Loading...
1990-36802-Minutes for Meeting October 31,1990 Recorded 12/7/199090-36802 MINUTES 1415 DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS October 31, 1990 U Chair Throop open the meeting at 9 a.m. Board members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Lois Bristow Prante. Also present were: Rick Isham, County Legal Counsel; Thomas Mosgrove, Presiding Judge; Ernie Mazorol, Court Administrator; Harry English, Law Librarian; Paul Blikstad, Planner; Larry Rice, Public Works Director; Tom Blust, Design Engineering Supervisor. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Consent agenda items before the Board were: #1, signature of Order 90-151 changing road name from Maple Avenue to Negus Way; #2, signature of City condominium plat for Hidden Glen Townhomes Stage 1; #3, signature of Order 90-153 changing road name from Woodside Court to Woodside Place; #4, signature of Order 90-154 changing road name from 1st Street to Chapman Lane; #5, award of equipment purchase contract for a 6 x 4 cab and chassis to Stalick International Trucks; #6, award of equipment contract for aerial man lift basket to Air Tec Equipment, Inc.; #7, approval of out-of-state travel request for Health Department Nurse to attend Hepatitis B Prevention Symposium; #8, chair signature of Interagency Agreement with CSD for Juvenile Sex Offender Program; #9, chair signature of liquor license renewal application for Sunriver Lodge and Resort. PRANTE: Move consent agenda. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 2. TRAFFIC SAFETY PROGRAM FUNDING Presiding Judge Mosgrove came before the Board to discuss funding for the traffic safety program. He said they would be able to substantially increase and expedite the collection of fines which would benefit the County, the traffic safety team, and the state courts. He assured the Board that in taking a position against a Justice Court, it in no way indicated that the judges did not recognize the importance of the traffic team which had done a tremendous amount of good in controlling drunken drivers and other areas. He said that the philosophical differences as expressed by Bill Linden concerned a verbal agreement made with AOC that counties would PAGE 1 MINUTES: 10/31/90 f~CY NCHEi 10~ 1416 3. not try to go back to justice courts if the state took "the monkey off their back" by taking over the court system, and also he was concern about the impact of the loss of traffic revenue while at the same time having the expense of the traffic crimes generated by the traffic team. Ernie Mazorol, Court Administrator, presented the Board with a Judicial /Clerical Action Plan to reduce traffic receivables. He said there was approximately $115,000 in outstanding traffic fines, and there were 1,300 cases who failed to appear with a bail amount of $135,000. He said they had consolidated the LSFA (license suspension for failure to appear) process with the Department of Motor Vehicles. When Deschutes County Court designated LSFA, the computer would automatically generate the Motor Vehicle Form. This form would be mailed to the Motor Vehicles who would will send a notice to the violator that they have 30 days to pay or have their license suspended. Commissioner Maudlin expressed concern that often the bail fine for not appearing was dismissed by the judge when they finally appeared in court. Mr. Mazorol said they would have to have the bail before going to court, but that then it would be up to the judge. He said he did not know if this plan would create enough revenue to pay for the traffic safety program, but that they would do everything possible to implement the plan and make it work as efficiently as possible. Commissioner Maudlin asked it Mr. Mazorol was aware of a bill being prepared for the next legislative session which would not allow the formation of any justice courts which were not already in existence. Mr. Mazorol said he was not. He said he understood there would be a bill submitted that would reduce the incentive for counties to create a justice court based solely upon financial reasons. Commissioner Maudlin said the Board was willing to work with the courts on this, but he would like the opportunity to try a Justice Court if nothing else worked. SMOKING POLICY FOR LAW LIBRARY Before the Board was a complaint from a law library user who requested no smoking in the law library. Chair Throop said he had spoken with Judge Perkins who said he did not have a personal position on this situation. Legal Counsel had pointed out that there was a law saying that no person could smoke in a public place, except in designated smoking areas, and that no public place could be designated in its entirety as a smoking area. Harry English, the Law Librarian, said he liked to promote a relaxed atmosphere for the primary users which were attorneys who had keys and could use the facility PAGE 2 MINUTES: 10/31/90 105 1417 at anytime. He suggested having the work tables and the book isles designated nonsmoking during the hours the library was open to the public (11 a.m. to 3 p.m.) five days a week, and designating the back room and the front area, where there were no tables, as smoking areas. He said there was adequate circulation of outside air in the building. Rick Isham said that the building would be considered a public place even during those hours when it was closed to the public. Commissioner Throop suggested taking the provisions recommended by Mr. English but making them apply to all hours of the day--the tables would be a nonsmoking area, the smoking areas would be by the front door and in the back conference room, and assuming no smoking in and around the stacks. MAUDLIN: I would move Commissioner Throop's motion. PRANTE: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 4. WEEKLY WARRANT VOUCHERS Before the Board were weekly bills in the amount of $839,993.85. PRANTE: Move approval upon review. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 5. CONTRACT WITH CORIL Before the Board was signature of Mental Health Services Subcontract with Central Oregon Resources for Independent Living (CORIL) for vocational transportation for supported employment clients. PRANTE: Move signature. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 3 MINUTES: 10/31/90 105 - 1418 6. NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER REQUEST FOR USE OF THE PILOT BUTTE MOTEL HOUSE Before the Board was a proposal submitted by the Central Oregon Natural Resource Center for the removal of the house on the County-owned Pilot Butte Motel property. Commissioner Prante said the group which was attempting to bring a proposal before the Board to use this house for a youth shelter had decided that they could not get a proposal together in the time frame specified by the Board. However there was a possibility they would be able to use other buildings at the motel site. Dennis McKenna, Treasurer, Natural Resource Center, said they felt they could move the building at no cost to the County within six months of the County's acceptance of their offer. They were told by the movers that the house could be moved in January. PRANTE: I would move that the nature center have that building and that it be off the premises and taken care of within six months with an estimated date of January 1991. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 7. YOUTH CENTER Neil Bryant came before the Board to give an update on the proposed Tamarack Youth Center. He said a month ago he came before the Board and discussed the total center package as costing $290,000. That amount had increased to $300,000 because of asbestos removal costs of which the church would be paying half. They had received a Rotary pledge of $50,000 over three years and $10,000 in cash for the project. The bank had reviewed the asbestos removal plan and given verbal approval that the bid for removal was acceptable. Bond counsel said he could issue his letter as long as the organizations which were occupying the premises were either government agencies or 501C3 organizations. The only bad news was that the interest rate had gone up to 8% rather than 7.85% and they could not lock in the rate until there was a signed ernest money agreement. Steve Josse would be submitting an itemization of his out-of-pocket expenses for payment. Lonnie Kitchel from Westside Church said that since the offer from Steve Josse was void, there needed to be a new PAGE 4 MINUTES: 10/31/90 105- -a 1419 8. 9. agreement, however the church was planning to honor the realtor's commission discussed in the Steve Josse agreement. Commissioner Throop asked why only the exposed asbestos was being removed. Neil Bryant said that the asbestos which wasn't being removed was covered and was a type of asbestos that would have to be ripped up and broken in order to be dangerous. Brad Chalfant said it would meet the Asbestos Hazardous Emergency Response Act (AHERA) standards, and the school district was not concerned with it. He said the asbestos which was not being removed was underneath carpeting and was encapsulated. Commissioner Throop said he would like to discuss the matter in greater detail at the next work session. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDER 90-148 RIVERWOODS LID Before the Board was a public hearing relating to the improvement of Riverwoods Drive and directing the improvements to be made by contract. Tom Blust said the district was started in July 1990. There were 20 petitioners which was 77% of the property owners. On August 22, 1990, the Commissioners signed a resolution initiating proceedings. The Engineer's Report was accepted on October 3, 1990, and the public hearing was set for today. The estimated cost of the improvements was $85,000 for a cost of $3,269.23 to each of the 26 parcels owners. He said they had received three written remonstrances. Chair Throop opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to testify or remonstrate, the public hearing was closed. MAUDLIN: Move signature of Order 90-148. PRANTE: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES APPEAL ON STONE RIDGE CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT IN SUNRIVER Before the Board was a public hearing on an appeal by the Sunriver Owners Association of the hearings officer's approval of a site plan and tentative plat for the 36-unit condominium development of Stone Ridge. Chair Throop opened the public hearing. PAGE 5 MINUTES: 10/31/90 1.05 1420 Paul Blikstad gave the staff report indicating that the applications went before the hearings officer on September 4, 1990, who rendered a decision for approval on September 20. One of the conditions of approval was that the applicant be required to file an application with the Planning Division for a plan amendment to the Sunriver Master Plan to attempt to get some other access into this project other than Abbot Drive and Meadow Road. He said that when the Sunriver Master Plan was adopted in 1982, the access to this particular piece of property was of concern to the Planning Commission and to the Board but the decision was made that the