No preview available
1990-00685-Minutes for Meeting January 03,1990 Recorded 1/9/1990I 90-00685 MINUTES - 0723 DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS January 3, 1990 It 1CROFIiMtD JAN 1.1 1990 Chair Prante called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. Board members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Lois Bristow Prante. Also present were: Rick Isham, County Legal Counsel; Dave Hoerning, County Engineer; Karen Green, Community Development Director; Bruce White, Assistant Legal Counsel; and George Read, Planning Director. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Consent agenda items before the Board were: #1, appointment of Marlis Beier to Mental Health Advisory Board; #2, signature of condominium plat for the Ridge Condominiums Stage IV for Weirgate Corporation; #3, reappointment of James Eriser to River Forest Acres Special Road District Board of Directors. THROOP: Move approval of the consent agenda items. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 2. SELECTION OF COMMISSION CHAIR Before the Board was selection of a chair for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners for the year 1990. MAUDLIN: I move appointment of Commissioner Tom Throop,as chairman for 1990. THROOP: I'll second the motion. s VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES Commissioner Throop took over as chair of the meeting. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDER 90-007 DENYING VACATION OF MILL ROAD Before the board was a public hearing continued from October 25, 1989, regarding the proposed vacation of Mill Road in the Skyline Subdivision. Dave Hoerning testified that the reason for the request was because the size of the lot that the property owner requested the vacation because his building lot PAGE 1 MINUTES: 1/3/90 gyn. 099 - 0724 was not large enough to build the home they wanted and still meet the set back requirements. He said a number of people at the public hearing testified that they did not want to see the road vacated, so it was suggested that the property owner look into getting a set back variance. The variance was approved so the vacation was no longer necessary. He recommended that the proposed vacation of Mill Road be denied. PRANTE: I will move that we deny the vacation of Mill Road. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 4. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCES 90-001 AND 90-002 PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE FOR SCIENCE PROPERTIES Before the Board was a public hearing on the request by Science Properties for a Plan Amendment and Zone Change which would rezone a portion of their existing property from Research and Development to Rural Service Residential and rezone a portion of the property immediately south of them from RSR-5 to Research and Development. George Read gave the staff report indicating that the hearings officer recommended approval with a condition limiting the size of the site by rezoning the western portion of the property. Kelly Smith, one of the principals of Bend Research and a partner in Science Properties, testified that the purpose of the requested zone change was to allow them to expand their operation southerly into an area away from the surrounding residences. He said the Hearings Officer considered this and recommended that the western portion of the requested zone change be left in an RSR-5 zone and that the western portion of their current R & D zone be changed back to RSR-5. They agreed to the proposed change because it fit their goal of wanting a buffer area around their facility and that their facility would not be near their rural neighbors. He requested that the boundary of the zone coincide with the natural occurring tree line on the property. PRANTE: I move first and second reading of Ordinances 90- 001 and 90-002 by title only. MAUDLIN: Second the motion. PAGE 2 MINUTES: 1/3/90 ( J913 - 0725 Commissioner Maudlin said he would like to include in the motion that the Board directed the Planning Commission to write a set of findings regarding the approval. George Read said that since the Hearings Officer's findings were not contested, they would be submitted in support of this application. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chair Throop performed the first and second readings of Ordinances 90-001 and 90-002 by titled only. PRANTE: I'll move approval of Ordinances 90-001 and 90-002. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 5. