Loading...
1991-00143-Minutes for Meeting December 21,1990 Recorded 1/3/199191-00113 - 1 ~ 61 MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS December 21, 1990 Chair Throop opened the meeting at 10:10 a.m. Board members,in` attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Lois Bristow Prante. Also present were Brad Chalfant, Property Manger; Rick Isham, County Legal Counsel; Bruce White, Assistant Legal Counsel; Mike Maier, County Administrator; Karen Green, Community Development Director; and Dave Leslie, Planner. Y:;CnOFY.MED 1. ROSIE BAREIS YOUTH CAMPUS Brad Chalfant said the financing had been worked out for the purchase of the Rosie Bareis Youth Campus. The bank had given the County three options for the purchase. As soon as the Board picked the option they preferred, the final documents could be signed. Neil Bryant thanked everyone for their assistance in putting this project together. Mike Maier, County Administrator said he preferred Option A because the beginning payments were lower. THROOP: A motion would be in order to approve the package with option A. PRANTE: I so move. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 2. SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION GRANT FUNDING After reviewing the applications and testimony from the public hearing held on December 12, 1990, the Board was prepared to make the decision on which applications it would submit to the state for Special Transportation Grant funding and in what priority order. Susan Mayea, Office Manager and staff of the Special Transportation Fund Advisory Committee, said a couple of events had transpired since the public hearing. The Disabled Veterans had requested to withdraw their application, because they realized it did not meet the state criteria for funding. Also, on behalf of Susan Nelson, Residential Assistance Program, she wanted to mention that the Opportunity Foundation of Central Oregon had received grant funds for a new van one year ago, and therefore the funding of another van through this process would give them two new vehicles while the Residential Assistance Program would only have three old, high-mileage vehicles. Coordination with other providers was PAGE 1 MINUTES: 12/21/90 r UNCHE , 4QCJ 105 - 1862 very difficult since RAP clients could not pay the Transcentral charge of $8 for each ride. Ms. Mayea said she had made frequent attempts to contract Redmond Taxi because their application was incomplete. They have not responded, so she was requesting direction from the Board on whether to submit their application in its current form or drop it from the list. Commission Throop asked if one of the older Dial-a-Ride vehicles would be made available to RAP if Dial-a-Ride received funding for a new vehicle? Ms. Mayea said yes it would. She said that in the letter of submission, the County would request to receive partial funding if there were not enough funds left to fund the next full proposal. Commission Throop asked if the Advisory Committee had full information available to them when they came up with their priority list. Ms. Mayea said no, they had not been aware of the Opportunity Foundation's new van because prior to this year, the state had handled all of this process. Commissioner Prante requested that the Advisory Board be informed of this new information. She asked if the Residential Assistance Program was funded and the Opportunity Center wasn't, could the Opportunity Center receive the old van from Dial-a-Ride. Ms. Mayea said yes, but that Dial-a- Ride could only give away one of their old vehicles because their proposal was to expand services not replace older vehicles. Chair Throop thanked Ms. Mayea and the Advisory Committee for all their hard work. PRANTE: That would be my motion that we delete the two proposals, Redmond and the Veterans, and that we reverse the priority of the RAP program and the Opportunity Center, with the condition that should funding go this far down the list, the City van would be allocated to the proposal not receiving a van through this. MAUDLIN: I'll second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 3. MARKEN SURFACE MINING APPLICATION Dave Leslie started the staff report indicating that since the public hearing, they had received a phone call from the PAGE 2 MINUTES: 12/21/90 105 - 1863 Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) requesting a site plan map and parcel map. After receipt of these maps, BPA called back stating it appeared that the site would not be using the Bonneville easement area which crossed the Marken property. BPA asked that if the site was approved for surface mining, the applicant remain off from the easement area. If they needed to use the easement area, BPA wanted to be contacted first. They had no other concerns. He said they had also received several letters from neighbors in the area: Pele, McBrides, Tiberts, Molers, Gists, Marcots, Faulk Construction, Les Momburger (Arrow Rental), Ed Sullivan, and State Department of Fish and Wildlife. Mr. Leslie said that if the Board chose to zone this site for surface mining, the staff would recommend that in consideration of ODF&W revised recommendations, that five acre mining be adopted. Also the unvacated road needed to be dealt with by the applicant and a dedication along the east side of McGillvray Road. A woman from the audience said her husband had hand delivered five letters to the Commissioners' Office which had not been mentioned: Joyce Pedigo, Woodrow Wilson, Angie Percy, Rod Elliott, Bob Wilson. Chair Throop took a short recess to look for these letters. They found letters from Pedigo and Wilson/Percy but none of the others. She said that John Buckmaster had also submitted a letter. Chair Throop apologized to those who had submitted letters which had not been found and suggested that in the future, the Board allow more time between the