HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-03-04 Business Meeting Minutes
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 2, 2015
Page 1 of 13
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 BUSINESS MEETING
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2015
_____________________________
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
__________________________
Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney.
Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy
County Administrator; David Doyle and Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Nick
Lelack, Peter Gutowsky, Anthony Raguine, Paul Blikstad and Will Groves,
Community Development; and about twenty other citizens including Ted Shorack
of The Bulletin.
Chair DeBone opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m.
__________________________
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. CITIZEN INPUT
None was offered.
3. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2015-
118, an Improvement Agreement between Deschutes County and Tetherow
Rim LLC, for Roads and Utilities in the 29-Lot Single Family Subdivision
Granted Approval under TP-14-1023.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 2, 2015
Page 2 of 13
Will Groves gave a brief overview of the item. The request is for an extension
of time to complete the roads and utilities, and provide security for same
through a bond. The improvements have to be completed no later than one year
from the recording of the subdivision plat. This will allow them to proceed.
The final bond, Exhibit D, has not been received but is required before
recording.
Commissioner Baney said that on page 5 of the improvement agreement, the
dollar amount is not the same as on the memo. Mr. Groves said there were
some small changes and the new version is now ready for signature.
UNGER: Move signature
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
4. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of First Reading
of Ordinance No. 2015-002, a Code Amendment to Allow a New
Manufactured Home/RV Park in the MUA-10 Zone.
Chair DeBone read the opening statement for the hearing. Paul Blikstad
outlined the hearings process and gave an overview of the proposed Ordinance.
In regard to conflicts of interest, Commissioner Baney said she only discussed
this item at a work session, as did the other two Commissioners. There were no
conflicts of interest to disclose and there were no challenges from the audience.
Mr. Blikstad said the applicant was not required to address the transportation
planning rule. It has been 29 years since a new manufactured home park has
been established here, as the criteria is very exact. It would have a minor
impact on traffic but could also help with low-cost housing needs.
Tom Anderson asked if adjacent means a common lot line or the street. Mr.
Blikstad stated that the existing zone goes to the middle of the street.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 2, 2015
Page 3 of 13
Commissioner Unger asked about road access other than Highway 97. The
property is against the railroad tracks and appears no other road is possible. Mr.
Blikstad said this is the case. Commissioner Baney said that the number of
units does not trigger the transportation planning rule, but there does not appear
to be much information from ODOT about any potential traffic implications.
__________________________
Gary Knight said he has owned the property for many years. Commissioner
Baney asked what the interactions with ODOT have been. Access to Highway
97 is a potential issue.
Mr. Knight stated he has talked with representatives of ODOT and they
proposed a stoplight on the southern end of the property. Four plots have been
combined into one. (He referred to an oversized map.) He will be entitled to
another access point and one will be right in, right out only. ODOT is
purchasing some property to continue a sidewalk.
Commissioner Baney asked if this is in the record at this point. Commissioner
Unger said this is new information to him, and he has been involved in planning
the north end of town, regarding the Cooley Road area, and he is unfamiliar
with this. Mr. Knight stated they are moving from south to north on this and
told him it might be five years. There will be minimal ly increased traffic there.
Commissioner Baney said she is on the Oregon Transportation Commission and
she wants to be sure this has been addressed. She is supportive of limited
additional use but wants to be clear about what can be done. Commissioner
Unger stated he spoke with an ODOT representative and was told the project is
so small that it does not trigger ODOT involvement. Access onto the highway
is a concern due to the amount of traffic and speed. Mr. Knight stated that there
has not been an accident there since he has owned the property.
__________________________
Nunzie Gould, citizen, said there is an interesting model established by Brooks
Resources regarding keeping housing affordable, in conjunction with
NeighborImpact. It involves a deed restriction having no escalation on the land,
to keep the affordable housing project in inventory even after it is sold. It is
important if it is said that something is to be affordable housing to identify how
it will stay that way.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 2, 2015
Page 4 of 13
It is not just this property but how the broader picture is handled. Affordable
housing is needed and how it relates to transportation models is an important
part of planning. The City of Bend and Bend Metro Park and Recreation
District staff have talked about reducing SDC’s to keep property affordable.
Instead, this needs to be viewed as how to achieve this goal and what will it be
in fifty years. This applicant may not be planning this , but there is a lot to
consider. Everyone needs to know the facts.
Commissioner Baney stated that no tax abatement or waiver of SDC’s has been
mentioned. Concerns are mostly how this impacts Highway 97.
__________________________
Mr. Blikstad said they could leave the record open for two weeks to get written
information from ODOT. Commissioner Unger wants to get some kind of
response from ODOT to figure out how this will be addressed.
Commissioner Baney said that there are some assumptions being made on
improvements and use, and she would like to hear from ODOT on phasing and
funding.
Commissioner Unger stated the text amendment talks about no more than ten
dwellings. The Oregon Department of State Lands property also falls under this
amendment; he asked if this would also limit them to ten units. He is concerned
that the limit would be applicable to both.
Mr. Blikstad said that the amendment could require findings regarding the TPR
as well. Commissioner Baney noted that this would be a significant expense to
the applicant.
Peter Gutowsky said that to clarify, the applicant chose to submit a text
amendment to allow this. Two properties fit this description. The trip cap is
the applicant’s choice since he did not want to address the TPR. If the Board
contemplated this, staff would advise the findings would not comply with Goal
12. There has to be consistency. The questions regarding Highway 97 might
best be addressed by ODOT in person.
Commissioner Baney noted that some are assuming that the manufactured
homes are affordable housing, but that relationship is not in question. This is
privately owned property, and what is before the Board is not a request to add
affordable housing stock.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 2, 2015
Page 5 of 13
Mr. Gutowsky said that this is just a text amendment, that if approved would
allow the applicant to apply for a Goal 14 exception, a conditional use and a site
review. Orientation and access would be considered at that point. This would
be the first of several steps to be able to put in six units.
The hearing will remain open and staff will invite ODOT representatives to
participate in a discussion. The hearing was continued to Monday, March 16 at
10 a.m.
5. Before the Board were Deliberations towards a Decision regarding Tumalo
Irrigation District’s Request for Approval of a Land Use Compatibility
Statement (LUCS) to Transfer Water Rights from Tumalo Creek to
Reservoirs on Private Property (Owner: KC Development Group, LLC).
Anthony Raguine provided an overview of the issue. He clarified for the record
that on February 20, TID submitted its final legal argument. There was new
evidence in Exhibit B of that submittal, which was not allowed. That new
evidence was redacted from that review and a statement in Exhibit C that
references Exhibit B. However, two other statements referenced Exhibit B.
The Board can affirm the redaction and remove from consideration references
to the redacted information.
Chair DeBone said he disregarded this information; the other Commissioners
said the same.
BANEY: Move to not consider Exhibit B, statement of reference in Exhibit C,
and not consider those references shown on page 4, paragraph 6.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
__________________________
Mr. Lelack clarified that the water does not come from Tumalo Creek but rather
from the Tumalo Reservoir.
Mr. Raguine referred to the matrix provided to the Board. The decision for the
Board is whether the LUCS is a development action or a land use action.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 2, 2015
Page 6 of 13
Commissioner Baney asked about permitting for surface mining and for a
recreation facility. There was information regarding the amount of material that
would trigger a permit for surface mining. Mr. Raguine said there was not a
minimum or maximum yardage, but the Hearings Officer felt that either
outright permitted or conditional uses and related activities met that threshold
for surface mining.
Commissioner Unger considers this a development action. Chair DeBone feels
that it is more a land use issue. Commissioner Baney said that at its initial face
value, she understands how they got to this being a development action and for
water conservation. However, the record is strong that this is a land use action.
To isolate this part of it is a disservice to the opportunities that are afforded
through a conditional use versus an outright use.
Mr. Raguine said that if it is a development action, the question is whether the
Planning Director have the authority to treat it as such. Commissioner Baney
feels the record as a whole lends itself to a land use action.
Mr. Raguine said the Curl v. Deschutes County case simply said that
categorizing the use makes it a development action. They differ with the
applicant, with the Planning Director treating it as a development action. But
the Board can consider it a land use action for processing its review.
Chair DeBone indicated he thinks it is a land use action. Commissioner Unger
feels the transfer of water and the reservoir is a development action and the
reservoir itself will be addressed down the road.
Mr. Raguine reiterated that the Board agrees the initial action of the LUCS is a
development action. They confirmed.
The next question was whether the Planning Director had the authority to treat
the development action as a land use action during the review process.
Therefore, they would go to question 3.
The next question is if the LUCS only identified the water rights transfer. The
Hearings Officer brought up whether the LUCS should identify the creation of
the reservoirs. Staff feels yes, that you can’t have one without the other. The
Board agreed.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 2, 2015
Page 7 of 13
Chair DeBone said the scope includes moving dirt and putting in a liner.
