Loading...
1984-90212-Minutes for Meeting October 10,1984 Recorded 12/6/1984DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OCTOBER 10, 1984 MEETING MINUTES VOL fit FACE 101 13S4 07C -6 .!A 4: 27 Acting Chairman Tuttle called the meeting to order Commissioners Prante and Young were also present. 0� Ji'afI t CLERK' Amendments to Chairman Tuttle read aloud the amendments to the the Agenda agenda. There were no additions or changes. He also indicated that item number 4 on the agenda would be heard at 11:30 A.M. Appeal Hearing Chairman Tuttle stated that this was an appeal of on V-84-10, a Hearings Officer decision not to allow a variance Brooks Resources to the road standards for a subdivision. This and Carl & Gwen property had also been included in a zone change Newport, Appli- application. Chairman Tuttle gave further cants background information as contained in the Staff Report. The Hearings Officer approved the zone change request from F-4 to F-2 but denied the variance to the road standards. Chairman Tuttle outlined the hearing procedure and asked for any challenges or declarations of con- flict of or by any member of the Board to hear this appeal. There were none. Chairman Tuttle opened the hearing. Lin Bernhardt, Planner, gave the staff report. She explained that the variance request was for a 20' graded road surface rather than a paved surface. This is a four -lot subdivision located just outside the Sisters urban growth boundary to the west. The subdivision ordinance requires that all parcels in the subdivision have paved road access. The variance was developed for extreme and unique hardship cases. The staff and the Hearings Officer feel that two of the four variance criteria have not been met. Those two requirements are: (1) there does not appear to be any uniqueness about the subject property; and (2) it appears that the applicant did create the condition. Had the applicant not applied for a subdivision this would not have been necessary. In this case, a subdivision plat would have been necessary even if only one lot were created, since this property was subdivided within the last five years. There were no further questions of staff at this time. Chairman Tuttle called for comments from the applicant. Bob Lovlien, attorney representing Brooks Resources and the Newports, came forward. He noted that Jim Crowell and Carl Newport were also present. Mr. Lovlien explained that this OCTOBER 10, 1984 MEETING MINUTES/ PAGE 1 ' VOL 62 FAcE 162 subdivision was part of a subdivision filed earlier by Brooks called "Section 5". Access is through Heavenly Acres Subdivision. Mr. Newport intends to purchase the three parcels to the North, which are parcels 2, 3, and 4 on the subdivision plat in question. The property is bound on three sides by Forest Service land. Immediately to the North is Tollgate subdivision, which has its own access. He noted that they asked for a 5" cindered road base, not just a graded road base, instead of the required paved base. He stated that Brooks has done a number of things in Section 5, one being the Heavenly Acres subdivision, and that they had been notified by the Planning Department that any further land divisions would require a subdivision plat to be filed, so the Newports had no other choice. They then filed a four"lot subdivision, with the one 60 -acre parcel intended for the proposed high school. The other lots are intended to be sold to the Newports. If this had not been a subdivision, then only a gravelled road would have been required. This road will not go anywhere because adjoining land doesn't require further access. The other three lots will not be divided further because they are now the smallest allowed in the zone. When the High School goes in, paving will be required then, and then it can be paved. With regard to the variance criteria, he felt that the condition was not created by the applicant, but rather by the County, because it is the County's ordinance that requires it. Brooks Resources is in the business of selling land so no matter how they want to sell this property they would be in the same position on the subdivision requirement so he feel that this is a condition created by the Planning staff. He also felt that this situation was unique to the lot itself. He noted that little case law exists with regard to this criteria. He did not feel that this criteria applied in the F3 zone because it is not a general condition in the F3 zone throughout the county. Sometimes this condition applies to an irregularly shaped lot. There is nothing inherent in the land itself, but it is the circumstances. He felt that this offered a basis for granting a variance. There are circumstances inherent in the land that would justify the variance. It doesn't seem necessary and reasonable to require a 3" paved surface to serve three woodlots. They are zoned for forest use. They feel that people may use this road thinking that it is a through road and creating an increased risk of fire, vandalism, etc. They feel that a 5" cindered base should be required. There were no questions of Mr. Lovlien at this time. OCTOBER 10, 1984 MEETING MINUTES/ PAGE 2 62 FACE 103 Chairman Tuttle then called for rebuttal comments. Ms. Bernhardt noted that the applicant's represent- ative stated that the proposal is one step below paving. That is true, but there is a substantial difference between a cindered and a paved road. The partition versus subdivision argument is really not an issue in this case because this would be a subdivision regardless of any prior land divisions, because it does create four lots. This subdivision requirement was written into the ordinances to prevent people from circumventing the ordinance requirement by partitioning the same property each year into more and more lots. Ms. Bernhardt also noted that the construction of the proposed high school on one lot is not a valid argument