Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-02-25 Work Session Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 25, 2015 Page 1 of 7 Pages For Recording Stamp Only Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2015 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Anthony DeBone, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Tom Anderson, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Laurie Craghead and Dave Doyle, County Counsel; Peter Russell and Will Groves, Community Development; David Givans, Internal Auditor; Anna Johnson, Communications; Chris Doty, Road Department; Jane Smilie, Tom Kuhn, Penny Pritchard and Jessica Jacks, Health Department; and three other citizens including media representative Ted Shorack of The Bulletin. Chair DeBone opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. ___________________________ 1. Discussion of the Dangers to Youth from e-Cigarettes and Flavored Tobacco Products. Penny Pritchard spoke about the problem of youth regarding flavored tobacco products and e-cigarettes. Inhalant delivery devices (e-cigarettes and others) are a big concern. Some are disposable and some are liquid. None are regulated by the FDA and anyone can buy them. The State is trying to figure out how to address this issue. Research shows that the particulate matter tends to be smaller so goes into the lungs more easily. There are toxic chemicals being ingested as well. Some of the packaging is similar to that seen in cand y products. Some products look like pens or other office equipment and it is hard to tell the difference. The word ‘tobacco’ is not included on the package. Some of these could be used for marijuana as well. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 25, 2015 Page 2 of 7 Pages Some claim that they use these products as cessation devices, but there is no research to back this up. Manufacturers always need new customers and much of the marketing is directed at youth. Flavored cigarettes are a gateway for children and youth to go into tobacco use, and this has increased i n Oregon from 2% to 5%. Deschutes County has a much higher number of youth using tobacco than the State as a whole. They buy them because they are sweet and flavored, and it is hard to tell what has nicotine in it, based on the packaging. They all use the same flavoring chemicals. These tobacco products are also cheap to buy and can be purchased in small amounts. Coupons are also available for free products. This is not allowed for regular cigarettes but manufacturers are really pushing these new products at this time. Seven of ten retailers have tobacco products or advertising near candy or at eye level for children. This point of sale advertising is being directed at young people. One of five retailers in the County also sells these products within 1,000 feet of school property, making it easy to get. Unfortunately, the County has a higher incidence of youth smoking than adults, by 11%. The number one issue is the retailers, with Deschutes County having the highest number who are non-compliant, based on inspections. This program is under- funded and the retailers know it. Oregon does not have a tobacco licensing program as do the majority of other states. The retailers not in compliance here are simply fined if they are caught selling to minors. SB 417 needs to be supported, or they need to adopt a tobacco licensing program. It would increase compliance among retailers, prevent sales too close to schools, and provide funding for licensure efforts. OLCC is working with the County on this process. HB 2546 would prohibit the sale of inhalant delivery devices to minors. Lane County has passed a licensing program in part to address retailer sales to minors. They are working with the cities that have to take their own action on this. Commissioner Unger said that they could try to work with the cities and pass something to cover all. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 25, 2015 Page 3 of 7 Pages Commissioner Baney asked about the inspections done in 2005, when there seemed to be a lot more citations. It dropped off a lot since then. Ms. Pritchard said there used to be a reward program for compliance. Now they try to highlight retailers that don’t sell tobacco products, like Grocery Outlet. There is a grant in place to do compliance cheeks, and the Oregon State Police do this as well. There are only two inspectors for the State. Commissioner Baney asked if any states are dealing with this and marijuana at the same time. Colorado does not license tobacco retailers but Washington does. Ms. Pritchard stated that they all do something different. Some retailers support licensing and want to do good business. They have to pay an annual fee to sell alcohol products already. Chair DeBone said that this issue is growing fast and soon they have to deal with marijuana as well. Ms. Pritchard noted that la w enforcement is also having a difficult time dealing with this. Ms. Smilie said that the SB and HB should be supported with letters at this point. Commissioner Unger wants to be sure they are actually moving along. These are drug delivery devices, and this is a statewide issue that needs clarification. Commissioner Baney asked how it could be enforced if enacted at the local level. Ms. Pritchard said the inspection part could be