Commissioner Baney stated that it was not just water going into an existing
reservoir. There was a lot of work to be done to facilitate the reservoir itself.
Mr. Raguine referred to question #4. In the RR-10 zone, there is an outright use
for irrigation district purposes. The Hearings Officer disagreed in this case, and
felt the scope of the work met the threshold for surface mining for legislative
review, referencing Squaw Creek Irrigation District. The question is whether
the creation of those reservoirs an outright permitted use or does it rise above
that.
Commissioner Unger feels they have a right to operate reservoirs and canals,
and this is a complement of this system, outside of the County' outright
authority. They created a new reservoir. Commissioner Baney said that the
word ‘existing’ does not apply as these did not exist at the time. Chair DeBone
feels this is a valuable asset for the District, but this is an existing surface mine
area. They just redefined the use. He is leaning the other way.
Mr. Raguine said there are reservoirs and the water rights transfer to consider.
If this rises to the level of surface mining, they needed a conditional use permit.
Commissioner Baney feels this is a noble idea to fill a need, but it is a matter of
how they get there.
The majority of the Board felt this rises to the level of needing a conditional use
permit for mining. This is because it was not part of an e xisting system. The
reservoir was not there before.
Mr. Raguine went to #8, the use of the reservoirs as a recreational facility. The
Hearings Officer felt that this also requires a conditional use permit for a
recreational use requiring large acreage. The applicant thinks this is accessory
and no CUP is needed.
Commissioner Baney said it needs a CUP. Commissioner Unger feels
recreation is a historic use for reservoirs, but there has been a change in use in
this case. Chair DeBone thinks this is a very different use than surface mining.
Commissioner Baney said there is a path there, but it needs to be done properly.
Impacts need to be mitigated.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 2, 2015
Page 8 of 13
Regarding question #9, the argument by appellants is that the wells and road
construction are part of a plan to put in a cluster development. The applicant
argues that this is not correct, and that a conditional use permit and plat review
would be required later. The appellant states that this is the first phase of the
development and needs a CUP.
Commissioner Unger feels that there is a lot that has to happen for a cluster
development and they are not there yet. Commissioner Baney stated that the
applicant is at risk making improvements without this being clear. If they
invest in this, they may still not get what they want. Chair DeBone agreed.
Mr. Raguine said the Board appears to be affirming the Hearings Officer’s
decision. The Board can affirm this and can also add additional findings. Mr.
Lelack stated that the Board can do this today or address it later.
Commissioner Baney did not look at all of the Hearings Officer’s decision
points, just the basics on the matrix, so is not ready to make that blanket
statement. Commissioner Unger agreed.
Mr. Lelack said they can prepare findings for the Board to review. Mr. Raguine
stated the applicant has tolled the clock to March 31. Commissioner Baney
does not feel a work session is necessary prior to deliberations on the final
decision.
__________________________
Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda.
BANEY: Move approval of the Consent Agenda, with the exception of the
minutes which are still to be reviewed.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
Consent Agenda Items
6. Board Signature of Letters regarding Howell’s Hilltop Acres Special Road
District: Accepting the Resignation of Gary Ollerenshaw and Thanking him for
his Service; and appointing Bill Welch, through December 31, 2015
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 2, 2015
Page 9 of 13
7. Approval of Minutes:
Business Meeting of February 25, 2015
Work Sessions of February 23 and 25, 2015
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY
SERVICE DISTRICT
8. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of
$28,015.19.
UNGER: Move approval, subject to review.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-H
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
9. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District in the
Amount of $2,187.70.
UNGER: Move approval, subject to review.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
10. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts
Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $566,062.60.
UNGER: Move approval, subject to review.
BANEY: Second.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 2, 2015
Page 10 of 13
VOTE: UNGER: Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
Mr. Anderson noted that this included $24,000 paid to the Humane Society of
Central Oregon regarding a dog seizure issue, out of the Sheriff’s Office fund,
since the dogs had to remain in custody.
David Doyle is trying to coordinate a better process with the D.A. so a sizeable
bill does not result from situations like this.
11. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
A. Chair Baney said that Carol Stiles has asked that the American Free
University, which is celebrating its 20th anniversary, receive a letter of
support to celebrate this relationship. The Board was agreeable.
B. John Huddle, Vice President of the Citizens Action Group, and Wendall
Evers, 2nd Vice President, said that CAG was to pick up the matching funds
for public transportation. He showed a check for $3,125 to satisfy the total
of $5,000.
Commissioner Baney commended them on helping to provide a service to
local residents. Most was raised by senior volunteers. Andrew
Spreadborough, Executive Director of Central Oregon Intergovernmental
Council/Cascades East is pleased for the support of CAG. They recognize
the work that went into this. It is consistent with the spirit of a rural system
that needs a lot of different funding sources.
The other piece is this has a very favorable match rate. Karen Friend, the
COIC Transportation Manager, said she appreciates the CAG stepping up to
do this. It is fairly unique that a community organization would do this. She
hopes the community recognizes this effort.
Mr. Huddle said that Molly Ray put in a lot of time and effort and he wished
she could be present. He presented the check to COIC. Chair Baney said
that Deschutes County matched the $5,000 as well. It all helps.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 2, 2015
Page 11 of 13
Commissioner Unger noted that if CAG had not stepped up to do what the
City would not, it would have been much more difficult. Mr. Huddle said
that he is trying to find out if OSU-Cascades has a graduate student who can
take on the organizational portion of this project.
Judith Ure said the cycle is coming to an end and the Board approved $5,000
as a match for a two-year period. This was paid out of video lottery funds.
The question is what level of support, if any, the Board wants to support
dial-a-ride services. This application is due March 11.
Commissioner Unger stated it should not be just the County paying, but
someone has to. He wants to know who will step up as well, whether the
City of La Pine or CAG. They want more discussion, but the timing is not
right for that. Commissioner Unger asked if the Board should put the funds
in and then find partners to participate. CET needs to know what figure to
put in the application.
Ms. Ure said that the match drives the total request. The total project is
$44,000. The requirement is 10.27%. If the Board wants to fund it at
$10,000 this drives the grant amount of $87,000. A total of $1.12 million
comes to the County and the cities apply for part of this. The City of La
Pine does not feel it can come up with $5,000 for its citizens.
Commissioner Baney asked if they did not just consider La Pine, would this
secure funds for the other cities. Mr. Spreadborough said there are four
communities tapping in, as well as other organizations. Chair DeBone asked
if this is just dial-a-ride Ms. Friend said there is the connector service and
services within La Pine. It is about half of each. The amount applied for is
about 20% of the budget for La Pine services. It is mostly for seniors and
people with disabilities. The service area is well beyond the UGB there
because so much of the needed services are in the rural area. About 1/3 is
within the city. This is unique to La Pine.
Commissioner Unger said it is up to the community as well as the Board on
how the residents are to be supported. Chair DeBone stated this is
discretionary and may not be a core role for the County. Commissioner
Baney feels there is an economic impact and necessary service. There is a
cost savings to helping those who need this assistance get to their jobs or
whatever.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Monday, March 2, 2015
Page 12 of 13
Commissioner Unger agreed. It is critical to the users. He hopes to continue
discussions with the City of La Pine, as they have partnered with them on
many things. Chair DeBone stated that they are still a young city and they
are not experiencing a lot of growth. Commissioner Baney suggested that
the City at least support this at 10% of the total, with the County picking up
the rest of the $10,000.
Commissioner Baney hopes that the City feels this is important to its
citizens. It is well leveraged and very necessary for the people there. Chair
DeBone said there are a lot of rural neighborhoods and marginal roads. He
agrees they should partner. Commissioner Unger feels the City needs to
understand the need as well, and recognize the County’s expectations of
them.
Commissioner Baney knows there is a lot of struggles with affordable
housing, which tends to be on the outskirts, but those people also need
transportation. Chair DeBone supports $10,000 for a two-year period but
not have it become a core responsibility of the County.
BANEY: Move submittal of $10,000 into the grant application, with the
City matching it at $2,500 per year.
UNGER: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
UNGER: Yes.
DEBONE: Chair votes yes.
Commissioner Baney wants to put pressure on the City to come up with
funds to participate.
Being no other items brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
11:35 p.m.
DATED this ! ( :!:.-Day of mdlU ;.?'--2015 for the
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners.
Anthony DeBone, Chair
Alan Unger, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
~~
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Board of Commissioners ' Business Meeting Monday, March 2, 2015
Page 13 of 13
LEGISLATIVE HEARING OPENING PROCESS:
1. CHAIR: "This is the time and place set for a hearing on ordinance 2014-02. The County file
number is TA-14-2."
