Loading...
1990-17627-Minutes for Meeting June 13,1990 Recorded 6/18/199090-1`762'7 1 U MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS June 13, 1990 Chair Throop opened the meeting at 10 a.m. Board members in attendance were Dick Maudlin and Tom Throop. Also present were: Rick Isham, County Legal Counsel; Jim Raisenan, Planner; Karen Green, Community Development Director 1. CONSENT AGENDA 2. Consent agenda items before the Board were: #1, signature of Order 90-080 amending Section 1 of Order 90-074 transferring cash within various funds; #2, signature of Personal Services Contract with Doug Reinthal to coordinate drug and alcohol early intervention programs; #3, signature of Development Agreement for the Pekkolas; #4, ratification of Resolution 90- 039 honoring Dr. Frederick Boyle; #5, signature of MP-90-28 for Flenniken; and #6, approval of Amendment #16 to 1989-91 Intergovernmental Agreement with Mental Health Division. MAUDLIN: I would move the adoption of the consent a%9nd . THROOP: I'll second that motion. VOTE : PRANTE : Excused THROOP : YES MAUDLIN: YES 'r~ DENIAL OF CU-90-31::s c Before the Board was a public hearing on an appeal by Norman Holt of the Hearings Officer's denial of CU-90-31, requesting to move an existing structure onto a lot zoned RL. Jim Raisenan gave the staff report. He said the applicant was proposing to move a dwelling which was built prior to 1961 onto a lot in an RL zone which required a conditional use permit. The planning staff report made no recommendation to the hearings officer, however they felt that the dwelling could be made to be characteristic of the neighborhood, which was one of the main criteria that the applicant had to meet in order to get a conditional use permit. He said the types of improvements needing to be made were: new siding, roofing, landscaping, adding garage, etc. At the hearing before the hearings officer, the applicant stated the he wanted approximately 4-5 years to make the improvements. The hearings officer felt that was an undue length of time which would adversely affect the neighborhood and the property values. He said the applicant was appealing on the grounds PAGE 1 MINUTES : 6/13/90 ~.t~ of~i,NAE 10,I - 054? that he only wanted 4-5 years to make the improvements, but he could make them in 6-12 months. Chair Throop opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in favor of the application. There being no one who wished to speak in favor of the application, Chair Throop asked if there was anyone who wished to speak against the application. Honey Searcey submitted pictures and data on the homes in the immediate area of the lot where the applicant wanted to move the dwelling. She said the applicant's house was valued at $13,000, and the lot was valued at $8,000. She said she could not find another house in the area valued at less than $47,000. She said a tree had fallen on top of the house, the windows were broken out, and the siding was gone. She said the applicant would have to spend in excess of $20,000 to bring the house up to the same standard as the surrounding homes. She felt he should buy a lot outside the urban growth boundary to put the house on. Gene Pierce, 63454 Vogt Rd., said for years the house had been unoccupied and a blight to the neighborhood even before the commercial buildings went into the area. He said his neighborhood was not Awbrey Heights, but it was far newer and better kept than the home to be moved. He didn't feel that the home was structurally sound enough to be moved. Dave Schalock, 63405 Vogt Rd., testified that he was three doors down from the proposed site. He felt a new house could be put on the lot cheaper than moving the old one and upgrading it. He said that in the last seven years, there had been no improvements to the house. He said one corner looked like it was completely dry rotted. He said the back porch had separated from the house, and the broken windows hadn't been repaired for several years. He said there had been a long line of short-term tenants. He felt that if the house was moved, the owner still wouldn't upgrade it. Gary Hickman, 63480 Vogt Rd., testified that he had recently split his lot and wanted to build a new house on the new lot. He did not want to build if the older home was allowed to move to the proposed lot. He was concerned it would devalue his home. He said he was five doors to the north of the lot. Jeri Baumeister, 63463 Vogt Rd., testified that they just moved to the area May 15, 1990, and were concerned about having to look at this older home. They wanted to sell off part of their lot and felt this older home in the neighborhood would limit the price of their lot. PAGE 2 MINUTES: 6/13/90 . I 058 Candice Mayfield, 63400 Omer Dr., said she had lived two blocks from the site for 4-1/2 years. She greatly opposed moving the house onto the proposed lot. She had seen that "eye-sore" for years and didn't know how it was even standing. John Van Patten, 63425 Lynn Way, testified that they had a view of the proposed site from their living room window. He said that through his work for the Sheriff's Department, he had been in the applicant's house, and the inside was in no better shape than the outside. He was unwilling to see this house moved into his neighborhood, and was concerned that the public hearing was taking place during the day when a lot of people would be unable to attend. David Brown, 63425 Vogt Rd., testified that his home was adjacent to the site, and they would be able to see the home from every room in their house. He didn't believe the owner would fix up the home once it was moved, because he