enhanced. The County could be financially penalized if the numbers keep going up in this area. The County needs to be more proactive. Commissioner Baney suggested the County send a letter of support for these two bills. Commissioner Unger wants to see what other bills are in process that are similar, to determine which others to support as well. Commissioner Baney suggested that the County convene a meeting with representatives of the cities to talk about this issue, which affects community health. It should also include discussion about marijuana. ___________________________ The group requested support of a drug-free community grant application. It would be a five-year grant with a potential extension, and would support one FTE to focus on substance abuse issues. Ms. Smilie wants to work towards capacity and longer lasting programs. She reviewed a financial analysis of the grant and how it could impact the general fund. They are going through the review process internally before bringing these before the Board. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 25, 2015 Page 4 of 7 Pages UNGER: Move approval. BANEY: Second. VOTE: UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. 2. Discussion of Committee Member Recognition. Anna Johnson presented some items for consideration to award to people who retire off volunteer committees: hydro-flasks, the bottoms up mug, velocity tumblers, t-shirts and jackets. There are not that many people who retire each year. Chair DeBone feels a simple mug might be easiest and something that will be visible for years. Commissioner Baney likes this idea better than a plaque. Commissioner Unger suggested that perhaps a mug could go to those who have not served long, but maybe a fleece jacket for those who served for a long time. Mr. Anderson said they should also involve the departments. Commissioner Unger said those on committees in Redmond got a mug, not just those who retired. It is a nice gesture. Commissioner Baney suggested that the mug or container be filled with chocolates or something similar. Perhaps they could look at a $20 maximum. Ms. Johnson spoke about the employee recognition event . About 600 signed up last year but only half showed up. They need to figure out how to increase this. She presented some options, including a Saturday morning breakfast. They could also include a ticket for one free fair ride. Commissioner Baney asked if the Commissioners could serve. There seemed to be agreement on this. 3. Discussion of Land Use Application (Shepherd Private Park). Will Groves said that there is a hearing on this next week and the Board will take testimony. John Shepherd applied for a private park for his property. He had done this previously but it was denied for a number of reasons, including a site plan review. The key difference with this application is that the previous one included the whole property; the new application is just for events on weekends. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 25, 2015 Page 5 of 7 Pages There will be testimony on a few key issues. One is whether the use is a private park, which is allowed under statute in the EFU zone. However, most are for recreational use. The applicant says there will be outdoor din ing, light sports and other activities. Basically, it will be people gathering in a park-like setting. The Hearings Officer and staff had a problem with the wedding part. Commissioner Baney stated that it appears to have a commercial activity component. Chair DeBone said he thinks that trap clubs are similar, when the users pay to use the property. Mr. Groves said it falls on the edges of having a park. Some are membership clubs and are private, with a limited number of members. He suggested that the Board review information on this from the file. It may be appealed to LUBA and is a matter of State code as well as County code. Commissioner Baney asked how much of their residence would be utilized. Mr. Groves said much of the downstairs and upstairs as well. Some would be used by caterers and other rooms for the bride or groom parties. Some permits may be necessary. Commissioner Baney asked if this is a home occupation. Mr. Groves said that it is a stretch to say it is a home business, based on staff research. Laurie Craghead said a home occupation has to be entirely within the building, and most weddings would be held outside. Regarding the farm management plan, the house was approved as a farm dwelling. There is concern that the private park might preclude the farm use. Livestock use could be on the property as well, but separate from the private park. The wildlife management plan is a part of approval of the existing approval. There is a modification of this plan now being considered by the Board. It could change over time. He feels that the plan does not interfere with the establishment of a private park. The park itself would be about two acres, including landscaped areas and parking. Commissioner Baney asked if those two acres are in farm deferral. Mr. Doyle said that the Assessor is checking on this. A separate but related issue is the Metolius winter deer range, but staff concluded that this use would not impact the habitat. The events would be mostly in the summer and the deer are not around at that time. Normally with a site plan review that addresses parking and roads, the roads and parking need to be all-weather. Mr. Shepherd would like to use cinder but that is not an all-weather surface. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, February 25, 2015 Page 6 of 7 Pages Peter Russell said that cinders are only used for easements with little traffic. There are also potential ADA issues. Staff feels per Code that it needs to be paved or in gravel. Commissioner Unger said most of the use would be in the dry months. Mr. Russell said some of this is based on the amount of traffic, but the Board can make an exception. Mr. Groves said he is asking for 18 events per year with up to 250 guests per event. That would mean heavy use of the road. This covers wedding season, outside of deer migration season. Mr. Groves feels that Central Oregon Landwatch will likely appeal this to LUBA, but this has to occur first. Commissioner Unger asked if there have been other private parks approved in the past. Mr. Groves said the paintball park and trap club have been approved in the past. There is a bill in the legislature asking that these be for passive uses only. Private parks might be approved in exception lands. Noise was brought up but is not usually a problem in a vegetated area that is not flat. There have been no noise complaints from neighbors, so the topography likely reduces this potential impact. They could be cited if there were problems with this. Mr. Anderson said they could add a condition that they are to comply with the County’s noise ordinance. 4. Other Items. Chris Doty presented a letter to be sent to the Governor regarding transportation funding. He feels the opportunity to work on a bipartisan plan for this important issue is available. Chair DeBone said he received a message from staff at the Governor’s Office regarding the potential number of jobs that might be created through a Clean Fuels bill in conjunction with a surface transportation package. Commissioner Baney asked if they want to let one package hold up the other. Commissioner Unger said that they have alignment around transportation now and he does not want to lose this. Chair DeBone would like to see low carbon fuels supported as well. Mr. Doty will make suggested changes and present to the Board again. ___________________________ Regarding the Pilot Butte Canal historic designation, Ms. Craghead said the appellant has asked for another extension for final arguments. Commissioner Baney asked how this affects other cases. David Doyle said this should not legally affect any others since they are on separate tracks. BANEY: Move Board signature of Order No. 2015-014. UNGER: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. UNGER: Yes. DEBONE: Chair votes yes. Mr. Anderson said the Bend Chamber is doing the State of the Community again this year, but some staffing is no longer there. Commissioner Unger will represent the County since Chair DeBone will be out of the office. Ms. lohnsons said that the Redmond Council would like to do the same there in luly. Commissioner Unger said if they ask, the County will come. Mr. Anderson said that the Board needs to be conscious of the staff time this takes to prepare. Being no other items discussed, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m. DATED this /14-Dayof YVl U ~ 2015 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Anthony DeB one, Chair Alan Unger, Vice Chair ATTEST: ~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, February 25, 2015 Page 7 of7 Pages ______________________________________ PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues; or other issues under ORS 192.660(2), executive session. ______________________________________ Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners’ meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. _________ ______________________________________ Deschutes County encourages persons with disabilities to participate in all programs and activities. This event/location is accessible to people with disabilities. If you need accommodations to make participation poss ible, please call (541) 388-6571, or send an e-mail to bonnie.baker@deschutes.org. _________ ______________________________________ Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2015 ___________________________ 1. Discussion of the Dangers to Youth from e-Cigarettes and Flavored Tobacco Products – Jane Smilie, Tom Kuhn and Penny Pritchard, Health Department 2. Discussion of Committee Member Recognition – Anna Johnson 3. Discussion of Land Use Application (Shepherd Private Park) – Will Groves 4. Other Items To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community Penny Pritchard, MPH Tobacco Prevention Coordinator Deschutes County Health Services February 25, 2015 To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community Today’s Purpose •Update about emerging tobacco issues •Discuss the prevalence of flavored nicotine products and youth •Provide recommendations to address these concerns To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community Emerging Tobacco Issues To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community Inhalant Delivery Devices Multi-Use Disposable E-Liquid Source: Oregon Health Authority, 2014 To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community E-Joints Source: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hvmi2I3KmXM/UbmrIeB6DjI/AAAAAAAAVMs/MlCe0k9sV2w/s1600/e+joint+electronique.png To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community Why should we care about flavored tobacco products and e-cigarettes? To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community Many reasons… “Nearly 90% of all daily cigarette smokers started before 18.” Source: The Surgeon General’s Report, 2014 “…flavored cigarettes are a gateway for many children and young adults to become regular smokers.”