Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-03-02 Business Meeting Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioner’s Business Meeting Monday, March 2, 2015 Page 1 of 12 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 MONDAY, MARCH 2, 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, Will Groves and Peter Russell, Community Development; and about a dozen other citizens including media representative 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 a Public Hearing on the Shepherd Land Use Application (Private Park). Minutes of Board of Commissioner’s Business Meeting Monday, March 2, 2015 Page 2 of 12 Chair DeBone read the opening statement, and Will Groves gave an overview of the process to be followed; and Chair DeBone opened the public hearing. Regarding disclosure of bias or conflicts of interest, Commissioner Unger indicated he has been involved only through staff. Commissioner Baney said she attended the same work sessions, and also met with the Shepherds at the site to get a feel for the property, but feels she can be objective. Chair DeBone noted that he attended the same work sessions and also toured the property last year, but has no conflicts of interest or bias and can be objective. No challenges were offered from the public. Mr. Groves then provided an overview of the application and activities. (A copy of his PowerPoint presentation is attached for reference.) He pointed out that the update wildlife management plan is being addressed separately, but generally should not be in conflict with the proposed uses. In regard to the County’s noise ordinance, it is fairly restrictive under separate parts of Code. A condition can be added to the decision to require compliance with the noise ordinance and no variance is to be given. Cinders are proposed to be used for the driveway and parking areas. Peter Russell stated that they need an all-weather surface, and cinders are not considered as such. Buckhorn Road traffic will be impacted as well with more traffic in a short time than is normally seen in a regular day. Cinders are not an appropriate surface for the amount of use the driveway and parking areas will get. Mr. Groves stated that if they allow cinders, others that now are required to use gravel will want to do the same since it is less expensive. Commissioner Baney asked about the timeframe allowed; specifically, will there be more time needed the day before and day after for setting up equipment and other activities. Chair DeBone asked if a weekend event is just one day, Saturday or Sunday, or also Friday evening. Commissioner Unger said that the event defines the park, and is not incidental to activities. As a conditional use in an EFU zone, he asked if this will now become the default for private parks on EFU land. Mr. Groves said this has been done before with paintball parks and similar; there is a question as to whether it is private or a park. It focuses on the activities being held there. If it is appealed, it will be interesting to see how LUBA reacts. Minutes of Board of Commissioner’s Business Meeting Monday, March 2, 2015 Page 3 of 12 LUBA said the uses need to be fundamentally the same on any such park property. Previous decisions addressed what is the primary activity. The Hearings Officer stated that the wedding itself takes so little time that most of the activities are recreation-related. __________________________ Dave Hunnicut, Oregonians in Action, said he agrees with the pres entation. There are three main issues: whether the proposal constitutes a private park, as used in both Code and the ORS. The legislature has allowed this in the EFU zone for decades. The Legislature nor LCDC or County has defined this, so it is subject to definition by LUBA and the Courts. LUBA has done this in the past in a few cases. Essentially LUBA indicated a private park is a tract of land set aside for public recreational use. They do not want to define the intensity of the proposed use. In those cases, the uses would have been year-round. This proposal is for 18 events a year, just on weekends. They won’t be constructing additional structures either. Certainly as found by the Hearings Officer, the bulk of the activity will be recreational in nature. Some won’t be weddings but other family-type events, charity events or class reunions. The Hearings Officer stated that the reception events are considered recreational. He believes they have met this definition and meet the necessary standards for a private park. The next issue is whether the proposed activity will force a significant change in farm or forest practices on surrounding parcels. This is in ORS as well. There is a lot of litigation on this issue with others. There is no i mpact on nearby lands. To the extent there are farm practices, a map will be submitted showing farm activities in the area with corresponding documents showing the activities for each. The 18 events will not impact this. There will be an amplified sound system and they will make sure there are no impacts to adjacent properties. The property’s configuration and vegetation keep the sound from traveling. The events and structures are also not visible from other parcels. The other potential issue is with traffic. Holmes Road generates little traffic and the amount of trips generated by the events does not require a traffic study. There would be no significant impact on farming or forest practices. An adjacent property is a guest ranch that also holds weddings and other events, and this does not interfere with their cattle operation. No neighbors have objected to this plan. Minutes of