access would be from East Meadow Lane. Commissioner Prante asked if in 1982, Meadow Lane was there. Paul Blikstad said yes. Paul Blikstad said he wasn't sure what all the issues were because it wasn't listed specifically on the appeal form or the written document with the appeal other than the requirement to apply for a second access. Chair Throop asked if any of the Board members had had any prehearing contacts to declare. Commissioner Prante said she had spoken briefly with Pat Brady but upon realizing the issue would come before the Board, the conversation was terminated. She said it would not bias her ability to make a decision. Chair Throop and Commissioner Maudlin said they had had no contacts. No one from the audience challenged any Board member's objectivity to hear the case. Chair Throop warned the members of the audience that any issues which were not raised during the public hearing would not be appealable. Bob Lovlien, representing the applicant Robin Ray, developer of the Stone Ridge project, said that the documents which were already in the record addressed most of the issues. He said the primary issue which was raised in the hearings officer's decision was the issue of a second access into this project, either off S. Century Drive or off Abbot Drive. The Sunriver Master Plan specifically concluded that access to this particular site was to be off East Meadow Lane, and the developer made his plans accordingly. He said he felt the Sunriver Owners Association (SROA) and the applicant would agree that another access to the development would not be appropriate and that the access should be on East Meadow Lane. However, they also agreed there should be a temporary access from South Century Drive during construction which would be gated, open during daylight hours only, and would not be an improved access point. Upon completion of the project, the temporary access would be landscaped and completely eradicated. He said the second issue which was raised PAGE 6 MINUTES: 10/31/90 105 - 1421 initially by SROA was how the club house facility would be utilized. They had expressed concern that there would be some commercial rental activity carried on within the clubhouse. Mr. Lovlien said the applicant had assured them that there was no intention to use the club house for any commercial use. He said there would be no rental management activities handled in the club house. They were putting in extensive recreational facilities (golf course, swimming pool, recreation building) for the shared ownership facility, so there did have to be an on-site manager. The club house would include space for the on-site manager and his relationship with the owners. People would not be coming in and renting facilities or checking in and out. The facility would be for owner services only. He didn't think that the Hearings Officer's decision was as explicit in this area as he could have been. Commissioner Throop asked if this use of the club house was a "commitment" of the developer? Bob Lovlien said yes. Bob Lovlien said the last issue which they had not been able to adequately resolve was the impacts of the development on Abbot Drive. He believed that the set backs on South Century Drive, as proposed in the last plan which had been reviewed by the design committee, were generally acceptable to SROA. They had attempted to put the building along South Century Drive back approximately 100 feet from the right of way. There were two or three minor encroachments, and the development roadway was within 100 feet, but it was set back more than the 50 foot setback required in the master plan. He believed that concerns of SROA were the building set backs and landscaping plans along Abbot Drive to the entrance way of Sunriver. One issue that was not raised at the Hearings Officer level was a concern of SROA regarding the widening Abbot Drive to provide for a third lane. There was a 60 foot wide right of way on Abbot Drive and three lanes could probably be placed there but might encroach into the 50 foot set back for the slope easement. The developer did not have any problem with that and was willing to coordinate a landscaping plan to take into account whatever the slope easement might need. Along Abbot Drive, they could not have a 100 foot set back because it would require at least one building and three garage units to be completely removed from the project or the removal of a substantial number of mature ponderosa pines. They had not been able to reach a consensus on a process where the SROA and the developer could work together on the entrance issue. The Sunriver Master Plan, which had been adopted by the County, said that there would be 50 feet of common area which was the building set back, and they, therefore, could build right up to the 50 foot set back, but that had not been the developer's approach to the project. They had moved one building back an additional 20 feet, and PAGE 7 MINUTES: 10/31/90 105 - 1422 the three garages were placed where there were in order to save the trees. They were more than willing to work with the SROA to develop the landscape corridor. They were prepared to spend tens of thousands of dollars on landscaping because it was a benefit to the project. Commissioner Maudlin asked if after the 50 foot set back area was landscaped by the applicant, it would be deeded to the SROA. Bob Lovlien said he did not think the Master Plan required that and this would be the first case in Sunriver where there had been a dedication of common area in a multi- family site to the