2. CHAIR to CDD staff: "Staff will outline the hearing procedures that will be followed."
3. COD STAFF informs the audience as follows:
• The hearings body -the Board of County Commissioners, in this case -will take
testimony and receive written evidence concerning Ordinance 2014-02.
• The ordinance proposes to amend Deschutes County Code 18.32.030 adding a new
manufactured home/recreational vehicle park as a new use to the title.
• All testimony shall be directed to the hearings body
• At the conclusion of this hearing the hearings body will deliberate towards a decision
or continue the hearing or deliberations to a date and time certain
• The hearing will proceed as follows:
o staff will provide a brief report
o the applicant will present its testimony and evidence
o the opponent (and/or proponent) will present its testimony and evidence
o any other interested persons will then present testimony or evidence
o the applicant, as the party bearing the burden of proof, will then be afforded
an opportunity to present rebuttal testimony
4. COD STAFF: "A full written version of the hearing procedures is available at the table at the
side of the room."
5. COD STAFF: "Commissioners must disclose any conflicts of interest. Does any
Commissioner have anything to disclose and, if so, please state the nature of same and
whether you can proceed?"
6. BOARD: The hearings body discloses conflicts and states whether they are withdrawing
from the hearing or whether they intend to continue with the hearing.
7. COD STAFF: "Does any party wish to challenge any Commissioner (member of the hearings
body) based on conflicts?"
8. CHAIR: open the hearing and direct staff to proceed with brief staff report.
FILE NUMBER:
APPLICANT:
REQUEST:
STAFF CONTACT:
HEARING DATE:
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental 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/
STAFF REPORT
TA-14-2
Gary Knight
P.O. Box 6147
Bend, OR 97708
Text Amendment to Deschutes County Code (DCC), Title 18, Chapter
18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone (MUA-10) to allow new
manufactured home parks.
Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner
Wednesday, March 4,2015
The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board) will hold a public hearing on March 4,
2015 at the Deschutes Service Center, starting at 10:00 a.m. to consider legislative text
amendments to Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 18.1
ISSUE:
Shall the Board adopt text amendments to allow the possibility of new manufactured home
parks in the MUA-10 zone (Attachment 2).
RECOMMENDATION:
TA-14 was reviewed by the Deschutes County Planning Commission. They recommended
approval of the proposed text amendment on October 9, 2014, finding it to be consistent with
the MUA-10 zone, as well as with the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan (Attachment 4).
BACKGROUND:
Applicant Gary Knight owns property immediately adjacent to the Bend Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB) that is zoned MUA-10. Mr. Knight would like to establish a new manufactured home park
on his MUA-10 zoned property, 17-12-9A, 200, 300, 400, 500 (Attachment 5). Currently DCC
Chapter 18.32 (MUA-10 Zone) does not provide for or allow a new manufactured home park.
This prohibition is not based on any specific State regulation, or County Comprehensive Plan
policy. A new manufactured home park does however, require the approval of an exception to
1 A public notice, announcing the March 4th Board hearing was published in the Bulletin on February 9, 2015.
Quality Services Performed 'With Pride
Statewide Planning Goal 14, Urbanization, as specified under Oregon Administrative Rules 660
004-0040(7}(g}, which states:
"In rural residential areas, the establishment of a new mobile home park or
manufactured home park as defined in ORS 446.003(32} shall be considered an
urban use if the density of manufactured dwellings in the park exceeds the
density for residential development set by this rule's requirements for minimum
lot and parcel sizes. Such a park may be established only if an exception Goal
14 is taken."
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT:
The applicant proposes to add the following use to the list of Conditional Uses Permitted under
DCC 18.32.030 (DO):
A new manufactured home/recreational vehicle park subject to Oregon
Administrative Rules 660-004-040(7)(g) on property adjacent to an existing
manufactured home/recreational vehicle park, and that is also adjacent to the
City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary. Any new park shall have no more than 10
dwelling units.
The uses currently listed under DCC 18.32.030 as DO through GG would also be changed to
EE through HH (Attachment 2).
Staff believes that the proposed language in the text amendment requiring that the new park be
located adjacent to the City of Bend Urban Growth Boundary limits any new proposed
manufactured home/recreational vehicle park to Knight's property, as well as to the Department
of State Lands property that was recently rezoned to MUA-10.2 Staff is not aware of any other
property adjacent to the Bend UGB, zoned MUA-10, that is also adjacent to an existing
manufactured home park.
Any proposed new park would be subject to a Comprehensive Plan amendment for an
exception to Statewide Planning Goal No. 14, Urbanization, followed by approval of a
Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan review.
CRITERIA:
Deschutes County lacks specific criteria in DCC Titles 18, 22, or 23 for reviewing a legislative
amendment. Since this is applicant initiated, there is a responsibility for justifying that the
amendments are consistent with the purpose statement of the MUA-10 zone, Deschutes
County's Comprehensive Plan, and DCC 18.136.010, Amendments (Attachment 3).
2 The DSL property is across the street from the Sunset View manufactured home park that is located on the west
side of 27th Street.
TA-14-2 Staff Report Page 2
5
Attachments:
1. Ordinance 2015-02
2. Ordinance 2015-02, Exhibit A (Text Amendment)
3. Ordinance 2015-02, Exhibit B (Proposed Findings)
4. Planning Commission October 9,2014 meeting minutes
Maps of Subject Property
TA-14-2 Staff Report Page 3
III
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code *
Title 18 to Add a Manufactured HomelRecreational * ORDINANCE NO. 2015-02
Vehicle Park Use to DCC 18.32.030. *
WHEREAS, Gary Knight applied for an Ordinance Text Amendment (Planning Division File No. TA
14-2) to the Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 18, Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone, to add a
Manufactured HomelRecreational Vehicle Park as a conditional use under DCC 18.32.030; and
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Planning Commission reviewed the proposed changes on October 9,
2014 and forwarded to the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners (Board), a recommendation of approval;
and
WHEREAS, The Board considered this matter after a duly noticed public hearing on March 4, 2015,
and concluded that the public will benefit from the proposed changes to DCC Title 18; now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
as follows:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC Chapter 18.32 is amended to read as described in Exhibit "A,"
attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined.
Section 2. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as it findings in support of this Ordinance Exhibit "B,"
attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
PAGE 1 OF2-0RDINANCENO.2015-02(2/25/15)
Dated this of 2015 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS --------,
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ANTHONY DEBONE, CHAIR
ALAN UNGER, VICE CHAIR
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary TAMMY BANEY, COMMISSIONER
Date of 1st Reading: day of _____, 2015.
Date of 2 nd Reading: __day 2015.
Record of Adoption Vote
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Anthony DeBone
Alan Unger
Tammy Baney
Effective date: day 2015.-----,
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
PAGE 2 OF 2 -ORDINANCE NO. 2015-02 (2/25/15)
Chapter 18.32. MULTIPLE USE AGRICULTURAL ZONE -MUA
18.32.010. Purpose.
18.32.020. Uses Permitted Outright.
18.32.030. Conditional Uses Permitted.
18.32.035. Destination Resorts.
18.32.040. Dimension Standards.
18.32.050. Yards.
18.32.060. Stream Setbacks.
18.32.070. Rimrock Setback.
18.32.010. Purpose.
The purposes of the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone are to preserve the rural character of various
areas of the County while permitting development consistent with that character and with the
capacity of the natural resources ofthe area; to preserve and maintain agricultural lands not suited to
full-time commercial farming for diversified or part-time agricultural uses; to conserve forest lands
for forest uses; to conserve open spaces and protect natural and scenic resources; to maintain and
improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the County; to establish standards and
procedures for the use of those lands designated unsuitable for intense development by the
Comprehensive Plan, and to provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land
use.
(Ord. 95-075 § 1, 1995)
18.32.020. Uses Permitted Outright.
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright:
A. Agricultural uses as defined in DCC Title 18.
I
B. A single family dwelling, or a manufactured home subject to DCC 18.116.070.
C. Propagation or harvesting of a forest product.
I D. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as part of a land partition, subdivision or
subject to the standards and criteria established by DCC 18.116.230.
E. Class III road or street project.
F. Noncommercial horse stables, excluding horse events.
G. Horse events, including associated structures, involving:
1. Fewer than 10 riders;
2. Ten to 25 riders, no more than two times per month on nonconsecutive days; or
3. More than 25 riders, no more than two times per year on nonconsecutive days.
Incidental musical programs are not included in this definition. Overnight stays by participants,
trainers or spectators in RVs on the premises is not an incident of such horse events.
H. Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation
District except as provided in DCC 18.120.050.