Board of Commissioner’s Business Meeting Monday, March 2, 2015 Page 4 of 12 Compliance with the wildlife management plan and farm management plan is the remaining issue. There is an application in place for the WMP. They believe they are in compliance with the old plan, but it was not well written and it is hard to know how to comply. The new plan is significantly better and staff has recommended approval of this, as does Oregon F&W. He does not believe that there is anything in Code that requires the private park plan be in compliance with the WMP. However, they are in compliance with the wildlife and farm management plan in either case. The farm management plan was necessary to be able to build a res idence on the property, which is non-high value farmland. This does not continue after the dwelling is approved and built. They do not have to prove the income standard every year for low value farmland. Neither the State nor County has instituted this requirement for the farm management plan to be enforced beyond its original approval. There is evidence exactly what is proposed to do with the farming aspect as well as the WMP. Cattle will not impact the private park uses, and also will not negatively impact the deer winter range. He asked that the Hearings Officer’s decision and WMP modification be included in the record for the Board to review. __________________________ John Shepherd said the events will be between 2 and 10 p.m., on either Saturday or Sunday. There is set up and clean up before or after, but that involves just a few people from the catering companies. (He gave a PowerPoint presentation). He intends to have an affordable venue, which is lacking in this area. They should generate $1.25 million in local economic activity with the 18 events. It will create jobs for caterers, florists and others. It will allow them to host other events for nonprofits and charities. It will also allow him to use his low-value farmland in a profitable way. A big question is a definition of recreation. The Hearings Officer said the event needs to be recreational in nature. These are activities done for enjoyment and to relax. The ceremony takes 15 or 20 minutes, and he feels it is recreational. Then the rest of the event is recreational, singing, dancing, eating, music, lawn games such as volleyball and a children’s play area. It is six to eight hours of recreation. Minutes of Board of Commissioner’s Business Meeting Monday, March 2, 2015 Page 5 of 12 Another question was, is it a park. A park is a wooded area with lawns and walkways, and this fits. The slides also show the isolated nature of the property; they can’t even see the neighbor’s residences from their property. These are gatherings of families and friends and are a reunion as well as a wedding. Buffers are required, and are in place. (He showed slides of various events and a video of the historically themed homeschool charity ball which he hopes to be held annually.) He wanted to stress the recreational nature of what they plan to do, since that was a big part of the __________________________ Jonathan Shepherd testified regarding his participation in music and the arts, and working with children. Central Oregon History Performers is a group that focuses on skits and songs of historical nature, and he is now involved with them. They hope to broaden the homeschool ball to help with fundraising for the other group. Mr. Shepherd brought up the cinder vs. gravel issue. He asked for latitude to put down cinders. He reads in Code that an exception can be made by the hearings body if it will be maintained as to not create dust problems for neighboring properties or will have dust control continuously. All weather surface and dust control are the factors. The neighboring properties are at least ½ mile away. Using screened cinders is a dust control surface, especially in a parking area. The all-weather base is important for an all-weather situation. The events will only be in the summer so the cinders should be adequate. Some are concerned about precedence, but exceptions can be granted. It will be 30 or 40 cars only 18 times a year. He feels screened cinders would hold up well. The Fairgrounds has overflow traffic on grass and dirt. He requested they exercise discretion to allow cinders, since it is much less expensive for them than gravel. Commissioner Baney asked Mr. Hunnicut if he has the study showing soils classifications. He replied that it is in the staff report and the Hearings Officer’s decision should have this noted. She asked about 30 to 40 cars with up to 250 people. She asked how that computes. Mr. Shepherd stated they can expect one car for four people. They have never had more than 100 people and typically it is 120 or less. He feels an average would be 120, at most 160. They would not expect more than 40 cars for an event. Minutes of Board of Commissioner’s Business Meeting Monday, March 2, 2015 Page 6 of 12 Chair DeBone asked if others wished to speak. Paul Dewey of Central Oregon Landwatch requested additional time to review new information. It is important to recognize the context which is to protect resource lands. The Cherry Grove case emphasized that allowed conditional uses in the farm zone should be construed narrowly. The legislature has seen fit to allow additional uses such as agri-tourism. He feels this proposal is pushing the envelope further than has been seen before, especially County and LUBA decisions relating to paintball or motocross. This is asking for a very broad definition of recreation, which would allow almost anything. It is about weddings primarily. He is troubled by