homeowners association. It had to be dedicated as common property and maintained as common property, but the development wanted to make sure that it was well maintained. He said they wouldn't have a problem dedicating the common area if that were the Board's decision, and they had no problem with the slope easement as long as both sides of the road were treated equally. They just wanted to make sure they would have the continuing right to maintain the landscaping in the common area. Commissioner Throop asked that the garage units be pointed out to him on the plans brought in by the developer. Davis Bisset, the architect, said there were two garage units for each building. The six detached garages were combined into three buildings because of the slope condition and the desire to preserve the trees, however, most of the 36 units had attached garages. Commissioner Throop said that in a letter from Mr. Ray, he indicated he was not supportive of the common area going to the SROA, and asked if the applicant had moved off this position if an agreement could be reached regarding the maintenance. Bob Lovlien said yes, if there was an ongoing agreement with respect to the maintenance of the landscaping. The ongoing irrigation expenses would be born by the association of unit owners for the Stone Ridge project. David Bisset, architect for the development, walked the Board through the design considerations, constraints, restrictions which were taken into consideration in the development plans. He said the site was very difficult to develop which was why he felt it hadn't been developed over the last 10-15 years. The private drive within the development was on the inside of the required 50 foot set back and looped the project to provide access to the 36 condominium units. The club house was to serve the owners' needs and included a aerobics exercise room and gathering space. Commissioner Prante asked if the club house would be open to anyone other than an owner or an owner's guest. Mr. Bisset said it would not. He said they had designed the clubhouse PAGE 8 MINUTES: 10/31/90 105 . 1423 to include a property manager's office and work room where there would be a copy machine. It would be a central gathering area for owners to have guests over for parties. It would also house the changing rooms, showers for the pool and spa, and sunbathing deck which would be screened and landscaped from the adjoining property owners. There was a short access road to provide parking for guests of the owners. There were tennis courts but the remaining part of the site which was unbuildable would be used for walking pathways, natural landscaping, and a finished lawn area which might have a little putting green on it. The whole idea of providing these amenities was to provide the homeowners with the recreational needs they would expect when they arrived after having traveled a great distance and to take some of the burden off the resort facilities. The focus of the development was inward since they did not have expansive views and were surrounded by busy streets. They had tagged over 1,000 trees so they could work around them which was one of the reasons they had some detached garages. He said the SROA design committee didn't see that as a problem after they went through the rationale of why the garages were located where they were. Commissioner Prante asked how many people each unit would accommodate. Mr. Bisset said there were two and three bedroom units. In addition to each enclosed garage, there were guest parking areas along the roadway for 1-1/2 to 2 parking spaces per unit. Commissioner Throop asked if there were specific provisions to limit the number of people allowed in one unit. He said yes, there would be controls on that. He said the design committee would be "shooting themselves in the foot" if they forced the issue on the 100 foot set back because that would require pulling the buildings together and making them bigger and taller. They had tried to balance the area with two and three unit buildings. One of the things they had tried to do architecturally was to keep the roof facing outward with lower slopes. The tall facades faced the inner court thereby keeping the mass of the building towards the inside which only the owners would see. He showed a schematic of the development illustrating the required 50 foot set back, the required 5.8 acres which was buildable on the north end of the site, a perimeter screening buffer, water line with a 20 foot easement which couldn't be built on, and a power line 40 foot easement. They had placed the road on some of the easement and would be relocating a portion of the water line, at the developers expense, so it could be moved between two building units. He said there were 28-30" diameter ponderosa pines which were clustered in such a way that it required that they put the garage unit towards the road but well within the 50 foot set back. He placed an overly on the diagram to show the area which wasn't buildable and a 100 foot set back line. He said to move the buildings any further back would require PAGE 9 MINUTES: 10/31/90 105 - 1424 a redesign which they had investigated. The buildings would have to be pulled together and made taller which would make them more massive, and they would have to take out more trees in order to accommodate a greater set back. Commissioner Prante asked if it were possible to reduce the density somewhat? Mr. Bisset said that this RM site was the most restrictive site in Sunriver. Most of the others had a density of eight units