hadn't fixed it up in the past. He felt it would devalue his property, and he didn't want to lose his property value. Brendan Adams, 20630 Mary Way, testified that he moved into the neighborhood in January. He took a close look at the house and he said the back porch was falling off the back of the house and the front porch was sagging. He was concerned that the house would not be improved once it was moved. He didn't want the property values in the area to go down. He urged the Board not to allow the house to be moved into their neighborhood. Tamra Schalock, 63405 Vogt Rd., was concerned about whether the house would be safe for the children in the neighborhood. She felt the house could easily catch on fire along with the sagebrush which would burn down surrounding homes. She said that for at least the last 4-5 years, the had not fixed the windows in the house. She didn't want the home values to go down. Jeann Harder, 20640 Kandi Ct., said she lived two cul-de-sacs from this lot and went by the area daily to go to town. She said it was an eye-sore and would be detrimental to the neighborhood. She was concerned that there had never been any upgrading of the home until the public hearings when they started removing some vehicles and appliances and chopping down grass. Since that time, they had placed 6-9 vehicles on the grass. She felt it would be too expensive to fix up the way it needed to be even if it were in good enough shape to move. If it were moved onto property in the County, the applicant could take his time making the improvements. Doug Sherrick, 20641 Mary Way, purchased their home in January 1989. They had done a lot of work on their lot, and others PAGE 3 MINUTES: 6/13/90 1011 - 0529 in the neighborhood had made drastic improvements in the neighborhood. He said it was a family oriented neighborhood. He felt the only reason they wanted to move the home to this lot was to make a quick profit because of the increased property values in Bend. He said it was not a house that would be sold to a family with children and therefore, wouldn't fit into the neighborhood. He felt it would devalue their property. Pamela Rains, 20595 Lynn Way, said she lived next to the concerned property and would be looking at the building all the time. She agreed with everything everyone else had said. They had done a lot of improvements to their property and didn't want it to be devalued. Honey Searsey said that it had been suggested at one time that the property owner post a bond so the surrounding property owners would be assured that the improvements would be made. She said she talked with an insurance agent who said the bond would only be good as long as the owner paid the premiums. So if he didn't pay the premiums, they would have no recourse if the applicant refused to make the improvements. Chair Throop closed the public hearing. Commissioner Maudlin said that in the his appeal Mr. Holt stated that he had a letter of credit guaranteeing the necessary funds to make the improvements, and asked Jim Raisenan if he had seen such a letter. Jim said no. The Board discussed whether to allow further written testimony before making a decision. They decided to close the public hearing and not allow further written or verbal testimony. Chair Throop announced that the Board would make its decision at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 20, 1990. Items #9 and #12 on the Board Meeting Agenda were postponed one week. Items #15 and #16 were removed from the agenda since the documents did not arrive before the meeting. 3. REFUND REQUEST FROM TERRY DUFFIN FOR ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION FEE Before the Board was a request to refund the $610 zone change application fee paid by Terry Duffin. The refund request was based on the premise that since the text amendment would benefit all Deschutes County residents, and since the County anticipated legislatively initiating that text amendment at some time in the future, the applicant should not have to pay the zoning ordinance text amendment fee. Karen Green PAGE 4 MINUTES: 6/13/90 01 0530 4. 5. 6. recommended against the refund for the following reasons: (1) no historical precedent for such a refund; (2) any zoning ordinance text amendment created a general benefit or it would not be adopted; and (3) Mr. Griffin had been advised that he could wait for the County to make the text change legislatively at no cost, but he chose to initiate the process sooner and pay the fee. MAUDLIN: I move that we do not refund for the zone change application. THROOP: I'll second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: Excused THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES REAL ESTATE OPTION AND DEED FOR HWY 97 PROPERTY Before the Board was signature of a Real Estate Option and Deed for the purchase of county-owned property along Highway 97 by the State Highway Division for the consideration of $250. The property was needed for the widening of Highway 97. MAUDLIN: I move signature. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: Excused THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS FUNDING REQUEST Before the Board was approval of a letter to the National Institute of Corrections for funding for a Deschutes County correctional needs study. MAUDLIN: I would move signature of the letter for the corrections funding, and that we sign it subject to the review of the letter. THROOP: I'll second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: Excused THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES LETTER TO COUNTY SURVEYOR REGARDING CORNER PRESERVATION FUND Before the Board was signature of a letter to the County Surveyor regarding the Corner Preservation Fund. PAGE 5 MINUTES: 6/13/90 i0ll Oa3i MAUDLIN: I move we sign the letter to the County Surveyor. THROOP: I'll second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: Excused THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 7. WEEKLY WARRANT VOUCHERS Before the Board was approval of bills in the amount of $153,056.31. MAUDLIN: Move signature subject to review. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: Excused THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 8. AUTHORIZATION FOR HEALTH DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR TO SIGN ANNUAL PUBLIC HEALTH PLANS Before the Board was signature of a letter to the State Health Department authorizing Lynn Premselaar, Deschutes County Health Director, to sign Annual Public Health Plans. MAUDLIN: I move signature of authorization for the Health Department to sign Annual Public Health Plans. THROOP: I'll second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: Excused THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 9. ORDER 90-079 REFUNDING TAXES Before the Board was signature of Order 90-079 refunding taxes. MAUDLIN: I move signature of Order 90-079 tax refunds. THROOP: I'll second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: Excused THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 6 MINUTES: 6/13/90 1 01 0532 10. PLAT FOR RIVER'S EDGE VILLAGE PHASE II Before the Board was signature of City Plat for River's Edge Village Phase II. MAUDLIN: I move signature of City Plat for River's Edge Village Phase II. THROOP: I'll second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: Excused THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 11. OLCC RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR MT. BACHELOR SUNRISE LODGE Before the Board was chair signature of an OLCC Renewal Application for Mt. Bachelor Sunrise Lodge. MAUDLIN: I move chair signature of renewal application. THROOP: I'll second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: Excused THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 12. EXPANSION OF BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Before the Board was a request from the Bicycle Advisory Committee to amend their by-laws to increase the number of members from seven to nine. The Board approved this change and Chair Throop indicated he would send a letter to the Committee informing them of the Board's decision. Chair Throop recessed the meeting until 10:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 14, 1990. Chair Throop reconvened the meeting at 10:35 a.m. on Thrusday, June 14, 1990. Board members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop, and Lois Bristow Prante. Also present was Rick Isham, County Legal Counsel. 13. BELLATRIX SYSTEMS LOAN RENEWAL Laurie Williams, Loan Management Specialist with the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council came before the Board with information concerning a request from Bellatrix Systems to renew their business loan through July 2, 1991. The current loan payout date was July 2, 1990. Ms. Williams reviewed the current status of the loan and pointed out that Bellatrix had not complied with numerous areas of the loan agreement, and PAGE 7 MINUTES: 6/13/90 101 05.33 had very poor cash flow. She did not recommend, however that the loan be called since there would be little chance of recovering any of the money. On the other side, she said that Bellatrix had just received a major contract with the Oregonian and their financial picture appeared to be improving. The Board agreed to extend the loan for another year if Bellatrix would agree to pay back the loan amount over $80,000 plus have Bill Hemingway sign as security for the loan. The loan agreement would be very simple and would include only the most important conditions. DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS fvl&t4'ec~ Lois Bri tow Prante, Commissioner I To ThrooPChair Dick Maudlin, Commissioner BOCC:alb PAGE 8 MINUTES: 6/13/90 Original License No. 71'76!3 Renewal License No. 9f~~1'7F2~ DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON ~Pr; (~J 3 4 UT [ k " RENEWAL OF BUSINESS LICENSE su, RENEWAL FEE $25.00 F Deschutes County Ordinance 85-006 requires the annual licensing of second hand dealers operating within the county. If there is any change from your initial application, you must complete a new application for business license which will have to be approved by the sheriffes department and community development. If there have been no changes since your initial application, you may complete a renewal. This renewal is for the license period of ntvKe olo_, to June 30, 1971 To renew your business license, please complete the renewal form and return to Deschutes County Clerk, Deschutes County Courthouse, 1164 NW Bond Street, Bend, Oregon 97701 along with the renewal fee. Name of Business eL. _ F fCT` l l,12k T Business Address C-40,&5 )~!J , (Aka-2 9 -7 Type of Business N 17Z Q u t t Pk-%6 Owner's Name 1,c 4a~!`( L. owner's Address f / ~b ~p2rr~=2 leo, city (35c= tyo Dated this day of 19 6, ~Pho Applicant(s) Signature State of Oregon, County of Deschutes 19 `0 p sonally nstrument to be eared be- On this 1 ~ day of fore me the above-nam d and acknowledged the forego voluntary act and deed. Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires `NOTARY PUBLICS • OREGON MY COMMIWION EXPIRES ~6 -2- Q NOTE: It is a violation of Deschutes County Ordinance 85-006 to operate an antique, second hand or junk business without a cur- rent license.