-FDA To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Smoke cigarettes Hookah Smokeless tobacco (i.e. chew, snuff, dip, snus) Cigar, cigarillo, or little cigar Electronic nicotine delivery devices Menthol cigarette Pe r c e n t a g e Tobacco Use Among Youth in Past 30 Days Oregon Healthy Teens Survey, 2013 Deschutes-8th grade State-8th grade Deschutes-11th grade State-11th grade To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community Why do youth like these products? Source: Oregon Health Authority, 2014 1. They are sweet… Source: Oregon Health Authority, 2014 To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community Don’t call me “tobacco”… Source: Oregon Health Authority, 2014 To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community Q: What do LifeSavers™, Kool-Aid™, Jolly Ranchers™ and flavored little cigars have in common? Source: Oregon Health Authority, 2014 To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community Source: Brown JE, Luo W, Isabelle LM, Pankow JF. 2014 Portland State University A: They all use the same flavoring chemicals To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community 2. They are cheap… Source: Oregon Health Authority, 2014 To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community They are free… To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community 3. They are advertised… 7 out 10 tobacco retailers in Deschutes County have tobacco products or advertising displayed near candy or within 3.5ft of the floor Source: Deschutes County Retail Assessment, 2013 To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community 4. They are easy to get… Nearly 1 out 5 tobacco retailers in Deschutes County are located within 1,000 ft. of school property Source: Deschutes County Retail Assessment, 2013 To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Pe r c e n t a g e Years Oregon Tobacco Retailer Inspections Synar Program (Non-Compliance Rates) Deschutes County Oregon To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community How can we address these issues? To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community States with Tobacco Licensing Source: Point-of-Sale Report to the Nation, 2014 To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community 1. Support SB 417 or adopt a tobacco licensing program, if bill does not pass Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Map_of_Oregon_highlighting_Deschutes_County.svg/128 0px-Map_of_Oregon_highlighting_Deschutes_County.svg.png To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community A tobacco retail licensing program would… 1.Increase compliance among retailers 2.Prevent the sales of tobacco products within 1,000 ft. of schools and other areas where youth frequent 3. Provide funding to support licensure efforts To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community 2. Support HB 2546 or prohibit the sale and use of inhalant delivery devices to minors, if bill does not pass Source: Oregon Health Authority, 2014 To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community Questions??? To Promote and Protect the Health and Safety of Our Community Thank You! Penny Pritchard, MPH Phone: (541) 322-7481 Email: penny.pritchard@deschutes.org MEMORANDUM TO: Deschutes Board of County Commissioners FROM: Will Groves, Senior Planner DATE: February 18, 2015 RE: A de novo public hearing on a conditional permit (247-14-000 228-CU and 229-SP) to establish a private park on an EFU-zoned parcel east of Sisters for the purpose of hosting weddings, wedding receptions, special events, and recreational activities. Summary On February 3, 2015 staff issued an administrative approval of a conditional permit (247-14-000 228-CU and 229-SP) to establish a private park on an EFU-zoned parcel east of Sisters for the purpose of hosting weddings, wedding receptions, special events, and recreational activities. By Order 2015-011, dated February 4, 2015, the Board initiated review of this application under DCC 22.28.050 through a de novo hearing. The present application is similar in many ways to a 2013 application on the subject property for a private park (CU-13-13) that was denied by the Hearings Officer. Denial was based on several issues, including that the application did not include a site plan review application. While the present application does include a site plan application, staff believes many of the cont entious issues from the 2013 decision will be revisited in the Board's hearing on the present application. Issue areas include: Is the proposed use a “private park”: The threshold question presented by this application is whether the applicant’s proposal constitutes a “private park.” In her decision in CU-13-13/MA-13-3, the Hearings Officer provided extensive analysis of this topic for a similar, prior application for a private park on the subject