boats to accommodate.
The Brynwood site was chosen by the stakeholders as the preferred site. It also has the
support of neighboring property owners. Attached are three letters from: 1) Larry Browning,
President Discover Sunriver Vacation Rentals; 2) Peter Knaupp; and 3) Rich Hadley, owner of
Spring River Plaza. Additionally. we have met with representatives of the LaPine Parks and
Recreation Department, the Division of State Lands, Oregon Department ofFish and Wildlife
and the Land Conservation and Development Department to determine the regulatory
requirements for the entitlements.
As you know, many of the communities located in this area are planned communities
with private roads and private facilities. Yet, the area attracts the public because of its beauty
and abundant natural resources. As the area has continued to develop over the years, there is
increased pressure on the existing facilities and a significant need for a safe boat launch which is
open to the public and has adequate, safe facilities to serve them. There have been conditions of
past development approvals and many discussions about a public boat launch in this area but
there is still no adequate, safe launch which is open to the public. The pUblic/private partnership
offered by the Brynwood site is the best alternative to meet this long-standing need,
PDXl 12296411 7907 !fTMUl!046469.1
t I
clo Cynthia Smidt
Deschutes County Planning Dept
September 8, 2011
Page 3
We are committed to working through the land use and regulatory hurdles to permit the
site and believe, with local government support, we can obtain the necessary entitlements. We
ask you to support this site for the public boat launch relocation. Thank you.
I ~ ~" /Sing.erely. .." /
,v"AA~~'#'" /'dA""~ <_<I'"
j/--:.
Tia M. Lewis
TML:nmp
PDXlI 22%411 7907 IfrMU8046469.I
Cynthia Smidt
From: Howard Finck <hfinck@chamberscable.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 25,20112:10 PM
To: Cynthia Smidt
Subject: Harper Bridge Boat Launch alternatives
These are my objections to the vacation of the Harper Bridge site and the construction of a large boat launching area with
'amenities':
1. Free vs fee. We've hand launched for 25 to 30 years now, just again twice this week. We don't intend to start paying
fees for hand launch and will look for other alternatives. The schematic in the file screams 'fees are coming'. Not for us they
aren't.
2. Alleged Harper Bridge dangers. We've never had a close call with the traffic. A single vehicle doesn't seem to be at
risk, in our judgement. We generally drop one or the other off, and pick up where the river runs close to our home. Even at
our age, after well over 100 launches, we've never experienced risk in or near the water edge. It couldn't be easier to get into
either one of our kayaks or the canoe at Harper Bridge. It appears to be set up as a danger to push agreement on the other
plan (the one that is the obvious choice) and the 'amenities' noted. It feels like a project designed to make money at our
expense. Getting in and out of the present dirt parking areas is no more of a challenge than exiting hundreds of drives onto a
45 mph road (like 3rd, or 27th, or...). No tickets, no accidents, no close calls. Just usual driver caution.
3. Boats. We have both an outboard and a jet boat that are legal on the Deschutes, but never have touched that
water. Here's why: slow speeds result in big wakes that erode banks and more importantly, imperil the paddlers (the novices,
particularly). Since we live next to the river, and one of us walks it almost daily, we're familiar with the wakes, the substantial ,
amount of floating traffic-particularly by the tourists (increasing the risk), and the erosion of the banks. I would wonder
whether the fish fry would also be imperiled by the erosion and the added petrochemicals. The schematic looks less like a i
better alternative than now, and rather, a way to launch more trailered boats with motors. I just don't think the report is very
forthcoming in the developers' agendas for fees and water traffic.
I strongly believe the risk inherent in more motorboats on that section of the water greatly exceeds any risk imputed to the
Harper Bridge hand launch site.
I have dealt with wetlands issues before retirement, and will follow the implementation plans closely; perhaps things are more
easily complied with in Oregon.
Howard Finck
28 Siskin Lane
Sunriver
!
I
t
I
i
I
1
\
J
I