Loading...
1989-19710-Minutes for Meeting July 19,1989 Recorded 8/7/198989-19710 O W6 07µl7 MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMI ~S EiIS . i 31, 5 ) July 19, 1989 *Er ) PENN ~ #'4f ~i t V# t.0-a Chair Prante called the meeting to order at 10:02 a.m. Board members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Lois Bristow Prante. Also present were Rick Isham, Legal Counsel; Dennis Maloney, Corrections Director; Mike Maier, County Administrator. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Consent agenda items before the Board were: #1, chair signature of OLCC License renewal applications for LaPine Moose Lodge, Deschutes ROA Rampground, Skipper's, Hook, Wine and Cheddar, Riverwoods Country Store, G.I. Joe's, Hampton Station, Terrebonne Market, Vic's Tavern, Sunshine Quik Stop, Lava Lake Lodge, and LaPine Hi-Way Center; #2, signature of Power Line Easement for Central Electric Coop; #3, signature of Order 89-052, Refunding Taxes; and #4, waiver of access permit fees for MP-89-30. THROOP: Move approval of consent agenda. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 2. COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS OPTION I AND THE DESCHUTES COUNTY YOUTH SERVICES CENTER Before the Board was approval for Deschutes County to move from Community Corrections Option 3 to Option 1, thereby transferring the Community Corrections Program from the State to the County. The County would receive grant funding from the State of Oregon to operate the program. Dennis Maloney indicated that he received assurances from the State that any increases in the budget, especially in the case of negotiated staff salary increases, would be born by the State by adding it to the grant the County would receive. Dennis Maloney requested that the Board approve moving the Juvenile Department into the recently renovated warehouse building, which was partially occupied by the Education Service District, instead of the previous plan to move them to the Pilot Butte Motel. He indicated that because of the design of the Motel, he would have to increase staffing; whereas in the renovated building, the treatment, shelter and PAGE 1 BOARD MINUTES: 7/19/89 IxEY lD. AU G 989 the detention center could overseen by the current staff. Going to the newly remodeled facility would also allow runaways to be held in an area where they would not have to mix with youth who had committed crimes. He suggested calling the building the Deschutes County Youth Service Center since it would hold the Juvenile Department and the Assessment Center. THROOP: I'll move approval of Deschutes County's change from an Option 3 to an Option 1 Community Corrections County, and as a part of that motion, authorize the establishment of the Juvenile Department and associated facilities in the Deschutes County Youth Services Building. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 3. CHILDREN'S/YOUTH SERVICES GRANT WRITER AND COORDINATOR Before the Board was consideration of hiring a Youth Services Grant Writer/Coordinator to work with all of the children's and youth services groups. Dennis Maloney stated that since the Legislature had passed the Children's and Youth Commission bill, local youth and children's groups expressed the need for a staff person who would be available to pull all of these groups together and make Deschutes County competitive in applying for grant funds that would be available. He said JSC administrative overhead funds were available to fund the position for 3-4 months. After that, money would be available from State administrative overhead funds for the Children and Youth Commission. The staff person would bring back to the Board of Commissioners from the Commission of Children's/Youth Services what the Children and Youth Commission should look like, and what the relationship would be with area citizens, government, and other entities. Sue Hollern said that there was a real need for a staff position to continue the current momentum, respond to questions, and pull the various child/youth groups together; and she requested that the Commissioners move as quickly as possible. The Board asked that Dennis Maloney and Mike Maier prepare a specific proposal for next week's meeting on what the position's duties would be, what period of time the position would be needed, the monthly salary, and the method of hiring. PAGE 2 BOARD MINUTES: 7/19/89 00SO"' 0779 4. RESOLUTION 89-067, TRANSFERRING APPROPRIATIONS Before the Board was signature of Resolution 89-067 transferring $26,350 of appropriations within various fund of the 1988-89 Deschutes County Budget, Nunc Pro Tunc June 30, 1989. MAUDLIN: I'll move signature of Resolution 89-067. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 5. FINAL WARRANT VOUCHERS FOR FY 1988-89 Before the Board was approval of final warrant vouchers for FY 1988-89 in the amount of $135,249.53. MAUDLIN: I move payment of warrant vouchers subject to review. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 6. WEEKLY WARRANT VOUCHERS Before the Board was approval of bills in the amount of $134,064.44. MAUDLIN: So moved, same motion. THROOP: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chair Prante announced that the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners would reconvene at 10:00 a.m. Chair Prante reconvened the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners meeting at 10:00 a.m. Board members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Lois Bristow Prante. Also present were: Dave Hoerning, County Engineer; Karen Green, Community Development Director; and George Read, Interim Planning Director. PAGE 3 BOARD MINUTES: 7/19/89 0 l 0'750 7. PUBLIC HEARING: FINAL ORDER 89-053, LEONA LANE LID Before the Board was a public hearing on Final Order 89-053 concerning a Local Improvement District for a portion of Leona Lane from Meadow Lane to Howard Lane. Dave Hoerning stated that on June 21, 1989, the Board adopted a Resolution initiating the proceeding to improve the road. Engineer's report of June 28, 1989, was approved by the Board. The 26 affected property owners were notified of the public hearing, and four remonstrances were received. All of the people attending the public hearing were in favor of the formation of the road district, and a letter in favor of forming the district was read into the record. PRANTE: I will entertain a motion to sign Order 89-053. MAUDLIN: I so move. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 8. KLIPPEL ACRES SITE SURFACE MINING DECISION Before the Board was discussion and decision on whether to zone the Klippel Acres site for surface mining. PRANTE: We will open discussion on the Klippel site. Commissioner Maudlin... MAUDLIN: I think we've kind of gone back and forth on this thing and I think that we are prepared to, at this time I hope we are, to make a decision. PRANTE: We'll have discussion first and then we'll... MAUDLIN: Yeah, that's right. But I don't know what we're going to discuss so I think that's what we're here for because we haven't had this opportunity. We have been going back and forth with DOGAMI and LCDC and what have you and feel that we can make some kind of decision on this thing and to put this in some kind of an order so that we can, I am going to propose a motion and then we can take it from there. I am going to propose that we allow surface mining in Klippel Acres site excluding any crusher. I have checked the both areas from the Twin Bridges site and the site to where the road goes in at Klippel Acres there's a difference of .4 of a mile. They PAGE 4 BOARD MINUTES: 7/19/89 00 0781 propose to use a drag line area in the Twin Bridges site and I think that we can also use that same method and truck out from this site going back to the plant for crushing. It will do two things. I think it will create a less noisy atmosphere because crushers are noisy. It will also create considerably less traffic on Johnson Road into Bend from the Klippel acres site because the stock piles will be at the site of Bend Aggregate and Paving. To stockpile the crushed material at Klippel Acres would to me create.. they would have to go some place but down in that hole where they proposed to put the crusher because it's steeply angled and quite a valley in there. It would appear that there must be some economics in having all of the crushing in one location. They have area there to stockpile. One other item, and I want to include this, is that I think that their work as far as Fish and Game should be worked out with Fish and Game. I would propose hours from 7 am to 6 pm, no Saturdays, Sundays or weekends and that the area that would be on the farmed area, which is that section where the house sites area that goes over to the road that turns back into the north, that there be no mining within 300' of that road that goes back to the north. There is a level and it kind of drops off at about that, and I'm not sure of the footage because I didn't measure it, so that there would be 300' from the road that turns back to the north on the east side of the old Klippel Ranch site. PRANTE: For clarification, here's the road that goes back there, there's some houses along the river here, we're talking about this meadow area is that correct. You're saying 300' here and 300' here? MAUDLIN: Just 300' back from this road. THROOP: For purposes of discussion I'll second the motion. PRANTE: Let me condense the motion for clarity. I understand the motion to say they would #1 allow mining, #2 not allow crushing on the site, #3 hours 7 am to 6 pm, #4 no Saturdays, Sundays, or Holidays, #5, 300' setback from the river, from the road that parallels the river. Were there any other