because it may not be developed for ten years, if at all, and there is no guarantee that it will be put there at all. The Road Department has indicated that even if the school was built they would not have to tear up the old pavement. This road could be built upon for the school road. She also noted that there are two court cases that speak to the physical characteristics of a site. Those both required that there be a physical characteristic about the site causing the condition. Parcel size can be considered a physical characteristic. She did not feel there was anything physically unique on this property that merits variance. Commissioner Prante commented that based on common sense there are only three places, that the road goes nowhere and all the subdivisions that were developed with graded roads, that it seemed like they shouldn't require this for this subdivision. Mr. Lovlien came forward for his rebuttal comments. He felt that the partition versus subdivision question is an issue. He also felt that the high school question is a valid argument because that is a donation that has been offered by not yet accespted by the Sisters School District. They are not trying to circumvent the subdivision ordinance because they did apply for a subdivision but they only want a variance from the road standards because people can't built the paved roads for woodlots like this. Chairman Tuttle then called for any further questions. Hearing none, he closed the hearing. MOTION: YOUNG moved to sustain the decision of the Hearings Officer and adopt the findings of the Hearings Officer supporting that decision. OCTOBER 10, 1984 MEETING MINUTES/ PAGE 3 VOL 62 PAGE 104 TUTTLE: Second. Commissioner Young stated that when these variances are allowed, although they are told no one will build, someone will come along and build and then they come to the County and want decent roads. The County has had many problems with subdivisions that were allowed to put in only gravel roads. He mentioned that the development of a school is no guarantee that they will put in a road. He noted that when the Bend school district built Mountain View High School, one condition of approval to build was that the district would improve the road. This never happened, and the county had to improve the road for the safety of the children. He did not feel that they could grow enough trees on this land to make it pay so eventually that property will probably be developed. VOTE: APPROVAL; PRANTE DISSENTING. Public Hearing Chairman Tuttle outlined the hearing format. Mr. on Proposed In- Isham gave background information on the progress corporation of of the incorporation procedure to date as well as LaPine information on the related land use issues. He stated that there are two statutes governing incorporation, which will be consolidated for the purpose of this hearing. The hearing is to determine whether to vote on incorporation, and to establish boundaries of incorporation. Chairman Tuttle then opened the public hearing, calling first for comments from Planning staff. Denyse McGriff, Senior Planner, came forward. She explained that the hearing was to discuss incorporation and amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and exceptions to the goals in the plan. She showed the proposed boundaries as outlined on the wall map. She and the LCDC local representative, Brent Lake, had done a parcel by parcel land use inventory for use in determining these boundaries. She also noted that the map reprented a revised boundary, which is smaller than that indicated in the notice because they had omitted a subdivided area used for grazing within the flood plain zone. Kenneth Jones (998 Ferry Lane, Eugene), attorney representing the LaPine Business Association, spoke in favor of the incorporation. He stated that the area in LaPine has been the subject of a lot of paperwork and discussion in the Comp Plan. He stated that it is a Rural Development Center that should be incorporated according to the Plan. He submitted for the record an economic feasibility OCTOBER 10, 1984 MEETING MINUTES/ PAGE 4 VOL sz PAGE 1®5 study for Lapine, and two attached exhibits. He then outlined information contained in his letter to the Board dated October 10, 1984 (contained in the record). He commented that the entire area has been considered a community for many years. In order for it to control all of its growth and to be an orderly growth, they would like to control that in LaPine. He stated that the only way to do that is to incorporate. Ken Travis (16221 North Drive, LaPine, President of the LaPine Business Assocation, came forward. He stated they are the primary group behind the effort to incorporate. They have been told that for their sewer project, there is more money available for a city than for a district. They are trying to get a town with very few frills-- just what is necessary create a town and to begin development at a very minimum cost. He stated that the present budget of the sewer and the proposed budget for the town is only 9c difference. For that 9c difference, they could have their own town. At the present time, they cannot enlarge any motels or restaurants or build any additional facilities which would provide more tourism -based income. Incorporation would also provide the local residents with the decision making power relating to .future development. They feel that they should get the money from the state available for this sort of thing. Brent Lake (2150 NE Studio Rd., Bend), LCDC Field Representative, came forward. He stated that they have been working with the citizens in LaPine to form incorporation boundaries. He supports the reduced boundaries being presented. He discussed Administrative Rule 660.14 dealing with incorpor- ation. That rule identifies three general types of cities which seek incorporation: (1) incorporation that is totally included within existing growth