the argument that a wedding is a recreational event and it is a small part of the event. He has been to many weddings and never found them to be recreational in nature, but instead a very solemn event. It is all in the context of a wedding. The comparison to an awards ceremony is not the same thing. He feels this goes too far. If the legislature wants to see events like this to constitute private parks, that is one thing; but to try to contort the definition is too much. He also disagrees with the argument that the Hearings Officer’s decision is applicable here as the wedding being incidental to the park use. The proposal she considered was for a 216 acre park with activities taking place throughout the property. This is 1.6 acres. She denied the application regarding the impact on surrounding lands and using the less suitable sites. She also focused on the history of the application and uses. She pointed out that there are a number of weddings that were held that were done illegally. The applicant applied for a park, which was modified. This is not a park but an event venue. He pointed out that Kevin Harrison, planner, was quoted that weddings may be compatible but this does not mean this meets the definition of park since they are not recreational. The Hearings Officer had asked about the evolution of the applications from the applicant. It was said the reasons for changing the applications were irrelevant but that they wanted the public to be able to enjoy his property. The history of the applications is unique, with RV parking and tents to be allowed. It was thought that tent camping and RV parking could be allowed so those who drank alcohol would not try to drive. This was rejected by staff. Minutes of Board of Commissioner’s Business Meeting Monday, March 2, 2015 Page 7 of 12 The other proposal was use of the bathroom by guests, but this would be more of a home occupation situation. He emphasized that the Board has authority to interpret Code more narrowly than LUBA has, and that there is a policy consideration as to whether this might become a default. There were a lot of hearings on event venues and this may allow a go-around the purposes for which rules were established. This is not appropriate for policy reasons. He requested all the other applications be included as part of the record. In regard to the farm management plan and potential conflicts, the basic argument is that they have to establish a farm is commercial by size and profit to have the home there. The applicant feels that once there is a building in place, you can ignore the farm use. There needs to be ongoing farm use and a person responsible for overseeing this. LUBA did not say it wasn’t applicable, but the petitioner is already required to do so. The Hearings Officer said that a non-farm dwelling be applied for if the use changes and it is no longer justified as a farm dwelling. You don’t just throw out the farm management pl an. This is not being located on the least suitable site. The deciding factor is the soils. Steve Simpson lives on Lower Bridge Road. He is a neighbor to this property and can view it from his ranch. He feels the Shepherds have done a great job running their land, and said the property is very low value. He feels the weddings and park are a real plus, and the County needs to see how this benefits them and lets people pay their taxes. Regarding roads, the cinders are a better use in a lot of ways. He does not think gravel is necessary. The Fairgrounds has similar parking already. On private property they should be able to use what is best. Noise was brought up but has never been a problem. A wedding is one of the happiest times in peoples’ lives and the Shepherds provide a service there that is very affordable. He and his family and other neighbors are in favor of this and feel it is a plus for the area. Commissioner Baney said that the Fairgrounds is under the jurisdiction of the City, but there is a lot of ADA area available there; and this venue needs to be able to accommodate this as well. __________________________ Minutes of Board of Commissioner’s Business Meeting Monday, March 2, 2015 Page 8 of 12 Nunzie Gould, citizen, stated she is concerned that a private park is really an event center and destination resort. There is no limit to recreation or activities used. They are assuming a quiet use but this does not prohibit motorized or shooting events. She wants to be sure this is addressed. This should be contemplated or disallowed. There is assumption about parking, if it is not striped. She asked how they will be able to count the spaces or vehicles. There are conflicting dates given. There are 22 one-weekend events during that time period. The number of events should be noted and enforced. This gets to the point that it comes down to enforcement. The County relies on voluntary compliance, but this has not been the case with this parti cular applicant. It needs to have an easy, taxpayer way to handle it. There has been no thought of cumulative events with this, with the guest ranch and the winery. There needs to be outdoor mass gathering criteria applied. She asked about the bicycle traffic being exempted. She also asked about transient room tax for any overnight guests and whether it is based on an honor system. There should be no reduction for transportation fees even it is just used part of the year. Deschutes County has limited ability to enforce Code. It should be considered commercial use of the home since most of it will be used for events. Fire sprinklers in a home requires replumbing, and she wondered if this can be handled by the existing