items? MAUDLIN: I don't think so. THROOP: Second for discussion. I'm motion, and the reason that I is after being at the site going to oppose the will oppose the motion a number of times and PAGE 5 BOARD MINUTES: 7/19/89 00J6) 0'782 sitting through the hearings and poring through the records, it's my view that the value of the existing conflicting residential development on the land adjacent to the site and the health and safety of the residents of the development is of a value greater than the mineral and aggregate resources. And it's my view that the Rlippel area is built and committed to rural residential uses and that the mineral and aggregate resources at the site should not be protected. I recognize that there's a question whether a residential use can prevent a mineral and aggregate resource from being developed. It's my view that the other resources are no more or less important than the mineral and aggregate and that the conflict and the issue really is with a use which is rural residential and if that position were to prevail that there may be a question that the courts and the legislature need to decide. But I think that existing residential development is a higher priority. PRANTE: I feel that while my heart goes out to the people who are there, that the surface mining designation preexisted and has been there for many, many years. That the surface mining activity was determined when we zoned surface mining reserve. MAUDLIN: If I may, there was a considerable amount of testimony regarding the lowering of property values in this particular area. And from January 1 of this year to July 1 of this year, I was only able to locate/find one property that is listed for sale in the multiple listing area in the Klippel acres. In Saddleback there were four sales, and they were within 2-3% of the listing price on all of these. The only sale that I could find in the Rlippel Acres area was a 5-acre vacant land which was listed for $22,500 and sold for $20,000. PRANTE: What was the date of that sale? MAUDLIN: I don't know, it was between January 1 and July 1, that's the best I can give you. All of these others were also within that same area. There were four sales in the Saddleback area during that period of time. So I can understand the concern on that thing but doesn't seem to have been proven out in the existing sales. At the site that was to the north of the existing plant, I don't know the name of it, where they are almost completed in the mining there, there was a lot of early complaint because of.. before it started. Once it started it seemed to PAGE 6 BOARD MINUTES: 7/19/89 00S91" G783 stop and there didn't seem to be a problem. Now we've had a numerous amount of testimony regarding what would be created. I think with this motion that we would have alleviated a great deal of the problem. PRANTE: I have a question of staff. In the previous testimony, there were some rigid stipulations as to environmental standards and those will hold, or do those have to be outlined in the motion--question #1. And question #2, was the County's ability to enforce those site plan issues, and I think that has been settled through the discussions and meetings with DOGAMI that we do have the authority to enforce those and shall do so. GREEN: Madam chair and members of the Board, in response to your first question, the Planning Commission in it's recommendations to the Board, did outline very specific conditions including some environmental protection conditions, and I have those and can read them to you or circulate this to you so you can look at those. The motion that's before you now does not include the majority of those conditions. PRANTE: I would like to amend to include those conditions. They, however, allowed crushing and this motion does not allow crushing on this site. GREEN: That's correct. The Planning Commission did recommend that crushing be allowed. If I may before I follow up on your second question, Commissioner Maudlin's comments about property listings that he had researched, I have a concern about putting that into the record at this point. That's new information, new factual information which Commissioner Maudlin has now put on the record. However the factual record was closed some time ago and my concern is that now that that is on the record, if it's going to form a part of your decision, for any of you, that we may need to reopen the factual record to allow people to respond to that, those remarks. MAUDLIN: This is purely, as far as I'm concerned whether it's on the record or not, is an answer to some concerns that people have on this thing as far property values are concerned. We've had, there's been testimony regarding property values from every location in the world on this thing. I think it behooves at least me to try to find out how much of that testimony is correct or