boundaries; (2) a city that has an urban density and some level of urban services; and (3) and area on rural land with no development. He feels LaPine falls into the second category. The rule also requires that the decision be based on findings of fact supported by: size, relation of residences; urban levels of facilities or residential services, and parcel size and ownership patterns. It is the department's position that the findings provided by the LaPine Incorporation Committee address these. Representative Tom Throop, Bend, came forward. He stated that he is very interested in obtaining sewer services for the LaPine area. He stated that OCTOBER 10, 1984 MEETING MINUTES/ PAGE 5 VOL 62 FACE 1®s the businesses are supportive but residents are not. He stated that it is very important the measure appears on the ballot and the get the opportunity to make that decision. They must solve the problem caused by the lack of sewage facilities. He felt that the problems that need to be solved could be solved by sewage facilities. Mary Gordon, 16480 Foss Road, LaPine, came forward. She is both a property owner and a business owner and a resident. She stated her support for the incorporation. Kay Nelson, Westviwe Motel, Hwy. 97, LaPine, came forward. She is a Board member of the LaPine Sewer District. She stated support of the incorporation because she feels that the sewer will cost them less if they have access to some of the funding that is not available to them now. Chairman Tuttle then called for comments in opposition. Bob House, 32070 Oak Plain Drive, Halsey, OR, came forward. He also owns property on Foss Road. He stated that the area is approximately 80 acres and only 16.6 acres is taxable land, the rest is BLM. He noted that the County land to the north also was not on the tax rolls. He stated that to the east and south are about 160 acres included in the proposed industrial area. He stated that the watershed is quite fragile. The railroad dug a well to supply trains with water. The industrial park which pumps water and their cement plant caused the water table to drop. He stated that because of the property not on the tax rolls, the 80 acres has very little tax base. He stated that he wished for his property to be excluded from the boundaries (tax map 22-10- 14AC, taxlot 500). Chairman Young instructed him to file his request for exclusion in writing as well. He also cautioned that this does not constitute a promise to be excluded. Mr. O.H. Lunda, Foss Road, LaPine, came forward. He stated that he opposes incorporation. He did not feel that they should have to pay for a sewer for the businesses. They are retired and cannot afford this. Maxine Wardrip, Findley Butte Road, LaPine, came forward. She explained that they lease the property and are the only ones who live there year- round. There are three other homes in the area OCTOBER 10, 1984 MEETING MINUTES/ PAGE 6 VOL 62 FACE 107 and they rarely have people staying there. She stated that they wish to be excluded from the incorporation boundaries. Chairman Young again requested a written request. Mr. Wes Mitts, Moro, OR, came forward. He explained that he lives in LaPine in the summer. He did not wish to be included in the boundaries. He felt the boundaries extended too far. He noted that the industrial park was near his property, and he stated he doesn't want any noisy activities like a sawmill right next to him. He also stated that the names of the streets are always named after the first ones that lived on them. Since he was the first on his road he requested that it be named Mitts Way. He indicated that he would send his letter requested to be excluded. Dick Maudlin, County Commission candidate, came forward. He believes that this should be a decision made by the citizens of LaPine in cooperation with Deschutes County. They have received testimony from 1000 Friends of Oregon. He stated that 1000 Friends of Oregon can no longer justify their organization on their attack on the LaPine incorporation while there is a Raj nee shpuram. Chairman Tuttle then called for rebuttal comments from those in favor. Kenneth Jones stated that one of the parties talked about income and that party already lives within the boundaries of the LaPine Sewer District. He stated that the land next to Mr. Mitts is already industrial, so incorporation won't affect his concerns about noise. Ken Travis stated that in regard to the industrial sit they are working with the County to set up guidelines on what is permitted. He stated that it is very close to becoming available for industrial purposes. He stated that they do not want a lot of noise or smoke pollution. Chairman Tuttle then called for rebuttal comments from those opposed. Bob House stated that most of the people objecting to this are in the one area and they are nearly half of that area. Mr. Mitts stated that he may have mentioned the railroad tracks as being a dividing line between OCTOBER 10, 1984 MEETING MINUTES/ PAGE 7 r VOL 62 rAc-108 the residential and industrial area. He wanted to clarify that there are two lots of 2-1/2 acres between his land and the railroad tracks. Chairman Tuttle then called for questions from the Board. Chairman Tuttle asked Mr. Lake if their department comments would have been the same regarding the water and sewer district requirements if Ballot Measure 2 were successful. Mr. Lake responded that they are looking at the factors the county must address before the County can put this out to a vote of the people. Whether it was before or after November 7 would not make any difference. Chairman Tuttle then asked about financial matters relating to the distribution of income. The figure of $10,000 was listing as revenue for the LaPine share Forest Receipts. The total road length within the city for city maintenance is only .81 mile. The County has cooperative agreements with the cities for these funds which are