per acre while this one had a density of three units per acre. He said it would kill the project economically to reduce down to 24 units. He said they had already gone through two design reviews and received approval. Robin Ray, the project developer, said that when he purchased the property nearly a year ago, he looked into the restrictions on the Master Plan and researched everything to make sure he could build the project. He asked for guidance from the Design committee, the SROA, and community groups to try to get input so he could design a project to be as compatible as possible. He said the master plan had stated clearly that the access would be off East Meadow Drive not Abbot Drive or South Century Drive and, therefore, he designed the project with that entrance in mind. They had always been willing to have a temporary access off South Century Drive during construction. The Master Plan also said that for the set back there would be a 50 foot common area off Abbot Drive and South Century Drive and if improvements were within another 50 feet from the 50 feet of common area, it should be heavily landscaped. If the 50 foot common area was to be dedicated to the SROA, he wanted to make sure that it would be well maintained over the years. He had not received a commitment from the SROA that they would maintain it. As far as the clubhouse, it would be for the owners' use and property management services for the owners. It was never represented to be for commercial use. Commissioner Throop asked if Mr. Ray was committed to making the clubhouse exclusively for owners. Mr. Ray said they had committed to the services and that property management functions would be operated out of the clubhouse. Commissioner Prante asked whether there would be any occupancy restrictions. Mr. Ray said that even though there weren't any occupancy restrictions now required for any homeowner in Sunriver, they had done it through their association agreement. He said that in the Meadow Village area, about 75% of the roads were narrower than East Meadow Lane, so he didn't feel that was an issue. Regarding the set back, he felt they had demonstrated they would landscape it properly and would increase that landscaping plan if it would resolve some of the SROA's concerns. PAGE 10 MINUTES: 10/31/90 105 - 1425 Chair Throop asked if the development would exacerbate any off site parking problems. Mr. Ray said that by previous experience and by restrictions in the association agreement, he felt there would be adequate parking. In this type of project, normally the owner was using the facility and two parking places per unit was adequate. Dan Young, manager of development for Sunriver Properties (SRP) which was the developer for the resort of Sunriver, testified in support of the applicant. He wanted to remind the Commission of a letter dated September 13, 1990, by Gary Febick of Sunriver Properties which detailed the related issues from their perspective. When Sunriver Properties sold this parcel to another developer, it was sold under the same representations as any other site. That it was subject to the plan of Sunriver and the 1982 master plan which was a portion of County Zoning Ordinance PL-15. He felt those criteria should be adhered to as all other properties in Sunriver. SRP did not support any additional access points to the community of Sunriver. The Royston report and the 100 foot set back had become one of the key issues. At the time the 1982 master plan was developed, the Royston reports were entered into the record and discussed at length. It was determined by all the parties involved that the 100 foot set backs were not appropriate for this parcel, and thereby it was intentionally determined that the 50 foot set back would apply. He offered into the record a copy of the Consolidated Plan of Sunriver which would draw some distinction between common area and common property. Commissioner Maudlin asked if the property in question had always been zoned MR, and Mr. Young said it had. Dave Jaqua, attorney for the SROA, said the first issue was the access on Meadow Drive, and he felt there was agreement with the applicant that there would be no other access. They were not opposed to the concept of a temporary, unimproved, gated, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. construction access across from the business park which would be closed after construction. The second issue was the use of the clubhouse for property management. He said Mr. Ray had sent the County a letter which referred to similarities with The Pines and The Ridge development, but he wanted to be sure that the clubhouse would be used for on-site owner services only, not for rentals, reservations, check-in or check-out, but to help take care of on-site services for owners. He felt "property management" had a commercial aspect of a real estate office where they make reservations, passed out keys, and checked in and out. It was his understanding that this was not going to be happening at the clubhouse. Bob Lovlien said "that's fine." Mr. Jaqua said the major issue was the 100 foot set back, the overall density of the project, and the use of the property. PAGE 11 MINUTES: 10/31/90 105 - 1426 It would be the focal point as you came into Sunriver which was the reason that the Board of Directors felt it was a significant enough issue to raise. The 36 units being discussed for this site were the "maximum" permitted by the master plan of Sunriver, so the project was currently designed to the "maximum allowable density." He