incorrect. This is PAGE 7 BOARD MINUTES: 7/19/89 OgSfi 0784 information that I went out and checked on to give me a benefit of some kind of an informational purpose so that I could make a decision. Whether anybody else has it or not is irrelevant. GREEN: My point was that, I'm not suggesting that that's not appropriate Commissioner Maudlin. What I'm suggesting is that because the factual record is closed and you've just put new information before the Board, presumably to be considered in making a decision, that's information which wasn't in the record previously, and to the extent to which it would affect your decision, I'm concerned that we not bring testimony in after the record's been closed. We may need to reopen the record or disregard that information. MAUDLIN: Strike my testimony. PRANTE: Strike your testimony, okay. GREEN: If you feel that you can now disregard having heard it. If you, the Board would like me to I can read the conditions that the Planning Commission did ask be included. They recommended that the site be zoned for surface mining with the following conditions: winter closure per Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for the winter deer range; that this area be treated as a "quiet area" per DEQ rules and the discussions that they had about the "quiet area" rules were specific; that all other DEQ standards be met; that the water rights stay on the property--those that are on the property, stay on the property, and be put to beneficial use for at least five years after the surface mining operation; only those areas that be used as such be zoned surface mining. What that means is, I think it was Planning Commissioner Clark's testimony to that he wanted only those portions of the acreage on the site that would actually be mined zoned surface mining. PRANTE: Didn't we have some difficulty on that--being unable to do that? GREEN: I have recommended to the Board that you not do that, that you zone the entire tax lot or tax lots identified on the map. Condition 6, the hours and days of operation would be 8 am to 5 pm weekdays, no weekends or holidays. #7, that extraction be limited to five acres at a time with concurrent reclamation. #8 that usual vegetative screening be PAGE 8 BOARD MINUTES: 7/19/89 O 3 6 0785- supplied to the greatest extent possible and in the best available manner. #9 that the slope on the reclaimed land be no more than five to one. #10 that the reclaimed land be smoothed as much as possible to allow irrigation. #11 that Public Works, at the time of site plan review, consult concerning the cumulative impacts on Johnson Road due to mining activity on the site and other sites; And finally placement of vehicle access should be at the alternative site at the northwest portion of the tax lot, which I think was pointed out to the Board on your site visit. I'm just scanning, I think there was one amendment to that. Yes, Commissioner Clark amended his request on the limitation on the zoning acreage which I think the Board has determined not to do. So those were the Planning Commission's recommendations. PRANTE: So that Item #5 has been resolved and deleted. I would amend that the hours be 8 am to 5 pm instead of 7 am to 5 pm. The only other question and that is do.. THROOP: 7 am to 6 pm is what Dick.. MAUDLIN: 7 to 6 was the motion. PRANTE: We'll do a compromise of 8 am to 6 pm. GREEN: Commissioner Prante asked about the issue of the enforcement of these conditions, and as we discussed yesterday in the Department Head Meeting, the discussions have progressed, I think significantly in some respects, concerning our role in enforcement and very significantly with respect to DOGAMI. My belief based on the meetings that I've had with DOGAMI and the meeting that George Read had with DLCD and our further discussions to come with DLCD, that these conditions that I just read, the Planning Commission recommendations, are conditions that can be enforced by the County through it's zoning ordinance in cooperation with DOGAMI and DEQ and possibly with some deferral to one or both of those agencies to enforce their particular conditions. The only additional condition in Commissioner Maudlin's motion that, if I might just quickly make a remark on, that I'm a little bit concerned about the record supporting is the proposed 300' setback on the road that was described as running parallel to Tumalo Creek. Unless there is something that I've missed in the testimony and the record, I don't know that there's anything in the record, I don't PAGE 9 BOARD MINUTES: 7/19/89 00 6 0786 think there is anything in the record that would specifically support a 300' setback from that road. MAUDLIN: I don't know if there is either, but that's what I want, that was the motion. It more or less sets it along the same lines of the mining that will be to the south. PRANTE: Let me ask