No preview available
1985-13581-Minutes for Meeting May 13,1985 Recorded 7/1/1985VOL 64 PACE 687 85-13581 PM a 23 DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ` #" ' ' � t" r �i;�101W CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE HEARINGS OFFI;CE1;P4',"ff1Y0 N ON FILE 3 TP84-664, EAGLE CREST MAY 13, 1985 Chairman Tuttle, Commissioner Prante and Commissioner Maudlin were in attendance; Legal Counsel, Rick Isham was also in attendance. Chairman Tuttle opened the Continuation of Public Hearing on the Eagle Crest Appeal at 11:00 a.m. Chairman Tuttle explained that there was an unfinished issue related to the possible road, and the grade associated with that road - a question was raised by Mr. Speck for response by Mr. Jaqua. Mr. Speck stated that he requested an explanation as to how Mr. Jabs arrived at a 10% grade on the road. He explained that he received no response from Mr. Jaqua; however, they agreed to stipulate into the record a contour map showing the grade on Mrs. Dean's property. Mr. Jaqua requested a letter be submitted into the record in response to the extra rebuttal testimony. Chairman Tuttle read the letter into the record (see attached). Chairman Tuttle noted that a permit application dated March 17, 1981, by Donald Fisher, identifying the job location of Northwest 67th Street, Redmond, for the purpose of constructing a residence and a garage (Township 15, Range 12, Section 14Z, Tax Lot 700) has been included as an attachment. Chairman Tuttle noted that a memorandum dated March 17, 1981 to Richard Isham, Legal Counsel, from Richard Knowles, Associate Planner regarding authorization of a building permit has been entered into the record, along with the response from Mr. Isham to Mr. Knowles. Mr. Jaqua stated that in regards to talking with Mr. Fisher, it is his understanding that all three of those documents went together; however, the two letters imply to the tax lot, and the building application implies to something totally different. Mr. Jaqua stated that he will submit a letter of correction to the Board. Chairman Tuttle clarified the issue, stating that the job location identified on the permit application is NW 67th Street in Redmond, which has a tax lot number of 700. The two memoran- dums refer to tax lot number 700 on the property in question. 1 P VOL 64 eAcF 688 Mr. Speck referenced Exhibit #16, a copy of a map prepared by Eagle Crest Developers which shows Mrs. Dean's existing residen- tial property. It also shows the location of the drain field and the location of the well. It shows that the slope from her house to the well and drain field is approximatley a seven foot drop and the width of her property is 282 feet. In contacting the Road Department Mrs. Dean asked what the slope would be given the above information. She was informed that it would be approxima- tely 45%. Mr. Speck stated that in reference to the third paragraph of Mr. Jaqua's letter to the Board (May 13, 1985), "with the Fisher option, according to William Lyche, who negotiated the option, it was Fisher who would not extend the option and was unable to comply to option terms" - we disagree with that statement. Commissioner Prante requested Mr. Jab's to approach the bench to show the Board the possibility of the 10% grade. Chairman Tuttle noted for the record that in the Friday, May 10, 1985 edition of The Bulletin, a letter from Mrs. Dean was in the "Letters to the Editor" column. Chairman Tuttle noted that he did read the letter as did the other two Commissioenrs; however, he could not recall specifically the content of the letter. Commissioner Prante and Commissioner Maudlin indicated that they did read the letter but it did not influence their decision in these proceedings. Chairman Tuttle noted that he picked up the mail on Friday, May 10, 1985, and opened a letter addressed to the Commissioners from Greta Dean. He indicated that he read the first three lines and upon realizing what the content was he put the letter back into the envelope and delivered it to Legal Counsel, Rick Isham. Chairman Tuttle stated that to the best of his knowledge the other two Commissioners had not seen the letter, and he instruct- ed Legal Counsel to return the letter to Mr. Speck, unread. Chairman Tuttle stated that he did not believe that it owuld influence his decision. Chairman Tuttle proposed to have a concensus of the four issues raised at this Hearing: 1) River Easement 2) Bonding for Improvements 3) Access 4) Modifications to the Conditional Use Chairman Tuttle proposed to take up the first two items first; to form a concensus then move to the access and modification uses issue last. 0 VOL 64 PAGE 639 Chairman Tuttle closed the Hearing at this time. River Easement In reviewing the River easement issue, Commissioner Maudlin expressed his concern regarding Mr. Jaqua's request that a ten foot access easement above the high water mark of the River be opened from one end of the property to the other. Commissioner Maudlin stated that he doesn't feel that the situation would give the public the right to trespass beyond that ten foot area. Chairman Tuttle stated that it was his understanding that it is a lateral easement and does not imply direct access from any portion of Eagle Crest to the River except at either end of the ownership, and commented that that understanding would be stated in the Board's letter of decision for clarification. Commissioner Maudlin noted for the record that he has no objec- tion to the River easement itself, but he is concerned basically about what the use of that easement will be - availability for people to go up and down the River to fish; however, would like limitations so the vegetation will not be ruined. Chairman Tuttle stated that the intent is to allow an easement for recreational use, and not for the purpose of an improved easement. George Read, Associate Planner, requested the Board to allow the applicant to work with the staff to prepare an easement. Bonding Issue Chairman Tuttle stated that it was his understanding that all of the improvements for the Eagle Crest