agreed that it was a restrictive parcel, because it was critical to the interests of Sunriver. The 50 foot set back was the "minimum" allowed. He didn't believe the master plan said you could ignore the next 50 feet, but clearly contemplated that this 100 feet was a critical area. It said, "if you develop within the next 50 feet in the common area, then you have to look at additional site screening within the project." He felt the clear intent of this language was to buffer that piece of property at the entrance. Mike Levin, general manager of the SROA, testified on behalf of the Board of Directors of the SROA. They were against a separate entrance other than East Meadow Lane, but would encourage a secondary access for construction purposes with approval of the County Public Works Department. In August they hired Carl Buttke, Inc., a consulting transportation engineer, to do a traffic engineering report for the core area of Sunriver which included the main south entrance which was adjacent to this property. He submitted a draft copy of this report. The report concluded that the 36-condominium units would have a small impact on the operation of the surrounding roadway. It recommended that the access point on East Meadow Road include an inbound/outbound lane of at 14 feet each. They anticipated that the final plan would be ready in about two weeks. They were most concerned about the set back because the entry way would give guests their first impression of Sunriver. He felt the Master Plan contemplated the recommendation of the Royston report which was a planning document used when the Master Plan was put together. They felt that parking lots, garages and asphalt were "development." He said the Center Drive road way was elevated from the development site between 12-15 feet so when you look at the visual buffer, the four foot high trees and four foot berms for eight feet of landscaping, there would still be approximately 7 feet of view above the landscaping. Therefore a 100 foot set back along Abbot Drive was appropriate. He said the ponderosa pines in the common area would take some limited watering and maintenance, and he felt the developer should take care of the watering of the common area during its development. After the ponderosa pines took hold, the SROA would be very capable of taking care of the common area and was already doing so for 3,300 acres in Sunriver. The traffic engineering report called for an additional turn lane on the section of land abutting the Stone Ridge development with a minimum of 14 feet of asphalt on the right of Center Drive. There was a bicycle path on the other side of the road, and PAGE 12 MINUTES: 10/31/90 105 - 1427 they didn't know if there was sufficient property to move the bike path over if the road were widened to the east. The engineer suggested they move the roadway 14 feet to the west to allow for an additional turn lane, which would extend the road right of way another foot in addition to using some of the common area for the bank which would involve part of the designated set back. He recommended that the Board require that and buildings or development (including roadways and parking space) be set back 100 feet from the existing road right of way on this section of the property. Commissioner Prante said that requiring a 100 foot set back would necessitate the removal of one of the units. Commissioner Throop restated what he thought Mr. Levin was suggesting that the density might need to be compromised, and the minimum set back on Abbot Drive may not work in this case. Mr. Levin said from the roadway it appeared to be a very short distance to where the building would be and believed that it was much closer than 70 feet from the road right of way. Commissioner Prante asked Mr. Levin if the developers had been given any indication that the widening of the road would become an issue? Mr. Levine said yes, he had had a number of meetings with the developer in which it had been clear the road was going to be widened. Mr. Levin said the position of the SROA was that there be a 100 foot set back from the road right of way for any development (roads, building, driveways, parking area). Ken Ludlow, President of the Owners Association in Sunriver, testified that the Board had two concerns: (1) maintaining the aesthetics of the entrances to Sunriver by requiring a greater set back and (2) maintaining safety on East Meadow Road. They supported a temporary access during construction. Vent Goddard testified that the State Fire Marshal had determined there would be a fire danger with only egress from the development area. He felt there needed to be another way for people to get out in case of a fire. Bob Burgie said this property had not been previously developed because Sunriver Property Sales had informed developers that they could not have access to East Meadow Road because of the impact on an established residential area. Meadow Village was settled and recorded long before the Master Plan or the Royston plan of 1982. The Hearings Officer thought using East Meadow Road was "dangerous and nonsensical." The reason a road study was being done was because there already was a very serious traffic problem. PAGE 13 MINUTES: 10/31/90 115 " 1428 County staff had estimated that there would be an additional 360 trips per day due to the development. The petitioners felt that since Stone Ridge would be a money making commercial property, it should be treated in the same manner as a market or motel being place in a strictly residential area and, therefore, access