two other questions. Going back there was a stipulation that they work with Fish and Wildlife, they also stipulated that they closed in winter. It's my understanding that the applicant had agreed to the stipulations presented by the restrictions or conditions presented by the Planning Commission, was that not correct? GREEN: Madam Chair, it's my recollection that their attorney indicated they would do what the Department of Fish and Wildlife required, that they would work with them, and I believe they had agreed to a, under closure there was, I believe still some further discussion to be had as to whether that would be a six month for a five month or a four month. PRANTE: And Commissioner Maudlin's motion stipulated that the Fish and Wildlife issue be settled between the applicant and Fish and Wildlife. That then is not inconsistent with what is presented there? GREEN: It is not inconsistent. PRANTE: Then I would amend, if the 8 am to 5 pm hours were accepted there, I would stay with the 8 am to 5 pm hours so that when people return from work there would be the quiet. THROOP: Point of order, is that a motion to amend that requires a second and a majority vote? GREEN: Sounds like it. PRANTE: OR, sorry about that. Well can we request.. THROOP: Or it could be a friendly amendment. PRANTE: This is a friendly amendment. Would you Commissioner Maudlin have objections to being consistent with this? MAUDLIN: I have no objections. My concern was the number of hours of operation being on weekdays, and felt that 7 am to 6 pm was not unreasonable, but if you wish PAGE 10 BOARD MINUTES: 7/19/89 00Sfi Un78'7 to make it 8 am to 5 pm. I really felt that I should have included all of these things that came out from the Planning Commission, but I didn't have them in front of me in such a manner that I could include them. I did not want item #5, I did not want in there. I have no objection to these other items, the 8 am to 5 pm period of time. 9. PRANTE: Your amendment then will include the Planning Commission recommendations as discussed and the 8 am to 5 pm hours. MAUDLIN: Uh huh. THROOP: Let me see if I understand, the Item 5 was that those areas be, only those areas that be used as such be zoned as SM. PRANTE: We were not able to do that-like zoning industrial only the part that has the building and not the tax lot per say. Any further discussion? MAUDLIN: No. PRANTE: Call for the question. MAUDLIN: Question. PRANTE: Commissioner Maudlin? MAUDLIN: Aye. PRANTE: Commissioner Throop? THROOP: No. PRANTE: Chair votes aye. ROSE SITE SURFACE MINING DECISION THROOP: Madame Chair, I was hoping that the time that we had provided would give both the proponents and the opponents the opportunity to get together and try to negotiate an agreement that both parties would concur with but to my understanding is that did not happen. In view of that, I'm prepared to support the Planning Commission recommendation, and the Planning Commission recommendation I'd be happy to put it in the form of motion. I would move that the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners support the Planning Commission recommendation on the Rose PAGE 11 BOARD MINUTES: 7/19/89 COST,.')" 0'788 site and that includes: that it be dirt or fill material only; that only the dirt area itself be zoned SM, if we can do that, we'll come back on that one; that there be no mining of rock; that in the motion we find that other resources and uses are of greater importance; that there be no rock mining at all nor blasting; no processing on site; that water be transferred to the site for reclamation purposes; that the hours of operation be 8 am to 5 pm, no weekends, no holidays; 1 to 3 slope, maximum depth at 601; revegetation in the reclamation plan; and if the holes are actually filled with rock, make certain that there's a minimum of four feet of top soil on top of the rock; no landfill of solid waste material in the holes; that the area be established as DEQ "quiet area" and extra mufflers and other kinds of requirements that go along with that "quiet area" be included in the operation; that the appropriate portion of the haul road be paved and then for the portions of the haul road that it's not feasible to pave, treat that with water or oil or other dust abatement techniques; that the site be fenced, have a gate or be gated; and then also to the greatest degree possible, visually screen the site from neighboring parcels; that ODF&W be consulted and have the opportunity to indicate when mule deer would be in the area and the site should be curtailed; that access be provided the site from the north; that a maximum of five acres at a time be mined; and that dust on the site and control techniques meet DEQ standards and that includes the haul roads; if there is a wind activity where material is being carried off-site, that the site be