well. She asked if there is a DEQ filtration system for this water. This should be reviewed as an outdoor mass gathering center. They refer to events and setting up and taking down equipment within a set timeframe. It should be clear in a private park setting how this will be done. Does this mean subcontractors can come and go all week long? She wants unlimited subcontractor use considered in Code enforcement. The applicant and agencies may identify that juniper is a wasteland, but these trees predate the arrival of settlers and there is valuable use of this vegetation. They are an economic asset. The notion that drunken participants need overnight accommodations is a concern; will those people stop their partying by 10 p.m.? Minutes of Board of Commissioner’s Business Meeting Monday, March 2, 2015 Page 9 of 12 There are unenforceable criteria that is too vague. What about all necessary permits for buildings and health. What became of the fire department comments or the domestic well use? Code enforcement needs tangible and well-defined criteria. What happens if the wildlife management plan is not adhered to? Will the County enforce it? If there is more parking, will this mean loss of area for wildlife? Will these documents be in the County records? Will Community Development be able to come out and count the number of vehicles? She feels the wildlife management plan should include required actions that take precedence over the private park aspect. The Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife is not tasked with upholding this approval. How will the County monitor this proposal? If there are ongoing required actions, they need to operate only if those are monitored. Will the County monitor the wildlife management plan through hiring a biologist? She encouraged fewer guests and a closer look on what could happen there. It is not in compliance now. Destination resorts are to accommodate this type of events, and cities have all the services needed. She encouraged denial. She has followed the wedding event and OMG events, as well as destination resorts, for years. She thinks the Commissioners have a big problem turning down anything that means economic development, and feels they put the entire Code at risk, including transportation, ADA, and repurposing a structure that is not appropriate. She wants to protect the investment and livability of the area, and said if one of these was to be placed near her home, she’d leave. __________________________ Under applicant rebuttal, Mr. Hunnicutt said Mr. Dewey talked about SB 960, the agri-tourism bill. They appreciate this. SB 960 made it clear and the Hearings Officer pointed out that it provides agri-itourism being one way to enhance this. It was clear that SB 960 is not the only way to authorize this type of use. They have not set a policy that this is the only way, but alternatives are available. Both the Hearings Office and LUBA use a broad definition of events. Case law shows that events and recreational have a broad use. This is what the legislature intended. Minutes of Board of Commissioner’s Business Meeting Monday, March 2, 2015 Page 10 of 12 Mr. Dewey talks about weddings being the driving force, but the Hearings Officer rejected Mr. Harrison’s comments, on page 10 and 11 of her decision. She defined recreation according to Webster, and found that it is reasonable the wedding ceremony itself is not recreation, but concurs with the applicant that the reception and other special events are recreational in nature. Those therefore fall into pirate park use. The application was rejected but not for that reason. Finally, regarding consistency with the farm management plan and the number of approvals of dwellings in commotion with farming, he asked how many dwellings have been there for years but no longer comply with the FMP, whether big or small. Do they need a new application for a non-farm dwelling? If not approved, do they have to remove the home? It is hard to believe that the legislature or county would require this. The theory is not consistent with the plain language of Code or common sense. It is not just Code enforcement who can enforce. Anyone can file a complaint or sue. This can’t be the intent, and you won’t find any case law that this has happened. Mr. Dewey suggested that the dwelling or events be located on the least suitable location. Private parks are governed in Code and this use is under a different section. Mr. Shepherd said that the wildlife biologist reported that the soil on the slopes is better than that on the plateau. Mr. Hunnicut said that weddings are not held this way. These days it is a new world, and recreation drives the event. Some weddings are in a church but the reception at the property. All parks in Bend allows outdoor weddings. Objections were raised about a lot of things, but the conditional use permit written by Mr. Groves is very clear as to activities. It is also complete in restrictions. They are subject to sanitation and transportation review. Commissioner Baney asked if the soils study was done by the applicant. Mr. Hunnicut said they can have a separate test done by NRCS. However, all counties have a soils map that details the classifications and where. Commissioner Baney asked if there were water rights when they purchased the property. Mr. Shepherd said that they just purchased some. It is all in farm deferral except the dwelling. The Assessor has examined this and knows what they plan to do, and will come out and confirm this summer what is going on and where. The tax deferral is based on grazing the entire property to make use of it all. Minutes of Board