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDER 90-003 VACATION OF PORTION OF 60 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY Before the Board was a public hearing on the proposed vacation of a portion of a sixty foot right-of-way. David Hoerning testified that he received a petition on October 31, 1989, requesting the vacation of a portion of a sixty foot right of way dedicated as Parcel #4 in a Dedication Deed recorded in Volume 310, Page 952 in Deed Records in the Office of the County Clerk. He said the Board of County Commissioners declared its intent to vacate the property by Resolution 89- 096 dated November 22, 1989, and scheduled the public hearing. The property proposed for vacation was owned by the public, and the actual road right of way had never been opened or used. He felt the proposed vacation was in the public interest since the road was not needed for access from the abutting properties. Bob Keller, an adjacent property owner, asked whether he could extend the vacation to include the same area on Parcel 4. Dave Hoerning said that since it was a different piece of property than what had been requested in the petition and what had been specified in the notice to surrounding property owners, a separate vacation petition would have to be made by Mr. Keller. MAUDLIN: I would move the vacation of the sixty foot right of way and signature of Order 90-003. PRANTE: Second. PAGE 3 MINUTES: 1/3/90 099 - 0726 VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 6. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDER 90-002 VACATING PORTION OF STAG DRIVE Before the Board was a public hearing regarding the County initiated petition for the vacation of a portion of Stag Drive. Dave Hoerning reported that when "The Farm" Subdivision was filed, they apparently picked up the wrong property pin on the adjoining subdivision which created a 30- foot offset where the two subdivision roads should have met. The affected property owner was contacted to see if the road could be moved so that it would connect, and he agreed. Dave Hoerning said the utility companies were notified on December 4, 1989. They posted the public hearing notice in the area and published it in the newspaper on December 14, 1989. The Engineer's report was in favor of the vacation. No one from the audience wished to testify on the vacation. PRANTE: I'll move signature of order 90-002. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 7. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDER 90-001 VACATING PORTION OF MURPHY ROAD Before the Board was a public hearing on the proposed vacation of a portion of Murphy Road. Dave Hoerning reported that a petition requesting the vacation was received on August 28, 1989. He said the four property owners asked that the County vacate the portion of the right of way that was left unused when Murphy Road was relocated. The property owners were willing to take the property subject to the utility easement on the property. They wanted to do some landscaping and weed clean up on the site. He recommended approval of the vacation. No one from the audience wished to testify. PRANTE: I'll move approval of order 90-001 vacating a portion of Murphy Road. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 4 MINUTES: 1/3/90 099 - 0727 8. PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION AND PARTITION ORDINANCE 90-003 Chair Throop opened the public hearing and commented that he had recently heard from Pacific Power regarding their concern that this ordinance would preclude a utility from providing utilities to one subdivision through another subdivision. Bruce White said that Pacific Power was correct, and that he had also spoken with them. He said the language was reflective of some ongoing litigation in Equestrian Meadows where they were trying to correct a situation where a utility line had been put through an easement to serve an adjoining subdivision without the property owner's consent . He said it was the county's view that the granting of an easement was to serve the subdivision in which the property was located and not adjoining subdivisions. He said the changes in this ordinance were to clarify what they felt was the intention of the existing Ordinance. He said he had spoken with attorneys for PP&L the previous day, and had told them that these clarifications were being made. He said they requested that the pertinent sections be pulled from the ordinance so that they could be discussed further. Commissioner Prante asked what the implications would be if the Board continued the public hearing for a couple of weeks to get more input on the utility issues. Bruce White said that a state law had gone into effect on 1-1-90 and this ordinance would facilitate the recording of partition plats which the current ordinance didn't recognize. He suggested amending the proposal to exclude the sections under contention for discussion at a later public hearing. George Read said that postponing the adoption of the entire ordinance would create a hardship since no one could record a minor or major land partition in the County and probably not a subdivision plat during the intervening time period. He also suggested adopting the ordinance without the sections under controversy. Bruce White identified the controversial sections as: (1) page 14, Section 17.24.080 Public Utility Easement Grants; (2) page 23, Section 17.36.160. Chair Throop asked if there were any other issues in the Ordinance that had raised significant concerns which should also be set aside for consideration at a later date. Bruce White said the only issue of contention at the Planning Commission public hearing was the proposed parks dedication fees. He