based on roads. The $10,000 figure does not agree with that distribution formula. There was some discussion on the proper way to request the response to this question, so as to allow for other parties to respond. It was determined that a written response could be allowed as long as it was made available for others to respond to it. MOTION: YOUNG moved to continue this matter to the 7th of November. PRANTE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. At this time the Board took a five-minute break. Resolution 84- Mr. Isham explained that this is required in 047, Declaring accordance with Chapter 35 Eminent Domain for the the Necessity LaPine Rec Road. This will provide a through to Acquire access to the residential area to be served by that Property road. The property will be acquired through eminent domain, and an offer made to the owner. If the owner does not find the offer acceptable, he can arrange to meet with the Assessor to determine value. If an agreement is not then reached, then the process of acquiring through eminent domain will be utilized. Chairman Tuttle read aloud the resolution. MOTION: YOUNG moved to adopt. PRANTE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. OCTOBER 10, 1984 MEETING MINUTES/ PAGE 8 VOL 62 FACE 109 Orders 84-267 MOTION: YOUNG moved the orders be accepted. & 84-268, In the PRANTE: Second. Matter of Refund VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL of Taxes Requests for Before the Board were requests for refunds for Refunds High Country Wood Stoves, $18.20; Wayne Coker, $14.56; and Spring River Electric, $20.80. The requests were approved. Other Staff/ Before the Board was a 401 Water Quality permit Public Concerns for GED Corporation for consideration. Chairman Tuttle explained that on May 10, 1984, the Board sent a letter to DEQ indicating that we understood there were some applications for Section 401 certificates for hydro projects on the Deschutes River. In that letter, it was asked that DEQ not act on them, but continue to cooperate with the County. After that time, GED applied to FERC for a license. Chairman Tuttle then read aloud a letter from GED relating to this. Since the deadline for response is October 15, Chairman Tuttle asked Legal Counsel to draft a letter in response to DEQ. This letter says County want DEQ to continue to coordinate with the hydro ordinance adopted 12/21/84 by Deschutes County. This requires that GED make application in accordance with the Comp Plan and the ordinance and procedures the County is proposing. In consideration of the intergovernmental agreement DEQ was exempted frdm the application and land use goals. DEQ has indirectly delegated the land use questions to the local level. MOTION: YOUNG moved that they sign and send the letter to DEQ. PRANTE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. Closing on the Mr. Isham explained that this is for the Pilot Sheldon Arnett Butte Nursing Home property on Highway 20. This Deed used to be the County poor farm. The deed was not ready for signature at this meeting because this is not a simple transaction. It was purchased in 1979 under a land sales contract. There have been two sales releases from the contract. The closing is not scheduled to occur until next Monday. A pay- off figure was given for closing on Monday's date. MOTION: PRANTE moved to sign that deed subject to the payoff of the land sales contract and back taxes which are due and owing on the property. YOUNG: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. OCTOBER 10, 1984 MEETING MINUTES/ PAGE 9 VOL 62 FACE 110 Acceptance of Dave Hoerning, County Engineer, explained that this Deed for Knott is a correction deed to create the proper inter - Road section. MOTION: YOUNG moved to accept the deed subject to Legal Counsel's review. PRANTE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. Signature of It was noted that this bid was awarded at the last Contracts for meeting in the amount of $68,500. Pickups and MOTION: YOUNG moved to sign the contracts for the Sedans purchase of sedans and pickups, the purchase was approved last week. PRANTE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. Ordinance 84- It was noted that this was the subject of a zone 032, Removing change application. The property was under a con - CH Zoning from ventional housing overlay zone. They want to allow Certain Property a mobile home on this property. They received approval from the Hearings Officer and no appeal was filed. The ordinance contains an emergency clause. MOTION: YOUNG moved the first and second reading be by title only. PRANTE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. Chairman Tuttle so read. MOTION: PRANTE moved to adopt Ordinance 84-032. YOUNG: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. It was noted that there was no public hearing because the hearing was conducted by the Hearings Officer. Presentation of Michael Maier, Director of Administrative Services, Building Remod- and Marshal Ricker, Architect, were present for eling plans for this. Mr. Ricker explained that the plan before Greenwood Bldg. them represents all the departmental meetings and is an updated version resulting from many drafts. He went through the plan, noting that the entrance would be changed to the east side of the building facing the parking lot. It appears that construction will begin about December 1. An extended cost of $200,000 also reflects the roof system cost. MOTION: YOUNG moved to approve the plan as presented and to direct Mike Maier, Rick Isham and Marshal Ricker to begin preparing contract documents. PRANTE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. OCTOBER 10, 1984 MEETING MINUTES/ PAGE 10 VOL 62 FACE Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS e - Al A. UYoung,/airman Laurence ATuttl , tin�g/ Chairman �oisBristow Prante, Commissioner /ss OCTOBER 10, 1984 MEETING MINUTES/ PAGE 11