property. Following that analysis, staff concluded that with the exception of weddings, the term “park” clearly includes the types of recreational activities that the applicant proposes for the private park, including: • Outdoor eating with family and friends • Public speaking using a sound system • Listening to amplified music • Singing, including karaoke • Dancing in the pavilion (gazebo) File No.: PA-14-2 and ZC-14-2 Page 2 of 3 • Lawn games such as volleyball and badminton in the volleyball court, croquet on the lawn, catch, bocce ball, corn hole and ring toss. Staff concluded that a private park designed and operated for outdoor recreation can host weddings and similar ceremonies so long as they are incidental and subordinate to the recreational activities – i.e., minor and secondary activities relative to the recreational activities. Farm Management Plan (FMP): The existing farm-related dwelling on the property was approved in conjunction with a Farm Management Plan (FMP). The prior approval (MA-01-9/CU-00-65), granted to the applicant’s predecessor, required that the property be “…currently employed in farm use, as evidenced by a farm management plan…”. In the administrative approval of present park application, staff found that there is nothing in the dwelling approval that requires the applicant to continue the prior owner’s agricultural operations or to complete the future activities described in the 2001 FMP. Applicable criteria requires that the proposed development relate harmoniously to existing development. Staff concluded that the park would not preclude or significantly interfere with any existing farm use, prior farming practices, or the applicant-proposed future farm use. Wildlife Management Plan (WMP): The 2001 Wildlife Management Plan (WMP) approved under (MA-01-9/CU-00-65) includes required actions on the part of the land owner as part of the dwelling location approval. To the extent that the proposed park use could somehow preclude or significantly interfere with the land owner’s ability to complete those required actions, the private park proposal would not relate harmoniously with the residential use of the subject property. A proposed modification of the Wildlife Management Plan (247-14-000401-MC) is under appeal and has not received final local approval. Staff concluded that the 2001 WMP does not presently impose any required actions that could result in incompatibilities with the proposed private park. Should the modification of the Wildlife Management Plan receive final approval in the future, Staff is uncertain if the final conditions of that approval will include any incompatibilities with the proposed private park. Staff notes, however, that the modified WMP, to date, has focused on deer forage enhancement outside of the developed private park site. For this reason, Staff concluded that it is unlikely that the modified WMP, if approved, will include any incompatibilities with the proposed private park. Metolius Deer Winter Range: The Hearings Officer found in CU-13-13/MA-13-3, “The subject property is located within a WA Zone and the Metolius Deer Winter Range, signifying it has natural resource value as wildlife habitat.” No changes to the existing scrub juniper woodland habitat are required or proposed for operation of the private park. Proposed use of the private park would occur between late May and early October, outside the period when deer would be using the mapped Metolius Winter Deer Range on the subject property. For these reasons, staff concluded that the proposed private park use would be compatible with the natural resource values of the subject property. Road and Parking Surface: The applicant proposed a cinder surface for the driveway from Holmes Road and the parking area. However, based on the comment by the Deschutes County Transportation Planner, Staff concluded that cinder is not a required “all-weather surface”. As a condition of approval, staff required that areas used for standing and maneuvering of vehicles shall be paved or gravel, but not cinder, surfaces adequately maintained for all weather use and maintained in a manner which will not create dust problems for neighboring properties. File No.: PA-14-2 and ZC-14-2 Page 3 of 3 Scheduling This hearing is scheduled for the Board’s morning meeting on March 2, 2015. A work session is scheduled for February 25, 2015. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Administrative approval of 247-14-000 228-CU and 229-SP 1 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 TO: Deschutes Board of County Commissioners FROM: Will Groves, Senior Planner DATE: February 18, 2015 RE: A de novo public hearing on a conditional permit (247-14-000 228-CU and 229-SP) to establish a private park on an EFU-zoned parcel east of Sisters for the purpose of hosting weddings, wedding receptions, special events, and recreational activities. Summary On February 3, 2015 staff issued an administrative approval of a conditional permit (247-14-000 228-CU and 229-SP) to establish a private park on an EFU-zoned parcel east of Sisters for the purpose of hosting weddings, wedding receptions, special events, and recreational activities. By Order 2015-011, dated February 4, 2015, the Board initiated review of this application under DCC 22.28.050 throl!gh a de novo hearing. The present application is