said the Planning Commission split over this issue 4-2 in favor. He said that on page 24, Section 17.44, the definition of subdivider was changed to include one who partitions as well as one who subdivides, to unify the recording process for subdivision and partition plats. He said it was a substantive change since individuals who PAGE 5 MINUTES: 1/3/90 099 - 0`128 proposed partitions would also be subject to the section concerning fees for park dedications. Bruce White said that the Ordinance would also require a title report for all partitions and subdivisions since all subdivisions and partitions were required to get the consent of the owners. The title report would prove if they had provided consent of the actual owners. Another change was to reflect current county policy which would no longer require the submission of restrictive covenants and homeowners association agreements since it had been the County's position not to get involved in agreements between private parties. George Read said the reason the parks dedication fees came up was because of the unification of processes involved with subdivisions and partitions which would essentially become the same. The question arose whether people who partitioned property should be subject to parks dedication fees like people who subdivided property. He said in the Bend Urban Area there was an 8% parks dedication fee, and in the Redmond Urban area there was a 5% parks dedication fee. It was presumed that a subdivision created a greater impact than a partition in terms of the number of people. On the other hand, the parks dedication fee was only a one-time fee which, if it were paid as part of the partition, would not be paid later as part of the subdivision process. He said the fee was somewhat unfair in that it did not relate to the number of dwelling units created as it would if it were outside the urban growth boundary. Commissioner Maudlin asked if he had two legal lots outside the urban growth boundary (one 15 acres and one five acres), and he wanted to make them into two 10 acre lots, would it be considered a partition? George Read said no, but if he had wanted to split a 20 acre parcel into two 10 acre parcels, it would be considered a partition and parks fees would be required. He said it would be minimal, however, since it was based on the assessed value of the property. Ted Schassberger said he was not testifying as a member of the Deschutes County Planning Commission but as an individual. He said he had submitted a letter to the Board which indicated that he did not feel that individuals filing partitions should be required to dedicate the amount specified in the ordinance. He did not feel it was equitable to charge the same fee for someone splitting 10 acres into two parcel as would be required of someone who was splitting 10 acres into 25 parcels. He said the split vote of the Planning Commission was 4 in favor and 2 opposed to the ordinance. PAGE 6 MINUTES: 1/3/90 099 - 0729 MAUDLIN: I would move the adoption of ordinance 90-003, first and second reading by title only with the following changes: that section 17.24.080 be deleted and to read as it did previously, that section 17.36.160 not be added and read as it did previously, and that section 17.44.010 be not amended and to read as it did previously. All of these things to be restudied at a later date so that we can take a better and closer look at it. PRANTE: I'll second. Bruce White commented that on Section 17.44.010, the motion would not do what he felt the Board had intended. He suggested that changing the word "subdivider" to "subdivision" in Section 17.44.010 (a) would accomplish what the Board had intended. The Board agreed to amend the motion as suggested by Bruce White. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chair Throop performed the first and second readings of Ordinance 90-003. MAUDLIN: Move adoption of ordinance 90-003. PRANTE: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 9. BUSINESS LOAN FOR PACIFIC ARTS MANUFACTURING Before the Board was approval of a business loan for Pacific Arts Manufacturing. Commissioner Throop said that approval included the provision that the County's position not be subordinate to the bank. MAUDLIN: I would move approval of the business loan from Deschutes County to Pacific Arts. THROOP: I'll second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 7 MINUTES: 1/3/90 099 --0730 10. DECISION ON PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE FOR APPLICANTS STRASSER, MONTGOMERY AND OLIVER Before the Board was the decision on an appeal of the Hearing's Officer's decision to allow a plan amendment and zone change for applicants Strasser, Montgomery and Oliver. The Applicants had requested a zone change and plan amendment from Rural Residential (RR-10) to Rural Service Center and Limited Use Combining Zone (RSC-LU) on 10 acres located along Spring River Road. A public hearing on the appeal had been held on December 13, 1989, and written testimony had been received from both sides. George Read said he had spoken with Ken Bierly of the Division of State