J. Type 1 Home Occupation, subject to OCC 18.1 16.280.
(Ord. 2004-002 §3, 2004; Ord. 2001-039 §2, 2001; Ord. 2001-016 §2, 2001; Ord. 94-008 §10,
1994; Ord. 93-043 §4, 1993; Ord. 93-001 §I, 1993; Ord. 91-038 §1, 1991; Ord. 9\-020 §1, 1991;
Ord. 91-005 §18, 1991; Ord. 91-002 §6, 1991)
18.32.030. Conditional Uses Permitted.
The following uses may be allowed subject to DCC 18.128:
Exhibit A to Ordinance 2015-02 (03/2015)
A. Public use.
B. Semipublic use.
e. Commercial activities in conjunction with farm use. The commercial activity shall be
associated with a farm use occurring on the parcel where the commercial use is proposed. The
commercial activity may use, process, store or market farm products produced in Deschutes
County or an adjoining County.
D. Dude ranch.
E. Kennel and/or veterinary clinic.
F. Guest house.
G. Manufactured home as a secondary accessory farm dwelling, subject to the requirements set
forth in DCC 18.116.070.
H. Exploration for minerals.
I. Private parks, playgrounds, hunting and fishing preserves, campgrounds, motorcycle tracks and
other recreational uses.
J. Personal use landing strip for airplanes and helicopter pads, including associated hangar,
maintenance and service facilities. No aircraft may be based on a personal-use landing strip
other than those owned or controlled by the owner of the airstrip. Exceptions to the activities
permitted under this definition may be granted through waiver action by the Aeronautics
Division in specific instances. A personal use landing strip lawfully existing as of September 1,
1975, shall continue to be permitted subject to any applicable regulations of the Aeronautics
Division.
K. Golf courses.
L. Type 2 or Type 3 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280.
M. A facility for primary processing of forest products, provided that such facility is found to not
seriously interfere with accepted farming practices and is compatible with farm uses described
in ORS 215.203(2). Such a facility may be approved for a one-year period which is renewable.
These facilities are intended to be only portable or temporary in nature. The primary processing
of a forest product, as used in DCC 18.32.030, means the use of a portable chipper or stud mill
or other similar method of initial treatment of a forest product in order to enable its shipment to
market. Forest products, as used in DCC 18.32.030, means timber grown upon a parcel of land
or contiguous land where the primary processing facility is located.
N. Destination resorts.
O. Planned developments.
P. Cluster developments.
Q. Landfills when a written tentative approval by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
of the site is submitted with the conditional use application.
R. Time-share unit or the creation thereof.
S. Hydroelectric facility, subject to DCC 18.116.130 and 18.128.260.
T. Storage, crushing and processing of minerals, including the processing of aggregate into
asphaltic concrete or portland cement concrete, when such uses are in conjunction with the
maintenance or construction of public roads or highways.
U. Bed and breakfast inn.
V. Excavation, grading and fill and removal within the bed and banks of a stream or river or in a
wetland subject to DCC 18.120.050 and 18.128.270.
W. Churches, subjectto DCC 18.124 and 18.128.080.
X. Private or public schools, including all buildings essential to the operation of such a schooL
Y. Utility facility necessary to serve the area subject to the provisions ofDCC 18.124.
Z. Cemetery, mausoleum or crematorium.
AA. Commercial horse stables.
BB. Horse events, including associated structures, not allowed as a permitted use in this zone.
Exhibit A to Ordinance 2015-02 (03/2015)
cc. A new manufactured bome/recreational vebicle park, subject to Oree.on Administrative
Rules 660-004-0040(7)(g), on property adjacent to an existing manufactured
bome/recreational vebicle park, and adjacent to tbe Bend Urban Growtb Boundary, Any
new park sball bave no more tban 10 dwelling units.
DO. Manufactured home park or recreational vehicle park on a parcel in use as a manufactured
home park or recreational vehicle park prior to the adoption of PL-15 in 1979 and being
operated as of June 12, 1996, as a manufactured home park or recreational vehicle park,
including any expansion of such uses on the same parcel, as configured on June 12, 1996.
EE. The full or partial conversion from a manufactured home park or recreational vehicle park
described in DCC 18.32.030 (CC) to a manufactured home park or recreational vehicle park on
the same parcel, as configured on June 12 1996.
FF. Wireless telecommunications facilities, except those facilities meeting the requirements ofDCC
18.116.250(A) or (B).
FF. Guest lodge.
GG. Surface mining of mineral and aggregate resources in conjunction with the operation and
maintenance of irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District, including the excavation
and mining for facilities, ponds, reservoirs, and the off-site use, storage, and sale of excavated
material.
(Ord. 2009-018 § 1,2009; Ord. 2004-002 §4, 2004; Ord. 2001-039 §2, 2001; Ord. 2001-016 §2,
2001; Ord. 97-063 §3, 1997; Ord. 97-029 §2, 1997; Ord. 97-017 §2, 1997; Ord. 96-038 §1, 1996;
Ord. 94-053 §2, 1994; Ord. 94-008 § 11, 1994; Ord. 93-043 §§4A and B, 1993; Ord. 92-055 §2,
1992; Ord. 91-038 §1, 1991; Ord. 91-020 §I, 1991; Ord. 90-014 §§27 and 35, 1990; Ord. 91-005
§§19 and 20, 1991; Ord. 91-002 §7, 1991; Ord. 86-018 §7, 1986; Ord. 83-033 §2, 1983; Ord.
80-206 §3, 1980)
18.32.035. Destination Resorts.
Destination resorts may be allowed as a conditional use, subject to all applicable standards of the
DR Zone.
(Ord. 92-004 §4, 1992)
18.32.040. Dimensional Standards.
In an MUA Zone, the following dimensional standards shall apply:
A. The minimum lot size shall be to acres, except planned and cluster developments shall be
allowed an equivalent density of one unit per seven and one-half acres and planned and cluster
developments within one mile of an acknowledged urban growth boundary shall be allowed a
five acre minimum Jot size or equivalent density.
B. The minimum average lot width shall be 100 feet and the minimum street frontage 50 feet.
C. The minimum average lot depth shall be 150 feet.
D. Building height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in
height, except as allowed by OCC 18.120.040.
(Ord. 2006-008 §4, 2006; Ord. 92-055 §3, 1992; Ord. 91-020 § 1, 1991)
18.32.050. Yards.
A. The front yard setback from the property line shall be a minimum of 20 feet for property
fronting on a local street right of way, 30 feet from a property line fronting on a collector right
of way, and 80 feet from an arterial right of way unless other provisions for combining accesses
are provided and approved by the County.
B. Each side yard shall be a minimum of20 feet. For parcels or lots created before November I,
1979, which are one-half acre or less in size, the side yard setback may be reduced to a
Exhibit A to Ordinance 2015-02 (03/2015)
minimum of 10 feet. For parcels or lots adjacent to property receiving special assessment for
fann use, the adjacent side yard for a dwelling shall be a minimum of 100 feet.
C. Rear yards shall be a minimum of 25 feet. Parcels or lots with rear yards adjacent to property
receiving special assessment for fann use, the rear yards for a dwelling shall be a minimum of
100 feet.
D. The setback from the north lot line shall meet the solar setback requirements in DCC
18.116.180. E. In addition to the setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks required by
applicable building or structural codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the County under
DCC 15.04 shall be met.
(Ord. 2005-011 §1, 2005; Ord. 94-008 §17, 1994; Ord. 91-020 §1, 1991; Ord. 88-021 §1, 1988;
Ord. 83-037 §9, 1983)
18.32.060. Stream Setbacks.
To pennit better light, air, vision, stream pollution control, fish and wildlife areas and to preserve
the natural scenic amenities and vistas along the streams and lakes, the following setbacks shall
apply:
A. All sewage disposal installations, such as septic tanks and septic drainfields, shall be set back
from the ordinary high water mark along all streams or lakes a minimum of 100 feet, measured
at right angles to the ordinary high water mark. In those cases where practical difficulties
preclude the location of the facilities at a distance of 100 feet and the County Sanitarian finds
that a closer location will not endanger health, the Planning Director or Hearings Body may
penn it the location of these facilities closer to the stream or lake, but in no case closer than 25
feet.
B. All structures, buildings or similar pennanent fixtures shall be set back from the ordinary high
water mark along all streams or lakes a minimum of 100 feet measured at right angles to the
ordinary high water mark.
(Ord. 91-020 § 1, 1991)
18.32.070. Rimrock Setback.
Setbacks from rimrock shall be as provided in DCC 18.116.160.
(Ord. 86-053 §6, 1986)
Exhibit A to Ordinance 2015-02 (03/2015)
EXHIBIT "B"
FILE NUMBER:
TA-14-2
APPLICANT:
Gary Knight
REVIEW CRITERIA AND FINDINGS:
Legislative text amendments are subject to Chapter 22.12 of Title 22 of the Deschutes County
Code. DCC 22.12.010 specifies that no legislative changes shall be adopted without review by
the Planning Commission and a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. A
work session before the Planning Commission was conducted on Thursday, June 12,2014, and
public hearings before the Planning Commission were held on July 10, August 28, and October
9,2014.