Development had to be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit. Rick Isham, Legal Counsel, stated the Board has the authority to phase a subdivision within the ordinance. Mr. Isham noted that Eagle Crest has not proposed as a phased subdivision. Mr. Read commented that it was not a proposed subdivision; however, the section of the ordinance that was questioned states that no building permit can be issued for any iot of a private subdivision until the improvements are completed and accepted by the County and then also states that unless this provision is waived by the Hearings Body because of the character of the subdivision. Mr. Read stated that the staff felt that when the applicant originally submitted the burden of proof statement that the Hearings Officer waived that requirement and the staff had no problem with that. K, VOL 64 FACE 690 Mr. Isham stated that the bonding requirements require that they bond 1200 of the estimated cost of improvements. Mr. Isham further stated that there is nothing in the ordinance that would prohibit the phasing of these bonding requirements. Chairman Tuttle stated that if the Board, as a Hearings Body develops a finding that this is in fact a phased development and thus would allow for the bonding of improvements for the appro- priate phase rather than the completion of the entire subdivi- sion. Mr. Read stated that it will be bonded; however, the waiver is to allow building permits to be issued, after the bond is in place but before the completion of improvements. Commissioner Maudlin stated that if we have the bond, then why is necessary to get a waiver. Mr. Read explained that the ordinance states that you have to have a waiver or have the bond - that is the interpretation of the ordinance - that no building permit shall be issued for any lot of a plotted subdivision until the improvements are completed and accepted by the County unless waived by the Hearings Body - within the section that requires 120% of the improvements shall be submitted. Essentially you have to have the improvements or the bond in order to have the improvements completed before you get building permits, not before you can sell lots. Mr. Read stated that the waiver allows them to go ahead and get building permits for the condominium units, they still have to be bonded in this case, but prior to the completion of all improvements. Mr. Isham stated that the Board could find that the bond is sufficient security for the completion of improvements to not place at risk the purchaser of the lot and the subdivision. Chairman Tuttle noted that the Board reached a concensus of the first two items. Modifications to the Conditional Use Chairman Tuttle stated that it is his understanding the the possible request for the modification of the time frame for which the development is to occur, and the possibility of a change in the original configuration of the conditional use. Chairman Tuttle stated that he believes that it is reasonable to allow for a modificaiton of the time frame within the actions of 4 IJ VOL 64 FAcr 691 staff; however believes that changes should they be proposed in the original configuration of the conditional use should be subject to the normal notice provisions of the County's pro- cedural ordinance. Commissioner Maudlin asked if a request for modification has been submitted. Chairman Tuttle stated that there has been no request for a change in the configuration of the project that hasn't appeared in the original conditional use application. Should there be, that would require a normal notification as required by the County's procedural ordinance. Chairman Tuttle noted that it would be an appropriate delegation related to the submission of the modifications relating to the time frame for development be submitted and acted on by staff. Chairman Tuttle stated this decision that the configuration be made procedural ordinance so staff decision. Access that it is his suggestion for purposes of Board require any proposed changes to the part of the notice provisions of our that it is defined that it isn't purely a Chairman Tuttle stated that based on the original conditional use and based on the fact that there has been no change or request to the original configuration of the conditional use whether or not this Hearings Body has an obligation to require access as part of our land use process to the parcel involved. Chairman Tuttle stated that it is his conclusion that they do not have an obligation under the land use process to provide a guaranteed access to that parcel for the reasons afforementioned. Commissioner Maudlin stated that in reviewing the finding that there are no statutory provisions which require the creation of easements for access to public property for the benefit of separately owned undeveloped private land in the subdivision partition ordinance. Commissioner Maudlin stated that the Board of County Commissioners were removed from this land use decision by an ordinance enacted in 1982. Commissioner Prante stated that there are no land use issues for the Board to respond to and that the Board can make no judgements on the access situation. 5 VOL 64 PACE 692 Chairman Tuttle summarized the discussion and entertained a motion to sustain the Hearing Officer's decision, including the following clarifications: i) that the ten foot river access easement be retained using the conservation easement process as the basis for conditions to be established; 2) that building permits be issued prior to the completion of improvements, if bonded, 3) that when the developer applies for extensions of time or changes in the original configuration of the conditional use permit; the requested modifications shall be processed in accordance with the procedural ordinance; and; 4) that the Hearings Officer's decision related to access be sustained. MOTION: PRANTE so moved. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. ting was adjourned. COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS LAUREN AATE, HAIRM IS ISTE, C ISSIONER DIC MA DLIN, COMMISSIONER BOCC:kbw 85-201.1 C1