closed, and that other operational strategies such as trying to minimize the dust impact of stockpiles be incorporated as well. PRANTE: Is there a second. MAUDLIN; I'll second the motion. PRANTE: It's been moved, is there discussion? MAUDLIN: I have a question on, I think your next to the last area regarding the wind blown, how are we going... THROOP: It's probably more of a site plan issue, and I guess I would like to see us establish in the motion that dust will meet DEQ standards, and that there needs to be a plan established which would include haul roads, include operations on site, and would probably-and would include curtailing operations PAGE 12 BOARD MINUTES: 7/19/89 if the weather were such where the material on site was blown in sufficient quantities off-site, similar to what we're looking at doing on Bend Demolition Landfill. MAUDLIN: That was my very thought Tom. I have a feeling sometime, you know, I think you're curtailing having a minimum stockpile would be very important in this because I think we may have more of a problem when they're not operating than they are, if the stockpiles are allowed to mound too high a degree. And I think that that may answer that question. THROOP: Maybe we ought a, let me ask Karen for a little help on that. I think that dust control area is probably the only one that I expanded in the motion beyond what the Planning Commission had done, had included in their decision. Could you provide some consultation on how you think that element ought to be constructed given the discussion between Dick and myself? GREEN: Well, I think, if I standards would be be devised to circumstances tha operation outside correct statement? understand your motion, it's DEQ met but some special plan would address extraordinary dust .t would presumably put the of DEQ standards. Is that a THROOP: Yes. GREEN: I think that that can be incorporated in the motion that as a part of site plan, the applicant would show what that plan would be, that in the event of extraordinary dust conditions due to weather or wind ...plan and that if closure were necessary that would be a part of that plan, and that as long it is still tied to meeting DEQ standards, I think it is..we are safest taking that approach, and it is also consistent with what the Planning Commission recommended to the Board recognizing that this site may have some unique factors because of the material and the location that would put more in jeopardy for violating DEQ standards on a more regular basis. You also had a question, I believe, about limiting the zoning designation to the dirt site, and as we discussed before the problem with doing that is if you can't clearly identify the location. I think in this instance we have a map that designates the dirt or fill area. If that is the case and if it can be described by a map and/or a legal description, then I think you can designate a PAGE 13 BOARD MINUTES: 7/19/89 0: -0,790 smaller area for surface mining as long as you've allowed in that surface mining designation access roads and other parts of the operation. If that is your recommendation, and it can't be achieved, which we would find out from the applicant or their attorney, then we could come back to you. PRANTE: We would have an opportunity to amend. THROOP: My intent would be to include those caveats in the motion then, let's do it that way. MAUDLIN: That's pretty difficult to do because the map that we showed is a, shows the piece of property with a kind of a circle drawn on it, which does not to me outline or define where that particular area would be, and since it has been limited to dirt or fill, and I want to be sure that we define that quite clearly as fill dirt because rocks can also be used as fill and creates breaking them up and what have you and I think we say dirt, then I think that that would answer that question on where they can mine. THROOP: Let's make it clear for the record too, I think we're talking alluvial sand and gravels only, is that, I think that was somewhere here, the site's 140 acres. Let's see Bob Lovlien in his presenta tion to the Deschutes County Planning Commission on Wednesday, March 1, 1989, indicated that "with regard to the fill material there's 91 acres of material that could be removed, " and he gave a brief history of the zoning and testing. I'm not sure if that 91 acres includes both that dirt and hard rock or if that's just the dirt. Bob's here. Maybe I can ask a clarification. LOVLIEN: I think we can come up with a description that will cover all of the material that you've described and it's approximately 91 acres. MAUDLIN: If you can do that I've go no objection on that. GREEN: We do have a map that outlines the dirt area. MAUDLIN: This is my primary problem with this, the map like I say is lines drawn on paper, and if we run into a situation that they get