DCC 22.12.030 specifies that initiation of a legislative change may be initiated by application of
individuals upon payment of required fees. The applicant paid the required text amendment fee.
DCC 22.12.050 states that all legislative changes shall be adopted by ordinance. If the
proposed language is approved by the Board of County Commissioners, an ordinance will be
drafted for their adoption.
Statewide Planning Goals
The following Statewide Planning Goals that could apply to the proposed text amendment are:
Goal 1, Citizen Involvement. To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the
opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
The public hearing process for the proposed text amendment meets the goal of having citizen
involvement. Notice was published in the Bulletin newspaper, and citizens were allowed to
testify at the public hearing in front of the Planning Commission, as well as in front of the Board
of County Commissioners.
Goal 2, Land Use Planning. To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as
a basis for all decisions and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual
base for such decisions and actions.
The County has established a text amendment process under the DCC Chapter 22.12,
Legislative Procedures. This includes review of the proposed ordinance text amendment by the
Planning Commission, and a public hearing in front of the Board of County Commissioners. In
this instance, there was also a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission.
Goal 10, Housing. To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2015-02
The applicant has indicated that the proposed use of the property for a new manufactured home
park will provide some much needed low income housing for people in the area.
Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services. To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural
development.
The applicant believes that with the existing facilities already in place (water, electric, phone),
for his property, there will be an orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and
services. These utilities can be expanded to serve any new manufactured homes.
Goal 12, Transportation. To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system.
The applicant has ~greed to limit the number of dwelling units on his property to 10 units, which
combined with the three units already existing on the property, would mean 7 new units,
resulting in 35 average daily trips. No
Goal 14, Urbanization. To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land
use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth boundaries,
to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable communities.
As indicated above, in order to establish a new manufactured home park in the MUA-10 zone,
an exception to Goal 14, Urbanization, would be required. The normal density allowed in the
MUA-10 zone would be one dwelling per 10 acres. The applicant would have to qualify for a
goal exception under a separate application in order to establish a manufactured home park on
his property. Any other proposed new manufactured home park in the MUA-10 zone would also
require a Goal 14 exception.
Conformance with the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
Chapter 1, Comprehensive Planning
Section 1.2, Community Involvement Policies
Goal 1, Maintain an active and open community involvement program that is accessible to all
members of the community and engages the community during development and
implementation of land use policies and codes.
Policy 1.2.2, the Planning Commission will be the Committee for Community Involvement, with
County Support.
Policy 1.2.3, Encourage community participation in planning through a variety of tools and
techniques, including:
a. Post all planning applications, decisions, projects and plans on the County website;
b. Provide staff reports for comprehensive plan and zoning text amendments to the public
in a timely manner.
EXHIBIT uB" TO ORDINANCE 2015-02
e. Require pre-application meetings for comprehensive plan and zoning text amendments;
FINDING: The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on the proposed text
amendment, and the Board of County Commissioners will also conduct a public hearing on the
text amendment. The ordinance text amendment application is on the County's website. The
applicant conducted a pre-application meeting with staff.
Section 1.3, Land Use Planning Policies
Goal 1, Maintain an open and public land use process in which decisions are based on the
objective collection of facts.
Policy 1.3.2, Consider sustainability and cumulative impacts when creating and revising land
use policies and regulations
FINDING: A new park will need to be reviewed through conditional use permit and site plan
review applications, which would look at cumulative impacts.
Policy 1.3.3, Involve the public when amending County Code.
FINDING: The public is invited to attend the public hearings, which are open for anyone to
provide written and/or oral testimony.
Chapter 2, Resource Management
Section 2.5, Water Resource Policies
Goal 6, Coordinate land use and water policies
Policy 2.5.24, Ensure water impacts are reviewed and, if necessary, addressed for significant
land uses or developments.
FINDING: Any proposed creation of a new park, will require review by the affected agencies,
such as the Oregon Water Resources Department, Oregon Health Division, and the County
Environmental Health Division. Depending upon the size of a new park, the use may not be
considered significant.
Section 2.7, Open Spaces, Scenic Views and Sites Policies
Goal 1, Coordinate with property owners to ensure protection of significant open spaces and
scenic views and sites.
Policy 2.7.5, Encourage new development to be sensitive to scenic views and sites.
FINDING: The applicant ha\s property that is adjacent to Highway 97, a designated landscape
management corridor. As part of any review, Staff would require an applicant to retain as much
natural vegetation as possible to help preserve scenic views and sites.
Chapter 3, Rural Growth Management
Section 3.3, Rural Housing Policies
EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2015-02
Goal 1, Maintain the rural character and safety of housing in unincorporated Deschutes County.
Policy 3.3.5, Maintain the rural character of the County while ensuring a diversity of housing
opportunities, including initiating discussions to amend State Statute and/or Oregon
Administrative Rules to permit accessory dwelling units in Exclusive Farm Use, Forest and
Rural Residential zones.
FINDING: The applicant is attempting to broaden the diversity of housing opportunities by
providing a lower income version of housing (manufactured homes or RV's). Staff believes that
with the limited number of existing parks in the county, combined with the difficulty of
establishing new parks (Goal 14 exception), the rural character of the County will be maintained.
Section 3.6, Public Facilities and Services Policies
Goal 1, Support the orderly, efficient and cost-effective siting of rural public facilities and
services.
Policy 3.6.8, Coordinate with rural service districts and providers to ensure new development is
reviewed with consideration of service districts and providers needs and capabilities.
FINDING: When a land use application has been submitted, staff notifies affected agencies of
the proposal, and solicits comments from them. Staff would also require "will serve" letters from
these service providers as part of the land use process.
Policy 3.6.9, New development shall address impacts on existing facilities and plans through the
land use entitlement process.
FINDING: An applicant for proposing a new park, would be required to address the existing and
future capabilities of the service providers, and obtain will serve letters from the affected
agencies.
Title18 of the Deschutes County Code
Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use Agricultural Zone
Section 18.32.010, Purpose
The purposes of the Multiple Use Agricultural Zone are to preserve the rural character of various
areas of the County while permitting development consistent with that character and with the
capacity of the natural resources of the area; to preserve and maintain agricultural lands not
suited to full-time commercial farming or diversified or part-time agricultural uses; to conserve
forest lands for forest uses; to conserve open spaces and protect natural and scenic resources;
to maintain and improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the County; to
establish standards and procedures for the use of those lands designated unsuitable for intense
development by the Comprehensive Plan and to provide for an orderly and efficient transition
from rural to urban land use.
FINDING: The applicant is requesting approval to amend the zoning ordinance to allow for
additional living units (either manufactured homes or recreational vehicles), which can provide
for lower income housing. The applicant would like to try and establish a new manufactured
EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE 2015-02
home park. The applicant's property is located between Highway 97 and the rail road tracks,
which would not be desirable for most types of residential units. This property is also adjacent
to the existing urban growth boundary for Bend. A manufactured home park on the applicant's
property would appear to foster an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land use.
Chapter 18.136, Amendments
Section 18.136.010, Amendments
DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The procedures for text or
legislative map changes shall be as set forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner for a
quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms provided
by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of DCC Title 22.
FINDING: The applicant is proposing a legislative amendment to the Deschutes County Code,
as the effect of the amendment would potentially apply to other manufactured home/recreational
vehicle parks in the County zoned MUA-10. As stated in a foregoing finding, the proposed
amendment requires review by the County Planning Commission, and a public hearing in 'front
of the Board of County Commissioners. A public hearing in front of the Planning Commission
was also conducted on this request.
EXHIBIT uB" TO ORDINANCE 2015-02
__________ .....~~.jiijfIIIII
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
~l~~i··'
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
MINUTES
DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER
1300 NWWALLSTREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701
OCTOBER 9,2014 -5:30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Christen Brown. Members present were
Vice Chair Hugh Palcic, James Powell, Todd Turner, Ed Criss, Susan Tunno and Steve
Swisher. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Gutowsky, Principal
Planner; Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner; Matt Martin, Associate Planner; and Sher Buckner,
Administrative Secretary.
Minutes of September 25,2014 were approved.
II. PUBLIC HEARING (continued): TA-14-2 -Text Amendment to Chapter 18.32, Multiple Use
Agricultural Zone (MUA-10) and Section 18.128.050 of Title 18 of the Deschutes County
Code (DCC) to allow the potential for the creation of new manufactured home parks in the
MUA-10 zone, and lessen the requirements for expansion of existing manufactured home
parks in the same zone -Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner
Paul summarized the application to date and presented slides with revised language.
Commissioner Powell and Paul discussed the new language and proposed elimination of
some of the criteria within the conditional use parameters for mobile home parks for
expansions.