of Commissioner’s Business Meeting Monday, March 2, 2015 Page 11 of 12 Mr. Hunnicut said that with the wildlife overlay requirements, all of the property has to be provided for deer range, but they also want to use it for agriculture. They are trying to use the property in that manner and seasonally as required. Mr. Groves said that set-up and take-down has reasonable hours the day before and day after. The vendors have other things to do so make it quick. Staff will recommend the day before and after. The initial application included emergency camping, but even if this sounds prudent, there was no way under State law to allow this. The applicant is not challenging this and removed it. Commissioner Baney wants to make sure sanitation and food preparation is properly addressed. Mr. Groves said there is the environmental soils inspection for the septic system, to show whether it is adequate for the use. The applicant will meet with proper staff to talk about this. It is a solvable problem. The second partner is the building division who has visited the property. There were questions about the deck and fire control. Those staff need to be satisfied this is all done. Environmental Health commented that the applicant anticipates using licensed caterers who prepare the food off-site. It will be warming and serving, which is felt to be adequate. There may be obligations for permitting for water quality. It might be helpful to specify all this, but he believes each agency will do its job. Commissioner Baney asked if this is approved, she hopes that there are no important issues not addressed at that time. Mr. Groves said they can require no events be held until all conditions are handled, or as appropriate. Mr. Lelack said they can identify the necessary standards and preclude from use something that is not yet handled, such as the railing on the deck. Commissioner Baney wants to protect both the public and the property owner by this being done. She also noted that anyone serving alcohol should be OLCC approved, and they should not over-serve customers resulting in them becoming impaired. Mr. Lelack stated that the season is nearly here, so a lot of people are aware of what is there and what needs to be done for them to operate, should this be approved. Commissioner Unger said that private parks are a conditional use on non-high value farmland. Mr. Groves said that MUA-l 0 can also have this, but most comes from State statute. A private park allowed here might be allowed in another zone that is stated for that use as well. Chair DeBone closed the oral record, with the written left open for seven days for testimony, and seven days for rebuttal, and by March 23 the applicant should submit a final written response. The Board will make a decision after that at a regularly scheduled Board meeting. 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA None were offered. Being no other items brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m. DATED this I (~ Day of JYl//L C0-2015 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Anthony DeB one, Chair ATTEST: Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioner's Business Meeting Monday, March 2, 2015 Page 12 of 12 HEARING PROCEDURES: QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING • Timely notice of this hearing has been provided as required by ORS 197.763. • Applicable criteria from the laws and regulations that apply to this application will be verbally identified by staff at the outset of the hearing. In addition, they are listed in the Staff Report, copies of which are available at this hearing, from the Community Development Department, and on the County's website. • The applicants have the burden of proving that they are entitled to the approval requested. • Testimony, arguments and evidence at this hearing must be directed toward the applicable criteria, as well as toward any other criteria in the comprehensive land use plan of the County or land use regulations which any person believes apply to this decision. • Failure on the part of any person to raise an issue, in person or by letter, with sufficient specificity to afford this hearings body and parties to this proceeding an opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue. Additionally, failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to the approval with sufficient specificity to allow the Board to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in Circuit Court. • The decision of the hearings body on this application will be based upon the record before it, including as applicable, the Hearings Officer's decision, the Staff Report, additional material within the record and the testimony and evidence presented at this hearing. • Any participant at this hearing may request that the hearing or record or both be held open for an additional seven (7) days. If the request is granted, the hearings body will identify a date and time certain for the continuance or open record period. • Unless waived by the applicant, the hearings body will allow the applicant at least seven (7) days after the record is closed to all other parties and participants to submit final written arguments in support of the application. Final written argument shall not include any new evidence. Page 1 of 1 -PRELIMINARY STATEMENT FOR A QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Phone #s (Sy Q151'j"Yt~() E-mail address :JC~'ra-('~BJ ~J(~).,.-, d In Favor 0 Neutral!Undecid~d o Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 0 Yes LiNO BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest ____<'.::::.....;...:.!..h=-ttt:f!:.:!