over the line someplace then we've got problems. GREEN: I think we need to require a legal description or some survey or something that would give us an assurance that the line is the correct line. PAGE 14 BOARD MINUTES: 7/19/89 PRANTE: Isn't the line defined by the resource? GREEN: I believe it is. PRANTE: So there's no activity beyond that because we are not allowing any other resource to be taken out. GREEN: That's right. The issue that I raised, about including adequate room for an access road and so on, I'm not sure is addressed by that map, and there may need to be an additional portion allowing access and egress and ingress for truck traffic. PRANTE: Then would you want to have your motion include the specific definition of the resource to be removed or mined that will be forthcoming and that will be included because that would cover the area if there would be no activity outside because that resource is not existing there. THROOP: Yes. And that will be described for us. PRANTE: Would that be permissible Karen? GREEN : If you.. an amendment or an exhibit to your findings in support of your decision and ask the applicant to provide that to you before you finalize your decision. MAUDLIN: Mr. Lovlien seemed to think that they could provide a description of the area and I would prefer to do it that way. THROOP: I think he's saying a legal description. PRANTE: Either way it covers it. of discussion? MAUDLIN: Question. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES Okay, does that take care 9. ORDINANCE 89-017 AND ORDINANCE 89-018, PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE FOR HILLMAN PROPERTIES NORTHWEST Before the Board was a public hearing regarding Ordinance 89- 017, a Plan Amendment and Ordinance 89-018, a Zone Change on a parcel along Highway 97 from Urban Standard Residential to Highway Commercial for Hillman Properties Northwest. George Read gave a staff report indicating that the rezoning was for PAGE 15 BOARD MINUTES: 7/19/89 the proposed Fred Meyer shopping center area. He said the Hearings Officer prepared a Findings and Decisions which he recommended adopting with these ordinances. No one from the audience wished to testify. PRANTE: I would entertain a motion, even though we have draft ordinances, to read both ordinances first and second readings by title only. THROOP: I'll make that motion. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES Commissioner Prante performed the first and second readings of Ordinance 89-017. PRANTE: I will entertain a motion for adoption. MAUDLIN: I so move. THROOP: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES Commissioner Prante performed the first and second reading of Ordinance 89-018. PRANTE: Entertain a motion to adopt. THROOP: Move adoption. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 10. APPEAL OF HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION ON ZONE CHANGE FOR VIC AND VICKIE RUSSELL Before the Board was an appeal of the Hearings Officer's denial of a Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Surface Mining to Rural Industrial for Vic and Vickie Russell on some property in LaPine. George Read gave the staff report indicating that the property was located near Wickiup Junction. He said it would involve both a comprehensive plan PAGE 16 BOARD MINUTES: 7/19/89 amendment and a zone change. In order to do a comprehensive plan amendment, he said an exception to the statewide planning goals would be necessary, which had very complex and involved criteria. The Hearings Officer found that the applicant met all of the criteria except for the "need" for the rezoning since there were over 300 acres of vacant land already zoned industrial in the LaPine industrial area, the majority of which was owned by the County. However, investigation since the Hearing's Officers decision showed that there was no comparable property that already had facilities and services available. Attorney for the applicant, Bob Lovlien, had maps showing there was no other property in the area that was developed and immediately available for industrial use in the LaPine area except for an .8 acre parcel. He pointed out that since the Russell's site was an unreclaimed surface mining site, it was worthless in its present state. Vickie Russell gave the Commissioners letters of support for the zone change from the LaPine community. No one wished to speak in opposition to the appeal. PRANTE: Entertain a motion. THROOP: I move that we reverse the Hearings Officer's position and allow the zone change and plan amendment and direct staff to write findings and have an ordinance prepared based on the discussion. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES DESCHUTES C UNTY BO OF COMMISSIONERS Lois Br'stow Prante, Chair Tom Throo Commissioner Dick Maudlin, Commissioner BOCC:alb PAGE 17 BOARD MINUTES: 7/19/89