Public Testimony
Jon Jinings testified on behalf of the Department of Land Conservation & Development.
Regarding manufactured parks in existing rural residential areas, there is an opportunity to
establish them (and existing parks can remain). He discussed Goal 14 exceptions
necessary for urban uses on rural lands.
Nick said this is a Text Amendment which may be adopted into County Code, so everyone
needs to be informed and aware of next steps. Chair Brown said he recalled that the City of
Bend's Urban Growth Boundary process would take about three more years, and Nick said
they were still on schedule. If there are no appeals, it could be acknowledged as early as
the end of 2016. In this process currently under discussion, it would be sooner.
Alex Robertson testified on behalf of Juniper and Hilltop Mobile Home Parks. Most mobile
home parks were constructed in the 1960s and 1970s and were built closely together. They
are proposing that if one wants to expand an existing park in this type of zone, they should
only have to deal with meeting current Code standards for newly developed pads. It is
impossible to meet standards for pads that have existed for 45 years.
Commissioner Tunno asked if they have thought about subdividing the property, partitioning
off the old parcel and making two parks -old and new. Alex said the problem is the use of
the road system, water systems, etc. You would be expanding the old parks' systems.
Commissioner Tunno asked if they were going to use the existing septic system. Alex said
they would expand that, maybe add another 10,000 gallon tank depending on how many
spaces they add, maybe five-seven max. The existing septic system has been updated but
was built in the 1970s. It has not been evaluated; as something does not work, it is replaced
on an as-needed basis. Currently there are several tanks of different capacities.
Commissioner Tunno asked if they had determined where new tanks would go, and Alex
said not yet.
Commissioner Tunno and Alex discussed difficulties with the topography in complying with
some of the other items such as parking. Commissioner Powell said he had driven through
the park and it would be very difficult to get everyone out in the event of a fire. He and Alex
discussed how to improve the safety of the park with the addition of seven more spaces.
Alex said a new access could be considered and they are looking at how much of an
expansion can take place with the current septic system versus upgrading. There are 11
parks in the County and none of them have applied to expand because it is impossible, due
to Section Q.
Chair Brown asked Paul to discuss a statement Alex had made regarding expansion under
the existing Code and having to reduce density. Paul said he had also driven through the
two parks Alex represents. The homes are very close together, and under the current
language they would have to start over with density.
Gary Knight said he did not have anything to add unless someone had a question.
Paul and Commissioner Turner discussed the intent of the original proposal, which was to
erase Section Q; the current proposal is to add the language as indicated in tonight's slide
presentation. Commissioner Turner asked what happens to Sections A through 0 which
discuss lighting, sanitation, roadway widths, etc., and Paul said they remain as they are.
Commissioner Powell asked Nick if we could see if the Commission would entertain a
motion to divide the proposal back into two applications. We would have to accept the
motion, deliberate, etc. If we do not reach consensus on part of the issue, what happens?
Nick said this is effectively legislation on the floor and they can recommend as they wish.
Some recommendations may be supported or not supported by the Commissioners, or they
can be modified. If we keep this as one application, they have great flexibility on a
recommendation to the Board. Commissioner Powell said that once the hearing is closed,
staff cannot make changes; Nick said we would take to the Board whatever the
Commissioners recommend. Once it gets there, new information or concepts can be
considered and we can present those to the Board if they are not too substantial.
Legislation can change throughout the entire process.
2
Motion: Commissioner Powell motioned to close the public hearing. Seconded by
Commissioner Criss. Motion passed.
Deliberation: Commissioner Powell felt that dividing the proposal is not necessary, and the
parts can be dealt with separately. Commissioner Palcic wondered if other items should be
considered, such as the park providing space for 50 or more units (they are then required to
have street names). Commissioner Powell said the second proposal is County wide. The
language in the first one has been narrowed down to affect only this one park adjacent to the
UGB.
Chair Brown suggested discussing Gary's piece of the proposal first. Commissioner
Swisher said he was in favor of that portion of the proposal. Commissioner Criss agreed.
Commissioner Turner agreed, although combining these proposals has made it a messier
process. Commissioner Powell said his only concern is the limitation to ten units. Is there
any need to exclude that limitation? Chair Brown said it is a transportation trigger and asked
Paul to comment about instances where it would not be applicable for a new park. Paul said
part of this application has to address the Transportation Planning Rule. Under this
proposal, if more than ten are proposed, a study must be done.
Commissioner Powell asked, if a park is established adjacent to the UGB without limits on the
numbers of units -if that text amendment exists -if the mere application triggers the TPR? If
Gary submits a conditional use application for ten or less units, it does not trigger the TPR?
Paul said yes. What if someone else wants to do this for more than ten units and is willing to
do TPR? Paul said they could apply for their own text amendment down the road.
Commissioner Powell and Peter Gutowsky discussed the text amendment needing to have
the ten-unit number because of a LUBA decision on a Willamette Oaks property. When
there is a text amendment, it has to demonstrate compliance with the applicable statewide
planning rules and TPR. It is very difficult to predict when the UGB will be finalized. The
application has chosen to limit this to ten units so they don't have to address TPR. This is
the only area adjoining the existing UGB that would be contemplated for a mobile home
park. Commissioner Powell and Peter discussed triggers for TPR and how to comply.
Commissioner Turner asked if the parcel has to both be adjacent to the UGB and an
existing mobile home park, and Paul said that in this instance, yes.
Commissioner Brown and Commissioner Criss discussed the second application.
Commissioner Criss said that if all we are discussing is not bringing the old park up to new
standards, and if conditional use will handle access for fire and other issues, then really all
we are talking about is not having to bring the old park up to snuff so they can add some
units, but the details will be dealt with. He does not have a problem with this because the
only way you could bring the whole park up to DEQ, etc., standards is to move everyone
one which makes no sense. Peter said that the moment the existing park submits an
application to expand on their parent parcel, the DEQ will require them to demonstrate that
their existing wastewater system is functioning or repair it; they will have to designate a
reserve area because systems have life spans. The County does not have the ability to
waive the Administrative Rule and must follow DEQ requirements. The fire department
would receive notice about the conditional use application and site plan; they may bring up
issues associated with secondary access, fire flows, which would have to be resolved. Paul
said we would have a pre-existing application meeting and the applicant would have to go to
3
the fire department to find out its requirements. Nick said if they did not comply, it would go
to a public hearing.
Commissioner Turner said he has a problem with the second part of the application -he
heard that this expansion would not go through a Goal 14 exception process and this is a
big change. This is a County-wide text amendment and could apply to many more units
than this one. There is a need for low-income and workforce housing, and it needs to be
safe and in a healthy environment. When he considers water, fire protection, utilities, roads,
from the applicant's testimony, there will be a sharing of those to make this work and he
cannot support it.
Chair Brown asked about the current rule for density in a manufactured home park. Paul
said that there is a maximum density in the Code -12 per each acre of the total acres in the
park. Commissioner Powell and Chair Brown discussed voting and that the applicant can
still go back to COD for help working their way through this process. Chair Brown said that,
although Nick indicated the Commissioner could change this, he was not comfortable doing
that. Commissioner Turner also said that he was concerned about dealing the other
sections a well as Section Q and imposing public safety hazards to park residents - a
contradiction when the language is read.
Nick said a recommendation could be forwarded with a vote to strike Alex's proposal. Peter
wanted to emphasize the magnitude of this recommendation. If the Commissioners
recommend approve of Gary's proposal only, and Alex has to apply for a totally new text
amendment not coupled with Gary's application, it puts staff in an awkward position. What
does de-coupling do? If Alex wants to re-visit his application, then it would be a totally new
application? Nick said the Board would have to decide whether to accept or modify it and
Alex could engage the Board at that time.
Commissioner Powell reiterated that the Planning Division combined these applications
initially and so must assume responsibility. Commissioner Powell suggested changing
"neutral" to "no."
Motion: Commissioner Swisher motioned to recommend approval of Gary's application to
the Board and remain neutral on Alex's (no recommendation). Seconded by Commissioner
Criss. Motion did not pass.
Motion: Commissioner Powell motioned to recommend approval of Gary's application to
the Board and recommend denial of Alex's. Motion passed.
III. WORK SESSION: AGRICULTURAL lANDS/NEXT STEPS -Nick Lelack, Director; Peter
Gutowsky, Planning Manager; Matt Martin, Associate Planner
Peter gave a summary of the next steps and what we have heard from the community. At
the next meeting, we will bring information about the types of dwellings that have been
approved in EFU areas in the last ten years -statistics and mapping. We would like to
show you where those, as well as farm dwellings, have been approved. After that, we would
come back with an initial amendment to work on. We may want to draft policies that inform
House Bill 229 eventually. Nick added that we can also discuss how this process works.