~::...:1ISr~d______ Date r Adiliess ___~\5~~~i~N~W~V~/~Lk~~~h~uf~~~A~~~----------------------- 9.116 41< '1'17111 Phone#s __~54~/~~q~2~1~-~~~$~~_____________________________ D In Favor D NeutrallUndecided ff Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? DYes ------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- OJ. . .:1­ lU -0\~.'fo .. ~:.;:-< BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING ~, if ''" REQUEST TO SPEAK Agenda Item of Interest __-Lt?±--L-.~/C=I!""""""-______ Date ____ Name Sic.f'£ SmrpsOV\ Address 2/330 /VUI LorptlL 6i2Jd 7lT 2eL JeRf.E hannt3 QR-17 7~ {5 Phone#s 5t(J-5'18 ~setJo E-mail address ----------------------------~---------- [S(l In Favor o NeutrallUndecided o Opposed Submitting written documents as part of testimony? 0 Yes Ix INo BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING REQUEST TO SPEAK 2~PQ~ Date 3!61 (0 fTAgenda Item of Interest Name ~L'\JV\L~ GQ.-~ Address Phone #s 5Lf (~ Lf;) 0 5;32 S-­ --~~-------------------------------------- E-mail address o In Favor o NeutrallUndecided o Opposed Submitting written documents as part oftestimony? ~Yes 0 No c.. V\ I 0\ N N UO-C s::: s::: .-;::>to ClJU J:ob v= N N .c 0 :::s 0 c.. 0 I ~ ~ I I'-.. ~ N LI\ ..... o U N .... U N o .s:: ta ~ ra :E ~ HEARING PROCEDURE • The Board's decision on this application will be based upon the record before the Hearings Officer, the Hearings Officer's decision, the Staff Report and the testimony and evidence presented at this hearing. • The hearing will be conducted in the following order. 1. Staff will provide a brief report. 2. The applicant will present its testimony and evidence. 3. Opponents and proponents will testify and present evidence. 4. Other interested persons will then present testimony or evidence. s. The applicant presents rebuttal testimony. 6. Staff will be afforded an opportunity to make any closing comments. '** ...............,----------.---.--------------~--,,--------~.-__~~ 10' II t 1il bo",-; .. fr"'lIli~'~--~'~~-" --~"--~~-,--~-~~-&~-~~~--~,~-,---~-~,~--,-----~--,,,,~---.--- , Staff Report • Proposal • Subject Property • Staff Decision • Analysis and Issues • Alternative Courses Action • Questions Proposal • Applicant requested conditional approval to establish a private parl< on an EFU-zoned parcel • For the purpose of hosting weddings, wedding receptions, special events, and recreational activities. • Events would be conducted on a 1.6-acre lawn area with parking is provided on a contiguous I-acre parking area, accessed from a driveway to Holmes Road. • Event participants would have limited access to the existing dwelling and full access to a gazebo on the property. Proposal • Limited to one weekend day per week (early May through early Octo her) not to exceed 18 days per calendar year. • Events last no more than 8 hours and conclude by 10 p.m. • Limit of 250 guests per event would be enforced by the applicant. • Applicant describes the following activities that will occur during events: • Wedding Ceremony (which typically lasts only 15-20 minutes) • Outdoor eating • Public speaking using a sound system • Listening to amplified music • Singing, including karaoke • Dancing in the pavilion (gazebo) • Lawn games such as volleyball and badminton in the volleyball court, croquet on the lawn, catch, bocce ball, and ring toss. Proposal • Limited to one weekend day per week (early May through early October) not to exceed 18 days per calendar year. • Events last no more than 8 hours and conclude by 10 p.m. • Limit of 250 guests per event would be enforced by the applicant. • Applicant describes the following activities that will occur during events: • Wedding Ceremony (which typically lasts only 15-20 minutes) • Outdoor eating • Public speaking using a sound system • Listening to amplified music • Singing, including karaoke • Dancing in the pavilion (gazebo) • Lawn games such as volleyball and badminton in the volleyball court, croquet on the lawn, catch, bocce ball, and ring toss. tt a t W-ttrfWMttr j"t'tlitdii Staff Decision • On February 3,2015 staff issued an administrative approval • The proposed use is a "private parl<". • The parl< would not preclude or significantly interfere with any existing farm use, prior farming practices, or the applicant-proposed future farm use. • The parl< would not preclude or significantly interfere with either the 2001 Wildlife Management Plan (WMP), the proposed modified WMP, or the Deer Winter Range generally. • Cinder is not a required "all-weather surface". Wildlife Management Plan (WMP) • The 2001 Wildlife Management Plan (WMP) includes required actions on the part of the land owner as part of the dwelling location approval. • Applicable criteria requires that the parl< relate harmoniously to existing development. • 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 are incompatible with the proposed park use • it is unlikely that the modified WMP, if approved, will include any incompatibilities with the proposed private parle , ... Metolius Deer Winter Range • 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 parl<. • Proposed use of the private parl< 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. Noise Ordinance • The applicant has proposed that events will include amplified music up to 90 decibels. • 8.08.070. Acts Prohibited ... no person shall make any unreasonable loud or raucous noise which disturbs, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace or safety of others within the legal boundaries of the County. • D. The playing, using or operating of any radio, musical instrument, phonograph, television set, tape recorder or