similar in many ways to a 2013 application on the subject property for a private park (CU-13-13) that was denied by the Hearings Officer. Denial was based on several issues, including that the application did not include a site plan review application. While the present application does include a site plan application, staff believes many of the contentious issues from the 2013 decision will be revisited in the Board's hearing on the present application. Issue areas include: Is the proposed use a "private park": The threshold question presented by this application is whether the applicant's proposal constitutes a "private park." In her decision in CU-13-13/MA-13-3, the Hearings Officer provided extensive analysis of this topic for a similar, prior application for a private park on the subject property. Following that analysis, staff concluded that with the exception of weddings, the term "park" clearly includes the types of recreational activities that the applicant ! proposes for the private park, including: 1 • Outdoor eating with family and friends • Public speaking using a sound system 1 • Listening to amplified music I • Singing, including karaoke • Dancing in the pavilion (gazebo) I Quality Services Perfonned with Pride1 • Lawn games such as volleyball and badminton in the volleyball court, croquet on the lawn, catch, bocce ball, com hole and ring toss. Staff concluded that a private park designed and operated for outdoor recreation can host weddings and similar ceremonies so long as they are incidental and subordinate to the recreational activities -i.e., minor and secondary activities relative to the recreational activities. Farm Management Plan (FMP): The existing farm-related dwelling on the property was approved in conjunction with a Farm Management Plan (FMP). The prior approval (MA-01-9/CU-00-65), granted to the applicant's predecessor, required that the property be " ... currently employed in farm use, as evidenced by a farm management plan ... ". In the administrative approval of present park application, staff found that there is nothing in the dwelling approval that requires the applicant to continue the prior owner's agricultural operations or to complete the future activities described in the 2001 FMP. Applicable criteria requires that the proposed development relate harmoniously to existing development. Staff concluded that the park would not preclude or significantly interfere with any existing farm use, prior farming practices, or the applicant-proposed future farm use. Wildlife Management Plan (WMP): The 2001 Wildlife Management Plan (WMP) approved under (MA-01-9/CU-00-65) includes required actions on the part of the land owner as part of the dwelling location approval. To the extent that the proposed park use could somehow preclude or significantly interfere with the land owner's ability to complete those required actions, the private park proposal would not relate harmoniously with the residential use of the subject property. A proposed modification of the Wildlife Management Plan (247-14-000401-MC) is under appeal and has not received final local approval. Staff concluded that the 2001 WMP does not presently impose any required actions that could result in incompatibilities with the proposed private park. Should the modification of the Wildlife Management Plan receive final approval in the future, Staff is uncertain if the final conditions of that approval will include any incompatibilities with the proposed private park. Staff notes, however, that the modified WMP, to date, has focused on deer forage enhancement outside of the developed private park site. For this reason, Staff concluded that it is unlikely that the modified WMP, if approved, will include any incompatibilities with the proposed private park. Metolius Deer Winter Range: The Hearings Officer found in CU-13-13/MA-13-3, "The subject property is located within a WA Zone and the Metolius Deer Winter Range, signifying it has natural resource value as wildlife habitat." No changes to the existing scrub juniper woodland habitat are required or proposed for operation of the private park. Proposed use of the private park would occur between late May and early October, outside the period when deer would be using the mapped Metolius Winter Deer Range on the subject property. For these reasons, staff concluded that the proposed private park use would be compatible with the natural resource values of the subject property. Road and Parking Surface: The applicant proposed a cinder surface for the driveway from Holmes Road and the parking area. However, based on the comment by the Deschutes County Transportation Planner, Staff concluded that cinder is not a required "all-weather surface". As a condition of approval, staff required that areas used for standing and maneuvering of vehicles shall be paved or gravel, but not cinder. surfaces adequately maintained for all weather use and maintained in a manner which will not create dust problems for neighboring properties. File No.: PA-14-2 and ZC-14-2 Page 2 of 3 Scheduling This hearing is scheduled for the Board's morning meeting on March 2, 2015. A work session is scheduled for February 25, 2015. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Administrative approval of 247-14-000 228-CU and 229-SP I j i 1 1 File No.: PA-14-2 and ZC-14-2 Page 30f3 I 4