Commissioner Turner said he had a partner in the firm who went through the conditional use
process recently. She said the process was great and valuable as well, because now she
4
--
Ci .ty
of
Bend
Legend Text Amendment TA-14-2
D Subject Property Boundary Applicant: Gary Knight o Urban Growth Boundary
County Zoning
MUA 10 -Multiple Use Agricultural ®
=.":::=:.::.._:::,.,,,:~..=;:;:o::.,,=1IiJI
UAR10 -Urban Area Reserve -10Acre Minimum o 150 300 600 900 ===..:-.:..-:-:=.:====~---..-..~.......-...-.........
~~_iiiiil-I"''''_iiiiiII'''lIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIII~~~iiiiilj F eel --_..__......-.--..
~_...-._~,~""'... ..--.......
February 2. 2015
2002
1li~S MAP WAS PREPAREO f Oft
ASSESSMENT PURPOSE ONLY N .E.1/4 SEC .9 T 17S . R.12E . WM . 171209AO
12;412012 DESCHUTES COUNTY &INDEX
,. = 20q ~ )) m·~"I"~
--~t~~-----------!I ""'~'1:
I I:r~¥iO ' I i l
---ll-_________ I ~ . I
G
E
~
~
CENCQR J I
I
I
1
~'.~~~. ·r"·:~ .. ~. I ~--0!:!E --~. I ----!!! ... ~___ ,
ItoO ~----. I
",.9 ~7-""",~~ ,I ~~
;1 -L
P-F ~ ''':,\ '11
:~----I~ ~. l~
1-3 ~
T
\
...'0"~~ .::
)101.1.1
!J,~'I ,
' .>.. .
:$ ,
'~ ,CESCNJTES LEiM)A!'J.. GA.FtCENS /~ .. ,' 1CE-IoETEFtv / .~ f 1
;~t . I
/ .. SUZANNE LANE
... .,,'"
'~ 1';' :J:::'/ '" "
I''''' , f A "
Canc;aok.1 N~.
' 00OJ ,."so .
90 '
15"" ., '600
2.QOA. I
;:,
v.. COR
171209AO
& INDEX
LEGISLATIVE HEARING OPENING PROCESS:
1. CHAIR: “This is the time and place set for a hearing on ordinance 2014-02. The County file
number is TA-14-2.”
2. CHAIR to CDD staff: “Staff will outline the hearing procedures that will be followed.”
3. CDD STAFF informs the audience as follows:
The hearings body – the Board of County Commissioners, in this case - will take
testimony and receive written evidence concerning Ordinance 2014-02.
The ordinance proposes to amend Deschutes County Code 18.32.030 adding a new
manufactured home/recreational vehicle park as a new use to the title .
All testimony shall be directed to the hearings body
At the conclusion of this hearing the hearings body will deliberate towards a decision
or continue the hearing or deliberations to a date and time certain
The hearing will proceed as follows:
o staff will provide a brief report
o the applicant will present its testimony and evidence
o the opponent (and/or proponent) will present its testimony and evidence
o any other interested persons will then present testimony or evidence
o the applicant, as the party bearing the burden of proof, will then be afforded
an opportunity to present rebuttal testimony
4. CDD STAFF: “A full written version of the hearing procedures is available at the table at the
side of the room.”
5. CDD STAFF: “Commissioners must disclose any conflicts of interest. Does any
Commissioner have anything to disclose and, if so, please state the nature of same and
whether you can proceed?”
6. BOARD: The hearings body discloses conflicts and states whether they are withdrawing
from the hearing or whether they intend to continue with the hearing.
7. CDD STAFF: “Does any party wish to challenge any Commissioner (member of the hearings
body) based on conflicts?”
8. CHAIR: open the hearing and direct staff to proceed with brief staff report.
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental 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
DATE: January 14, 2015
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Anthony Raguine, Senior Planner
RE: January 26, 2015 Work Session Regarding Two Appeals of the Hearings Officer
Decision on a Tumalo Irrigation District Land Use Compatibility Statement (File
Nos. 247-14-000238-PS, 247-14-000274-A. 247-14-000452-A)
On January 29, 2015. the Board of County Commissioners (Board) has agreed to hear two
appeals of the Tumalo Irrigation District (TID) Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS) issued
by the Planning Division (Planning). One appeal was filed by Tumalo Irrigation District (TID).
The other appeal was filed by Thomas and Dorbina Bishop, Trustees of the Bishop Family Trust
(Bishops).
SUBJECT PROPERTY
The site associated with the LUCS is the former Klippel Mining Site (Site No. 294). It is
comprised of two tax lots, 824 and 828, and encompasses almost 69 acres of land. The subject
property is zoned Rural Residential (RR10). and portions of the property include the Landscape
Management (LM) combining zones associated with Johnson Road and Tumalo Creek.
Additionally. a large portion of the property is within the Wildlife Area (WA) combining zone
protecting Tumalo Deer Winter Range. The subject property is currently owned by KC
Development Group (KCDG).
To provide some perspective on the property, I've included three figures. Figure 1 delineates
the property and the extent of associated Landscape Management combining zones. Figure 2
is an aerial photograph taken on August 12, 2012. Figure 3 is an aerial photograph taken
January 12, 2015.
DEVELOPMENT ACTION VS LAND USE ACTION
Typically, a LUCS is treated as a development action. Under Deschutes County Code (DCC)
22.32.050, only the applicant and his/her representative have standing to appeal. In this case,
Planning decided to treat the LUCS as a land use action rather than a development action. As
a result, the LUCS is now subject to the noticing requirements and appeal procedures afforded
to land use actions.
Quality Services Performed 'with Pride
necessary to create them. Finally, any site activity was allowed under TU-14-8, a temporary
use permit to allow rock crushing on-site in association with private road maintenance and
landscaping. For these reasons, TID argues that its activities do not rise to the conditional use
described above.
RECREATIONAL USE
Under DCC 18.60.030(G), the following use is allowed with a conditional use
permit,
Recreation-oriented facility requiring large acreage such as off-road vehicle track
or race track, but not including rodeo grounds.
The record includes evidence that the southern reservoir was specifically designed for water
skiing, including its two turn-around islands, boat ramp, boat dock and pilings for a boat house.
There are also photos in the record depicting water skiing on the southern reservoir.
TID argues that the primary use is water storage, not recreational use. Additionally, TID argues
that the HO's definition of recreation is overly broad and creates an untenable precedent.
CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT
One of the questions posed to the HO was whether TID should be required to obtain conditional
use approval to establish a cluster subdivision in the RR10 zone. Although the HO found that
there is evidence in the record to suggest that the reservoirs would ultimately be a part of a
cluster subdivision in the future, the HO determined that a cluster subdivision would require
other components such as dwellings, utility infrastructure, streets, and water and sewer
systems. For this reason, the HO ruled that TID was not required to apply, and receive approval
for, a cluster subdivision as part of the creation of the reservoirs.
The Bishops note that the evidence in the record includes well drilling on-site for future
dwellings, the creation of a westerly road that will serve the subdivision, and statements by
KCDG to nearby residents of their plans for a future cluster subdivision. The Bishops argue that
this is sufficient evidence for the county to require a conditional use application for a cluster
subdivision.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Figure 1
2. Figure 2
3. Figure 3
4. Notice of Decision on the LUCS (247-14-000238-PS)
5. Hearings Officer decision on the LUCS
6. TID appeal
7. Bishop appeal
File No.: 247-14-000238-PS, 247-14-000274-A, 247-14-452-A Page 3 of3
Figure 1
247-14-000238-PS
247-14-000274-A
Subject Properties -17-11-13-00-00824, 00828
101212014
Question
Number Question/Issue Area Staff Comments BOCC Answer BOCC Next Step
Hearings Officer pointed to Curl v Deschutes County . LUBA found that simply
categorizing the use is a development action, regardless of the amount of discretion
necessary to categorize the use.
Development action Go to Question # 2
The Bishops argue that the discretion necessary to categorize the use makes the LUCS a
land use action.Land use action Go to Question # 3
TID argues that because the Planning Director found that the use is allowed without
review, the LUCS is expressly excluded from the statutory definition of land use
decision under ORS 197.015(10)(b)(H).
No
Since only TID has appeal rights to a
development action, the Bishops appeal
must be dismissed. Provide final county
sign-off of LUCS as is. No notice of the
decision to any other parties.
Hearings Officer pointed to Kuhn v Deschutes County. LUBA found that although the
Hearings Officer is not bound by the CDD Director's determination to treat a LUCS as a
land use action rather than a development action, nevertheless where the county
provided notice and the opportunity for local appeal, the appellants were entitled to
take advantage of that appeal.
Yes Go to Question # 3
Hearings Officer pointed to Curl v Deschutes County . LUBA found that omitting
components of a project is a mischaracterization of the use and that the omitted
components must be considered when characterizing the use.