should be from a commercial road such as Abbot and Century Drive. Since the development had a sales office in the Mall area, they could get their keys, etc. and enter the project from Abbot Drive. He said they had requested a hearing with the SROA but they were not placed on the agenda, so they had not had an opportunity to explain their concerns to the SROA. He suggested a crash gate in case of an emergency. He said they had understood that the time share owners could rent out the condominiums when the owners weren't using them. Commissioner Throop asked the applicant to explain the intended use of the condominiums. Robin Ray said it was a shared ownership according to the amount of time or percentage of the home they have purchased. The maximum number of shared owners would five and in some cases an owner might buy more than one share. Commissioner Prante asked if an owner could rent out the home when they were not using it. Mr. Ray said they had put in a restriction that the owner could not rent the unit unless all of the owners agreed to do so. He said his past experience was that approximately 20-25% would have the rental option. Pat Brady a resident owner in Meadow Village wanted to know what kind of restrictions there would be on how many people could use the condominium at a time. She was concerned about the increase of traffic and people in the area. Commissioner Prante asked if most of the properties in Meadow Village were available as rentals, and Ms. Brady said they were. She felt the ingress and egress should be from Century Drive as the Hearings Officer recommended. Commissioner Maudlin said he felt the Hearings Officer was in error when he required that the developer apply for another access. Commissioner Maudlin said that the ingress or egress to the development was something that should be taken up with the SROA and not Deschutes County. Commissioner Throop felt that if people wanted to testify regarding that matter, they should be allowed to do so. Gene Morgan Cook said he had been a broker for Sunriver for four or five years. He said the concerned property had always been designated common area for the first 14 years. The deed for this property said that Sunriver Properties would not be responsible for any conditions and restrictions. He felt this indicated that there was some, and they knew it. He said the PAGE 14 MINUTES: 10/31/90 105 1429 current condition and restriction in Sunriver says on page three that it is a single family residential village. Dan Kerns the developer of Tennis Village and Kittyhawk, said when he developed Tennis Village, one of the conflicts he had with the design committee was that they wanted no access onto East Meadow Road, and the only reason it was there was because the fire department insisted that it be put in. He said this property had been offered to him in 1976 for development, but they would not allow an access on East Meadow Lane. Thelma Goddard who lived in Sunriver testified that the construction traffic should go onto Century Drive and suggested that after construction the road be continued as an emergency fire exit. Chair Throop opened the hearing up for rebuttal testimony. Bob Lovlien, attorney for the applicant, expressed surprise that the SROA was taking the position that there should be no development within 100 feet of Abbot Drive. He urged the Commissioners to follow the master plan. He felt that the developer had the right to rely upon the master plan and use the minimum set backs and the maximum density. They would do everything they could to work with the SROA on landscaping the strip. On the concern about traffic, he said the Buttke Report data showed that there would be about 3-1/2 trips per day per occupied unit in Sunriver, and their experience at The Ridge development was that the units were only occupied about half the time. He said that within the existing 60 foot right of way on Abbot Lane, another lane could be added without impacting this development or the existing bike path on the other side. Commissioner Throop asked if Mr. Lovlien felt that the 50 foot set back was a minimum and that 36 units was a maximum. Mr. Lovlien agreed. Commissioner Throop asked if he felt there as a right to minimum set backs and maximum densities. Mr. Lovlien said he felt it was a right in this situation because in 1982 the community and the County completely redid the Master Plan for Sunriver and addressed each of the RM sites individually. Key decisions were made at that time with respect to what could be done with each one, and in this area they decided that 36 units would be allowed with a 50, set back. He said people had made financial decisions to purchase land based upon the representations made in the Master Plan. Commissioner Maudlin asked if the closest distance between the road and the buildings was between 70 and 75 feet. Bob Lovlien said yes--for the residential units. He said the garages were closer than 75 feet because of the stand of trees behind them. PAGE 15 MINUTES: 10/31/90 105 - 1430 Robin Ray said he was very sensitive to the issues which the SROA had discussed. He had tried to develop the property within the conditions in the master plan and the zoning ordinances. He had already submitted the plans for this development to the design committee before there was any discussion of widening the road. They had placed the buildings as far as possible out of the view corridor, but if they widened the road only on the Stoneridge side, they would have to cut down a number of large trees