Loading...
1984-90261-Minutes for Meeting December 05,1984 Recorded 12/17/1984t 1`I,17 FF 1R: 714 DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING Chairman Young called the meeting to order at 10:00 A.M. Commissioners Prante and Tuttle were also present. Amendments to Chairman Young read aloud the amendments to the the Agenda agenda. Appeal Hearing Chairman Young outlined the rules and format of on V-84-17, the appeal hearing. This is an appeal of the David Oliver Hearings Officer's decision not to allow a model home in an RR10 zone. Chairman Young opened the hearing and called for the staff report. Craig Smith, Planner, came forward to deliver the staff report. Mr. Smith provided background information on the application, and explained the reason the Hearings Officer had denied the application. There were no questions of staff at this time. Attorney Myer Avedovech, 315 NW Greenwood, came forward on behalf of the applicant, David Oliver. He made reference to his transcript on the record. He stated that the Hearings Officer erred in that he did not base his decision solely on what was provided as evidence at the hearing. First, the Hearings Officer found that they had presented a good deal of evidence and indicated there were problems providing water to this site. This is a three -acre parcel in an RR10 zone near Deschutes Jct. There was no way to provide water to the property short of a major expenditure. There is no evidence in the record to support the Hearings Officer finding that there was not adequate facility for water and sewer because there is no occupancy in the building which will be a model home and barn. At one point a opponent appeared and said that this will be strip development. This is in the findings. Mr. Avedovech stated that there is no basis for this. They will be between activities that are already there. They are between the activities of the store at the junction and the weigh station. The third issue is whether or commercial activity has been allowed in the RR10 zone. Mr. Avedovech had submitted statements out of the Plan and other documents from the county's findings indicating that under the designations in the RR10 zone there are commercial activities allowed. He read these aloud from the copy that he made of the conditional DECEMBER 5, 1984 MINUTES: PAGE 1 ! 62 PAGE 189 use section of the zoning ordinance (Exhibit A). He also noted that this parcel is located in what was once the Al zone in the old zoning ordinance, which allowed certain commercial uses. The parcel is three acres, but it was a created prior to the 10 acre minimum zoning took affect. He noted that Deschutes Jct. has a store and gas station in the RSC zone, allowed for the benefit of the residents. He felt that it is improper to disallow this proposed use because it was for the benefit of the owner, rather than the neighboring residents. He did not feel this concept belongs in the Hearings Officer findings. Mr. Avedovech stated that the Hearings Officer made a major error when failing to take into consideration the uniqueness of the property. This is a statement which was made in the hearing noting that this was very unique site because of the proximity of the railroad tracks, a major highway, and a weigh station. This is not a good site for a residential use. It provides a hardship on his client has he is limited to a residential use only on this property. This is not a strip development. This would be a very limited commercial activity that looks like a residence. He did not feel that there would be any negative impact on the surrounding area or the Comp Plan. Mr. Avedovech then reiterated that unless the Hearings Officer decision is based on evidence provided at the hearing, the decision is invalid. He felt that the Hearings Officer had exceed his authority by making a decision not based on the evidence. He stated that the purpose and goal of planning and zoning is to provide for the orderly development of a community, not to prohibit the use of the land. He did not feel that this use would impact these goals or be a negative impact on the area. Chairman Young then called for comments in opposition. Hearing none, he called for staff rebuttal comments. Mr. Smith made a statement about the conditional uses and commercial uses in reply to Mr. Avedovech. This use is not listed as a conditional use, therefore it is not a use that can be allowed in the zone. In almost every zone, there are some conditional uses which may be considered commercial in nature. This has never been interpreted to mean that commercial uses are somehow permitted in every zone. With regard to the RSC zone on the corner, the intent of the ordinance is that these are allowed to serve the DECEMBER 5, 1984 MINUTES: PAGE 2 WIN residents in the area, but this was not intended to be a highway commercial zone. Chairman Young then closed the