Yes Go to Question # 4
TID argues that the reservoirs were essentially already on-site due to the previous
mining activity on the property.No Go to Question # 6
The "surface mining" requirement for a conditional use leaves open the possibility that
a reservoir could be created by non-surface mining means.No Go to Question # 5
Under the ordinary rules of statutory construction, where a use is specified as a
conditional use, it is prohibited as an outright permitted use.Yes Go to Question # 7
Hearings Officer found that the activity necessary to create the reservoirs goes beyond
the operation, maintenance, and piping of an existing irrigation system, and is not an
outright permitted use.
No Go to Question #'s 7, 8 & 9
TID argues the activity on-site is consistent with the operation, maintenance, and
piping of an existing irrigation system.Yes Issue LUCS as is, and provide notice of the
decision to those entitled to notice.
TID Land Use Compatibility Statement (LUCS)
Land Use File Nos. 247-14-000-238-PS, 247-14-000274-A, 247-14-000452-A, 247-14-000453-A
Is a LUCS sign-off a development action or a land use action?1
Did the Planning Director have the authority to treat the development action as a land use
action?2
Cells shaded blue
denote Hearings Officer
finding
The LUCS only identified the water right transfer. Should the LUCS have also identified the
creation of new reservoirs?3
Under DCC 18.60.020(I), the "Operation, maintenance, and piping of existing irrigation
systems operated by an Irrigation District ", is an outright permitted use. Is the water right
transfer and creation of new reservoirs an outright permitted use in the Rural Residential
(RR-10) Zone?
5
Under Deschutes County Code (DCC) 18.60.020(I), the "Operation, maintenance, and
piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District" is an outright
permitted use. Under DCC 18.60.030(W), "Surface mining…in conjunction with the
operation and maintenance of irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District,
including the excavation and mining for…reservoirs", is a conditional use. Since
"reservoirs" are specifically called out as a conditional use, does this expressly prohibit
creation of a reservoir as an outright permitted use?
4
The Notice of Decision issued by Planning characterized the water right transfer as an
outright permitted use. TID agrees.Yes Issue LUCS as is, and provide notice of the
decision to those entitled to notice.
Hearings Officer found that the activity necessary to create the reservoirs goes beyond
the operation, maintenance, and piping of an existing irrigation system, and is not an
outright permitted use.
No
If the use is not allowed outright under
DCC 18.60.020(I), what is the correct use
characterization? Go to Question #'s 7, 8
& 9.
Hearings Officer analyzed the definition of "surface mining" against the activity on-site,
considering Squaw Creek Irrigation District's text amendment to add both the outright
permitted use and the conditional use to the code. Hearings Officer found that the
activity to create the reservoirs does constitute surface mining requiring a conditional
use permit.
Yes
LUCS must be amended to indicate that
the use is allowed with conditional use
permit approval. Notice of the decision
must be provided to those entitled to
notice.
TID argues that the pits already exist on-site, and any additional earth movement was
the result of temporary use permit approval TU-14-8, which allowed rock crushing for
road maintenance and landscaping.
No
If the use is not allowed outright under
DCC 18.60.020(I), or conditionally under
DCC 18.60.030(W), what is the correct use
characterization?
Hearings Officer found that evidence in the record was sufficient to characterize the
use as a recreation facility. Evidence includes photos of water skiing, and design
elements of the reservoir such as a boat ramp, pilings for boat docks, and island turn-
arounds.
Yes
LUCS must be amended to indicate that
the use is allowed with conditional use
permit approval. Notice of the decision
must be provided to those entitled to
notice.
TID argues that the primary purpose of the reservoirs is to store water, and that water
skiing is a typical secondary use of reservoirs. No
If the use is not allowed outright under
DCC 18.60.020(I), or conditionally under
DCC 18.60.030(G), what is the correct use
characterization?
Hearings Officer found that a cluster subdivision would require additional components
such as roads and utilities, and would require additional land use approval beyond the
general conditional use approval - including conditional use criteria specific to cluster
subdivisions and tentative plan approval.
No Prepare LUCS based on BOCC answers to
previous matrix questions.
The Bishops state that the evidence in the record includes well drilling on-site for
future dwellings, the creation of a westerly road, and statements by the property
owner of a future cluster subidivision. The Bishops argue that this is sufficient to
require conditional use approval.
Yes
LUCS must be amended to indicate that
the use is allowed with conditional use
permit and tenative plan approval. Notice
of the decision must be provided to those
entitled to notice.
Cells shaded blue
denote Hearings Officer
finding
9 Under DCC 18.60.030(F), a "Cluster development", requires conditional use approval. Does
the creation of the reservoirs constitute the first phase of a future cluster subdivision?
Under Deschutes County Code (DCC) 18.60.020(I), the "Operation, maintenance, and
piping of existing irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District" is an outright
permitted use. Since the LUCS correctly identifies only the water right transfer, is the
water right transfer allowed outright Rural Residential (RR10) Zone?
6
Under DCC 18.60.030(W), "Surface mining…in conjunction with the operation and
maintenance of irrigation systems operated by an Irrigation District, including the
excavation and mining for…reservoirs", is a conditional use. Is the creation of new
reservoirs consistent with this conditional use characterization?
Under DCC 18.60.030(G), "Recreation oriented facility requiring large acreage such as off
road vehicle track or race track, but not including a rodeo grounds", is a conditional use.
Should the southern reservoir be characterized as a recreation-oriented facility?
8
7
Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 2, 2015
Page 1 of 5
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
10:00 A.M., WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2015
_____________________________
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
__________________________
1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
2. CITIZEN INPUT
This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's
discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Please complete a sign-up
card (provided), and give the card to the Recording Secretary. Use the microphone and
clearly state your name when the Board calls on you to speak.
PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject of a public
hearing will NOT be included in the official record of that hearing.
3. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Document No. 2015-118, an
Improvement Agreement between Deschutes County and Tetherow Rim LLC,
for Roads and Utilities in the 29-Lot Single Family Subdivision Granted
Approval under TP-14-1023 – Will Groves, Community Development
Suggested Actions: Move approval of Document No. 2015-118.
4. A PUBLIC HEARING and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No.
2015-002, a Code Amendment to Allow a New Manufactured Home/RV Park
in the MUA-10 Zone – Paul Blikstad, Community Development
Suggested Actions: Open hearing, take testimony; consider first reading of
Ordinance No. 2015-002.
Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 2, 2015
Page 2 of 5
5. DELIBERATIONS and Consideration of a Decision regarding Tumalo
Irrigation District’s Request for Approval of a Land Use Compatibility
Statement (LUCS) to Transfer Water Rights from Tumalo Creek to Reservoirs
on Private Property (Owner: KC Development Group LLC) – Anthony Raguine,
Community Development
Suggested Action(s): Deliberate; consider a decision.
CONSENT AGENDA
6. Board Signature of Letters regarding Howell’s Hilltop Acres Special Road
District: Accepting the Resignation of Gary Ollerenshaw and Thanking him for
his Service; and appointing Bill Welch, through December 31, 2015
7. Approval of Minutes:
Business Meeting of February 25, 2015
Work Sessions of February 23 and 25, 2015
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY
SERVICE DISTRICT
8. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
the 9-1-1 County Service District
CONVENE AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-H
COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT
9. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
the Extension/4-H County Service District
RECONVENE AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
10. CONSIDERATION of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for
Deschutes County
11. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 2, 2015
Page 3 of 5
_________ ______________________________________
Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This
event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation
possible, please call (541) 388-6572, or send an e-mail to bonnie.baker@deschutes.org.
_________ ______________________________________
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; ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues; or other executive session items.
______________________________________
FUTURE MEETINGS:
(Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of
Commissioners’ meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions
regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.)
Monday, March 2
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session – could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, March 4
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting
Wednesday, March 11
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session – could include executive session(s)
Monday, March 16
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session – could include executive session(s)
Tuesday, March 17
10:00 a.m. 911 Executive Board Meeting, at 911
Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 2, 2015
Page 4 of 5
Monday, March 23
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session – could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, March 25
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session – could include executive session(s)
Monday, March 30
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session – could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, April 1
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session – could include executive session(s)
Monday, April 6
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session – could include executive session(s)
Tuesday, April 7
3:30 p.m. Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting
Wednesday, April 8
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session – could include executive session(s)
Monday, April 20
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session – could include executive session(s)
Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 2, 2015
Page 5 of 5
Monday, April 20
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session – could include executive session(s)
Tuesday, April 21
10:00 a.m. 911 Executive Board Meeting, at 911
Wednesday, April 22
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session – could include executive session(s)
Monday, April 25
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session – could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, April 27
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session – could include executive session(s)
_________ ______________________________________
Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This
event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation
possible, please call (541) 388-6572, or send an e-mail to bonnie.baker@deschutes.org.
_________ ______________________________________