which would significantly reduce the buffer area. He said Sunriver was not a sleepy, retirement community but a commercial entity with 1,500 rental properties and five property management companies. He wanted to be treated as all other developers had been in the past. Commissioner Throop asked Mr. Ray if he felt that Abbot Drive would be adequate for the next 10-20 years and did not need improvement? Mr. Ray said it was a very busy intersection which had some traffic problems which needed to be looked into. They were willing to work with the SROA within the few feet that would be need to accommodate the road expansion, but had never been asked to do so. They would be the last multi- family development in Sunriver, however, there would still be some individual homes built since Sunriver was about 75% complete. Mike Levin said the Buttke report called for the expansion of the roadway by at least one lane. They would try not to take out any more trees than necessary, but if the traffic problems were life threatening, some ponderosa would have to be removed. He asked that the Commission keep the road expansion in mind when looking at the impact of the proposed development on the entrance to Sunriver. The owner's association wanted ownership of the common area and felt it was the developer's responsibility to construct a bicycle path way to the standards of the owner's association. Commissioner Maudlin asked if the pavement was in the middle of the 60 foot right of way or all on one side. Mr Levine said he didn't know. Commissioner Maudlin said it appeared that another lane could be placed in the current right of way. Mr. Levine said the bicycle path was slightly into or right next to the right of way and moving it would put it onto private property. Alta Brady said she was appealing to the Commissioners because she had never been contacted by the SROA regarding this matter. Commissioner Throop said whether they were being adequately represented by the SROA was not an issue before the Board of PAGE 16 MINUTES: 10/31/90 105 -4 1431 Commissioners. The SROA Board were elected representatives and property owners needed to deal with their concerns at the ballot box. He said the SROA was working within the frame work of the Master Plan which said that the access would be off East Meadow. Alta Brady requested more time to work with an attorney on this issue. Commissioner Throop said that state law required that this proceeding be completed within 120 days unless the applicant agreed to an extension. Paul Blikstad said that today was day 121 and the decision could not be postponed further without the applicant's permission. Dave Jaqua requested that the Board distinguish between the internal esthetics and the external esthetics. He said the three garages which were within the 75 foot area were being protected because of trees inside the project not trees outside the project which would screen the project. He asked the Board to keep in mind they used the maximum density and the minimum setback. SROA was not a party to the sale of this property and had made to representations to the owner. The Master Plan clearly indicated a minimum 50 foot common area, and he felt it clearly indicated that the next 50 feet was a sensitive area. He felt that the more they took away for the second 50 feet, the greater the burden should be to do the landscape screening on the outside of the project. Because of the development roadway and the open spaces for parking, the open area started right at the edge of the second 50 feet. He said the original ordinance for Sunriver for this zone did not allow planned unit developments. The ordinance was not clear on what the standards were for planned developments. He did find an area which discussed criteria which talked about 65% of the land to remain as open space. He said even with the 100 foot set back all the way around, it would be 40% buildable. He felt the Hearings Officer required the bike paths be connected because the traffic situation was not ideal, and he was trying to alleviate some of the burden. He said the Board needed to determine how to develop a standard to deal with an issue which was difficult to quantify. The landscaping that was done needed to be immediate and not the type that would develop over the years, and there needed to be site obscuring screening for the entrance. Commissioner Throop asked Dave Jaqua how he would interpret minimum set backs and maximum density. Dave Jaqua said his recollection of the 1982 process was that they were trying to set a guide with no more than that for the density and no less than that for the set backs because of the sensitive nature of the area. However, the fact that the Royston report had the 100 feet in it and the Master Plan clearly discussed the PAGE 17 MINUTES: 10/31/90 105 -a -1432 other 50 feet, indicated that those were expected to be issues for discussion. He felt it needed to be balanced with the other aesthetic requirements. Chair Throop asked the parties if they would consent to having the decision announced tomorrow (11/1/90) at 8:30 a.m., and in writing by Monday (11/5/90). Both parties agreed. The public hearing was closed, and chair Throop announced that no additional testimony would be allowed at the decision meeting. Rick Isham said that once the decision was issued, then applicants would have the right to apply for any permits. DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ois Br' tow Prante, Commissioner Throopj Chair k Maudlin, Commissioner BOCC:alb PAGE 18 MINUTES: 10/31/90