hearing. He called for questions from the Board. Commissioner Prante asked Mr. Smith about the resulting hardship to the applicant; if this was the sole residence surrounded by railroad tracks, highway and truckstop, it appears that it would be a very undesireable situation to develop this as a homesite; was this taken into consideration. Mr. Smith responded that it was, but it was not felt that because of this, they should allow commercial development. There are numerous similar lots between the highway and the railroad tracks, none of which have homes or commercial uses. MOTION: PRANTE moved to reverse the Hearings Officer decision and grant the variance. TUTTLE: Second. Chairman Young noted that they will be writing up some findings of fact. Mr. Avedovech will develop findings for the Board's adoption. Commissioner Tuttle stated that he will vote against the motion because he does not feel the that the applicant has met the burden of proof for a variance. A variance for a use requires special burden of proof requirements to be met, but the applicant has not yet provided evidence that these have been complied with. VOTE: APPROVAL; TUTTLE DISSENTING. Decision on Chairman Young noted that the hearing had been held Rose & Assoc. and is now closed. Appeal Hearing MOTION: PRANTE moved to support the decision and findings of the Hearings Officer in the Rose & Associates appeal. TUTTLE: Second. This adopts the Hearings Officer Findings of Fact and conditions in regard to the Rose appeal. Commissioner Tuttle stated that the decision before the Hearings Officer, and now before the Board, was the zoning on a 20 -acre parcel. This disguises that 20 -acre zone change on a smaller parcel. The record doesn't even support the zone change for the 200 square foot parcel since there was not evidence of how much material is available at the site. The Hearings Officer granted a conditional zone change. There is no mechanism for such an action in the ordinance. Commissioner Prante commented that she supports the Hearings Officer decision. Chairman Young stated that he would also support the Hearings Officer DECEMBER 5, 1984 MINUTES: PAGE 3 River Study Requests VOL decision. He feels that the purpose to keep it undeveloped so that it can mining at some point in the future. 62 FAcE 191 of the zone is be used for Commissioner Tuttle noted a problem with findings prepared by Mr. Fancher, relating to a finding that the County has no regulatory authority. He recommended that the findings not include this. It was agreed that no findings would be considered other than those developed by the Hearings'Officer. VOTE: APPROVAL; TUTTLE DISSENTING. Bill Marlett, River Planner, came forward to explain the contracts that he is requesting Board approval for. Item 2. A. is a contract with the University of Oregon to do the labor intensive work on the tourism study. This will cost $5,000 of County funds. Item 2.B. is also with the U of 0 in the amount of $16,118 for the B/C analysis. Funding for this will be obtained through an LCDC grant. Item 2.C. is with Ragatz Associates in the amount of $10,000, to be funded from outside sources. It is the tourism study to be done in conjunction with the U of 0 contract for $5,000. Item 2.D. is for mapping contracted with OSU in the amount of $8,635. This will also be funded with LCDC grant funds. These two contracts with U of 0 and OSU will use all remaining funds in the LCDC grant. Item 2.E. requests use of State park funds collected from RV licensing and distributed to Counties. Mr. Marlett has met with Mike Maier, Director of Administrative Services regarding this. The funds are to be used for park and park -related purposes. It is felt that comprehensive planning on the river corridor would be a park -related use. They have received verbal confirmation to this effect from Kathy Stratton of the Parks Division, and are awaiting written confirmation. The amount of funds available for 1985/86 is anticipated to be $10,000. Mr. Marlett requests that the funds for this period be allocated for this purpose. Item 2.F. is the National Parks Service/ State Parks memorandum of understanding. The original document is being sent from the Seattle NPS office. Mr. Marlett requested approval and signature upon DECEMBER 5, 1984 MINUTES: PAGE 4 VOL FAcE l32 receipt of that original document. MOTION: TUTTLE moved that upon execution of the Personal Services Contract identified in Agenda items 2.A. through D. that we authorize the Board to sign those contracts when they are made available. PRANTE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. Item 2.E: MOTION: TUTTLE moved that they authorize the use of County Park Assistance Progam revenues from the State Parks Department to be used for the Parkway Plan for the Deschutes River corridor for 1985/86. PRANTE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. Item 2.F: MOTION: TUTTLE moved that they sign the original upon receipt from the National Parks Service. PRANTE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. Acceptance of MOTION: PRANTE moved to accept the Declaration of Declaration of Dedication of Moe/ Reed Market Road as Moe/ Reed Mkt submitted by Dave Hoerning. Rd TUTTLE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. Declaration of MOTION: PRANTE moved to accept the Declaration for Dedication for Brooks Resources/ Ward China Hat. Brooks Resources TUTTLE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. Ratification of Mr. Hoerning had taken this around for Board sign - Signature of ature earlier for escrow purposes. This is a deed Warranty Deed for right of way purposes. /Sherman Park MOTION: PRANTE moved to ratify the signature of Lot 13, Sherman Park. TUTTLE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. Mr. Hoerning has these documents, and has processed them. Order 84-289, Chairman Young read aloud the title of the order Approving Inc. and stated that the election for incorporation will of the City of be held March 26, 1985. LaPine/ Setting MOTION: PRANTE moved to approve Order 84-289. Formation TUTTLE: Second. Election Mr. Isham noted that notice was given to LCDC on the petition, but that a comp plan for LaPine has DECEMBER 5, 1984 MINUTES: PAGE 5 62 PAGE 193 not been submitted. It appears that they will be preparing an amendment to the comp plan that will replace the current chapter titled "LaPine" in the plan. If the incorporation passes, then this will take effect. AMENDMENT: PRANTE moved to amend motion to authorize the Chairman to sign Exhibits contingent upon Clerk's making the proper preparations. TUTTLE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. Res. 84-056, Chairman Young read aloud the Resolution. Commis - Designating sioner Prante explained that this is one of the COCAAN as the steps necessary to finalize the CAP program. CAA for Des- MOTION: PRANTE moved to sign Resolution 84-056. chutes County TUTTLE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.. Resolution 84- This will be a purchase, not a lease/ purchase. 057, Authoriz- The contract amount is $73,723. ing Phone Sys- MOTION: TUTTLE moved to sign Resolution 84 - tem Purchase 057 authorizing purchase of a phone system. This authorizes the Chairman to sign the contracts. PRANTE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. Appointment of Commissioner Prante read aloud the list of members Members to Com- to be appointed. The list is attached to the munity Correc- minutes. tions Advisory MOTION: PRANTE moved that the listed names be Committee appointed to the Community Corrections Advisory Committee with terms to be provided by Corrections. TUTTLE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. Signature of MOTION: TUTTLE moved to sign MP -84-20, for Wolf MP -84-20, Wolf and Palmer and sign the Declaration of Dedication for the roadway which is number 7 on the amendments to the agenda. The only contingency being that we have not compared the legal descriptions between the declaration of dedication and the Minor Partition, so he recommended that they sign the minor partition and authorize signature of of the declaration of dedicaton after they have had a chance to authorize the legal descriptions. PRANTE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. DECEMBER 5, 1984 MINUTES: PAGE 6 ra 62 au.194 MP -84-18, MOTION: TUTTLE moved to sign MP -84 -18 - Georgia Elling- PRANTE: Second. son VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. Request for Before the Board was a request for refund from Refund/ CDD Gary Stone Plumbing in the amount of $23.40. The Board approved the request. Resignation of Chairman Young read aloud his resignation letter. Chairman Young His resignation is effective December 31, 1984. MOTION: TUTTLE moved to accept the resignation. PRANTE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. Appointment to MOTION: PRANTE moved to nominate Phil Redmond Urban Killingsworth to the Redmond Urban Area Area Planning Planning Commission. Commission TUTTLE: Second. VOTE: APPROVAL; YOUNG ABSTAINING. MJP-84-7, MOTION: TUTTLE moved to sign MJP-84-7. Kemple, Knake PRANTE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. Request from Chairman Young explained that the Bend Chamber Chamber/ Roads of Commerce has asked that the County draft a letter to the State Highway Division requesting that Highway 20 East of Bend be improved as soon as possible. Chairman Young read aloud that letter. MOTION: PRANTE moved to sign the letter. TUTTLE: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. Other Staff/ Mr. Isham mentioned that he had placed an item on Public Concerns next week's agenda regarding the ongoing choice that the County has made with the Community Corrections Program. He noted that there were some funding changes