other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound in such a manner as to disturb the sleep, peace, quiet, comfort or repose of other persons, or at any time with louder volume than is necessary for convenient hearing by the person or persons who are in the room, vehicle or chamber in which the machine or device is operated and others who are voluntary listeners thereto. The operation of any such machine or device in such a manner so as to be plainly audible to a peace officer at a distance of 50 feet from the building, room, structure or vehicle in which it is located shall be prima facie proof of a violation of Dee 8.08.040 ; • Suggested additional condition of approval: This approval does not grant any exemption from or variance to the Noise Ordinance of DCC 8.08. Road and Parking Surface • The applicant proposed a cinder surface for the driveway and the parl<ing area. • Deschutes County Transportation Planner: • 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. ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF B • After conducting the public hearing and receiving testilTIony, the Board's options include the following: • Continue the public hearing to a date and tilTIe certain: -To the next BOCC hearing/meeting date or a subsequent BOCC hearing/meeting date. • Close the oral record and l<eep the written record open to a date and tilTIe certain. ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF B • Close the public hearing (oral and written records), and: -Begin deliberations, or -Direct staff to schedule time on a future agenda to conduct deliberations, or -Mal<e a decision on the appeal. • direct Staff to draft findings. r-. '"z o - I­ LIJ '" ::> CI ------ Continuances or Record Extensions 22.24.14°. Continuances or Record Extensions. A. Grounds. 1. Prior to the date set for an initial hearing, an applicant shall receive a continuance upon any request. If a continuance request is made after the publislied or mailed notice has been provided by the County, the Hearings Body shall take evidence at the scheduled hearing date from any party wishing to testify at that time after notifying those present of the continuance. 2. Any party is entitled to a continuance of the initial evidentiary hearIng or to have the record left open in such a proceeding in the following instances: a. Where additional documents or evidence are submitted by any party; or b. Upon a party's request made prior to the close of the hearing for time to present additional eVIdence or testimony. For the purposes of DCC 22.24.140(A)(2), "additional documents or evidence" shall mean documents or evidence containing new facts or analysis that are submitted after notice of the hearing. The grant of a continuance or record extension in any other3· circumstance shall be at the discretion of the Hearings Body. Leaving record open • D. Leaving record open. • If at the conclusion of the initial hearing the Hearings Body leaves the record open for additional written evidence or testimony, the record shall be left open for at least 14 additional days, allowing at least the first seven days for submittal of new written evidence or testimony and at least seven additional days for response to the evidence received while the record was hela open. Written evidence or testimony submitted during the period tile record is held open shall be limited to evidence or testimony that rebuts previously submitted evidence or testimony. • E. A continuance or record extension granted under Dee 22.24.140 shall be subject to the Iso-day time limit unless the continuance or extension is requested or otherwise agreed to by the applicant. When the recoro is left open or a continuance is granted after a request by an applicant, the time period during which the Iso-day clock is suspended shall include the time period made available to the applicant and any time period given to parties to respond to toe applicant's submittal. 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 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 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: • Outdoor eating with family and friends • Public speaking using a sound system • Listening to amplified music • Singing, including karaoke • Dancing in the pavilion (gazebo) Quality Senlices Performed with Pride • 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. Scheduling File No.: PA-14-2 and ZC-14-2 Page 2 of 3 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 File No.: PA-14-2 and ZC-14-2 Page 3 of 3 Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 2, 2015 Page 1 of 4 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 10:00 A.M., MONDAY, MARCH 2, 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. PUBLIC HEARING on Shepherd Land Use Application (Private Park) – Will Groves Suggested Actions: Open hearing, take testimony; consider deliberations if appropriate. 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA _________ ______________________________________ 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. _________ ______________________________________ Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 2, 2015 Page 2 of 4 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 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) Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 2, 2015 Page 3 of 4 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) 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 Board of Commissioners’ Business Meeting Agenda Monday, March 2, 2015 Page 4 of 4 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. _________ ______________________________________