Lands. Mr. Bierly told him that he had been on the site and that a small area primarily on one lot would be considered wet lands, and was being filled in with material. However, he said it was not necessarily a factor in the zone change request. George Read said the County did have a Fill and Removal Ordinance and that a permit was required for any fill and removal. A permit had not be issued for this fill project and was being investigated to determine if a citation was in order. George Read said he had received a Letter of Map Revision from the Army Corps of Engineers stating that the area concerned in the zone change was not in the flood plain. He said Deschutes County's ordinance indicated that the flood plain designation would be determined by information received from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Corps of Engineers. Commissioner Maudlin said there were two points which he had hoped would be clarified in the written testimony but were not: (1) that the proposal would adversely affect surrounding properties and (2) that there had been a failure to comply with notice provisions of ordinances. George Read said that the staff provided the sign which was picked up by the applicants for posting on the affected property, but it was not their policy to go out and verify whether the sign had actually been posted. Commissioner Prante said that it was the feeling of the Board that there be no dog kennels on the property. MAUDLIN: I would move that we uphold the findings of the hearings officer with the elimination of the kennel or animal hospital using the hearings officer's limited use combining zone containing the uses as described with that one elimination. PRANTE: I'll second. PAGE 8 MINUTES: 1/3/90 099 - 0731 VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 11. ORDER 90-004 PIONEER LOOP ROAD LID Before the Board was signature of Order 90-004 accepting the Engineer's report for the proposed Pioneer Loop Road LID and setting a public hearing for January 31, 1990 at 10 a.m. The Engineer's report indicated that improving the roads to Deschutes County road standards for a rural local road was feasible. PRANTE: I'll move signature of Order 90-004 accepting the Engineer's report and setting the public hearing. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 12. ORDER 90-005 CHEYENNE ROAD AND COMMANCHE LANE LID Before the Board was signature of Order 90-005 accepting the Engineer's report for the proposed Cheyenne Road and Commanche Lane LID and setting a public hearing for January 31, 1990 at 10 a.m. The Engineer's report indicated that improving the roads to Deschutes County road standards for a rural local road was feasible. MAUDLIN: I move signature of Order 90-005. PRANTE: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 13. APPLICATION FOR RELEASE OF GREAT START PLANNING AND ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDS AND APPOINTMENT OF ALTA BRADY TO CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES COMMISSION Before the Board was signature of a letter to the Oregon Children & Youth Services Commission approving the Application for Release of Great Start Planning and Administrative Funds. Commissioner Prante also requested that Alta Brady be appointed to replace Murl Anderson on the Deschutes County Children and Youth Services Commission. PAGE 9 MINUTES: 1/3/90 S 099 0732 PRANTE: I would move that Alta Brady is appointed to the Children and Youth Services Commission and approve the letter. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 14. APPOINTMENT OF VIC SCHROEDER AND TED SCHASSBERGER TO BOARD OF EQUALIZATION Before the Board was appointment of Vic Schroeder and Ted Schassberger to the Board of Equalization. PRANTE: Move the appointment. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 15. WEEKLY WARRANT VOUCHERS Before the Board was approval of the weekly bills in the amount of $126,898.41. PRANTE: Move approval upon review. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 16. RESOLUTION 90-001 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR PROPOSED BEND PARKWAY ALIGNMENT Before the Board was signature of Resolution 90-001 supporting an environmental study for the Proposed Bend Parkway realignment of Highway 97 by the State Highway Division. PRANTE: Move signature of Resolution 90-001. MAUDLIN: I'll second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 10 MINUTES: 1/3/90 0733 17. CITY MYLAR FOR FAWNVIEW ESTATES Before the Board was approval of a City Plat for Fawnview Estates. PRANTE: I will move signature of the plat for Fawnview. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 18. WAIVER OF BUILDING FEES FOR COBRA Before the Board was a request from COBRA to waive the building fees for the COBRA Safe home. The Board felt that this was a City property and, since there was an agreement between the City of Bend and Deschutes County to waive each others fees, the fee waiver would be in order. DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Lois Br's w Prante, Commissioner ~l Tom Throop, hair f . Dic Maud in, Commissioner BOCC:alb PAGE 11 MINUTES: 1/3/90