and it is generally suggested that the Community Corrections Advisory Committee make a study of the options and make a recommendatoin to the County. It was also agreed that there would be no Board meeting on December 26, 1984. Those wishing to submit plats will submit them the week earlier and they will be held until the appeal period is over. DECEMBER 5, 1984 MINUTES: PAGE 7 Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ALBERT A. YOUNG CHAIR BRISTOW PRANTE, COMMISSIONER LAURENCE A. TUTTLE, /ss ONER DECEMBER 5, 1984 MINUTES: PAGE 8 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Deschutes County VU 1. Hon. Walter I. Edmonds, Jr. Circuit judge Circuit Court for Deschutes Count,, Deschutes County Courthouse Bend, OR 97701 Phone: 388-5313 2. Hon. Joseoh T. Thalhofer District Judge District Court for Deschutes County Deschutes County Courthouse Bend, OR 97701 Phone: 388-5319 3. Tom Howes District Attorney Deschutes County Courthouse Bend, OR 97701 Phone: 388-6520 4. Eois-PraTrte, County Commissioner Board of Commissioners Courthouse Annex Bend, OR 97701 Phone: 388-6570 5. Jim France, Sheriff Sheriff Deschutes County Courthouse Bend, OR 97701 Phone: 388-6655 6. Jim Thorpe Citizen 578 NE Kincrway Redmond, OR 97756 Phone: 548-1684 7. Don Laws Citizen c/o Central Oregon Community College College Way Bend, OR 97701 Phone: 389-8745 8. Bill James Citizen Bend Pillbox 325 NW Franklin Avenue Bend, OR 97701 Phone: 382-1454 ' Community Corrections Advisory Committee Page 2 9. Ann VanDusen Deschutes Countv Familv Counseling Clinic 61396 S. Hicrhway 97 Bend, OR 97702 Phone: 388-6601 10. Dave t4eier Bend City Police Department Bend City Hall Bend, OR 97701 Phone: 388-5550 11.. Kathy Hoskins Deschutes Council on Alcoholism PO BOX 7647 Bend, OR 97708 Phone: 389-3256 12. Bob Hollipeter 1560 NE 1st Street Bend, OR 97701 Phone: 382-5319 13. Rick Isham Deschutes County Counsel Courthouse Annex Bend, OR 97701 Phone: 388-6623 14. Terry Rahmsdorff 327 NW Greenwood Ave. Bend, OR 97701 Phone: 389-7723 15. Barney Cosgrove (Chairman) 20042 Parkside Place Bend, OR 97702 Phone: 389-7581 16. Mike Mier c/o Board of Commissioners Courthouse Annex Bend, OR 97701 Phone: 388-6570 17. Gene Barton 1526 NW Hill Bend, OR 97701 Phone: 382-1811 ► VOL �2 FA E'17 Director Detective Director Citizen Citizen Public Defender Citizen Citizen Citizen Community Corrections Advisory Committee Page 3 18. Mike Nehl 409 NE Greenwood Avenue Bend, OR 9770I Phone: 388-6244 19. Ernie Mazzarol c/o Deschutes County Courthouse Bend, OR 97701 Phone: 388-5326 22. Andy VanAlstyne PO BOX 4314 Sunriver, OR 97707 Phone: 593-8844 21. Shelley Fennell 1668 SW Knoll Bend, OR 97701 Phone: 382-7893 22. Bart Ferrera 409 NE Greenwood Avenue Bend, OR 97701 Phone: 388-6244 VOL 62 ET Parole/ Probation Officer Court Administrator Citizen Citizen Corrections Supervisor REQUIRED NOTIFICATION FOR THE LA PINE SPECIAL SEWER DISTRICT PUBLIC HEARING I `O Mr. FAGE199 A. The amount of funds available for community development and housing is generally $500,000. As this application is for technical assistance, the limit is $10,000. B. The range of activities that may be undertaken with technical assistance grants made to counties is limited to study of a problem in an area of the county with a population under 2,500. C. Information on the number of low and moderate income persons benefited by the proposed grant will be determined by survey. That information will be made available at the County Commis- sioners office and at the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Coun- cil office in Redmond. D. Efforts to minimize displacement of persons and households as a result of this project are efforts to minimize cost of the project and, thereby, minimize impact on the effected individ- uals. The grant being applied for now will, in itself, not cause any displacement. The sewer district project intended to follow could cause displacement if the cost burden falls upon the persons resident in the district, therefore, the efforts being made are to minimize that cost. Paradoxically, the sewer district project is required to prevent the displacement which the substandard water quality could precipitate. E. A statement regarding the proposal has been made at this hearing. Notice was published appropriately. Public comment on the proposal and on the community development performance of Deschutes County is invited. F. The public hearing is being held today. The final application will be available to the public at the County Commissioners office and the COIC office in Redmond. G. The past use of community development funds consist of one economic development grant. Information is available to the public at the County Commissioners office and at the COIC office in Redmond. H. No substantive changes have been made. Should they be made, notice will be given and public input will be encouraged.