cutoff for submission of testimony and their decision meeting so that testimony would have time to circulate prior to the meeting. Bruce White suggested that the Board of Commissioners postpone making their decision. He said they had had some informal contacts with the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) on the County's acknowledgement package. which was before them. DLCD had given them some feed back on some of the County's decisions, and it was his and Karen Green's recommendation that the decision be postponed so that they would have time to analyze the feedback so that the Board's decision could be as supportable as possible. They would be meeting with DLCD later in the day to discuss their comments on the County's acknowledgment package. Commissioner Throop requested that Mr. White clarify the reasons for the requested postponement. Commissioner Maudlin asked if the DLCD information would be considered testimony? Mr. White said it was not testimony but would help staff in their analysis and provide information to the Board on how to proceed. It would allow staff to help PAGE 3 MINUTES: 12/21/90 105 - 1864 the Board incorporate the DLCD critique in this decision so that it would be the best possible decision, and wouldn't be returned. Mr. White said the applicant had stated that he would not be adverse to having the effective date put off until after the acknowledgement. Commissioner Throop pointed out that when the applicant came to the Community Development Department to discuss filing an application, they were counseled that it would be a much smoother process if they waited until the surface mining package was acknowledged by the State. The applicant chose to apply anyway. He said in 1973 the State Legislature required every county and city to develop a comprehensive land use plan. Deschutes County's plan was completed in 1979 and acknowledged by the state in 1980 but as a part of that plan there were two zones for surface mining: SM for sites which could currently be mined and SMR for a sites where the decision on whether it would be mined was deferred to a future time when an application for a plan amendment and zone change would be filed. The surface mining industry took Deschutes County to court saying the SMR zone was illegal because state law required that the County make a decision on whether a parcel could or could not be mined immediately rather than at some point in the future. As a result, Deschutes County's comprehensive land use plan was struck down by the courts, and the County was ordered by the Courts to inventory every surface mining site in the County and then put them through the ESEE process of balancing the conflicting uses to decide whether each site would be mined or not. The County submitted their package to DLCD early this fall. DLCD has been reviewing that package, and the LCDC has the package scheduled for acknowledgement at its next commission meeting on January 24, 1991. DLCD has written a staff report to the County giving a critique of the ordinance and the quality of decisions made on all of the inventory sites. The DLCD staff would be meeting with County staff today at 11:00 a.m. to discuss DLCD recommendations on re-acknowledgement and to work through any remaining issues so that the whole package could go to LCDC for approval on January 24. He said DLCD wanted to talk with the County about 21 individual sites where they felt the decisions made and the record and findings might not have been adequate or appropriate. So staff was arguing that if a decision on the Marken site were made today, the Board would not have the benefit of the discussions with DLCD, and therefore this package could be sent back to the County for further work. However, if they postponed the decision until after the meeting with DLCD, they would be able to make a decision with findings which would not be remanded back to the County. Commissioner Maudlin asked if the applicant withdrew their application, how long would they have the wait to reapply. PAGE 4 MINUTES: 12/21/90 105 - 1865 Mr. White said if they withdrew, they could reapply at any time, however if it went to decision and was denied, they couldn't reapply for six months. Commissioner Maudlin asked if when the LCDC met on the 24th of January, they would make a decision to acknowledge the County's package or send it back. Mr. White said they might give a partial acknowledgement, i.e. "here are some little things you need to fix." He said it was not LCDC's intent to hold it over until a later meeting. He wanted more time to digest DLCD's critique of the County's package before advising the Board on the Marken site. Commissioner Throop said the LCDC was a seven member commission appointed by the Governor where these kinds of decisions were given state approval. He said he was a member of the commission and, therefore, would declare a conflict and not participate as an LCDC member on Deschutes County's acknowledgement. Commissioner Throop said he was prepared to make a decision today and emotionally wanted to do so, but he also could understand the argument that making the decision today could cause it to be sent back and require a lot more of the County's time. Commissioner Maudlin said if the decision were postponed until after the LCDC meeting on the 24th, possibly the new Commissioner would want to review the testimony and participate in the decision. He said that since the applicant was not in a rush to get a decision, he was not overly concerned with a delay if it would only be 30 days, but anything longer would be a problem for all of the parties involved. Commissioner Prante explained that she would not be participating in the decision because she had not attended the public hearing due to an oversight on her part. Commissioner Throop mentioned that if he and Commissioner Maudlin had a difference of opinion, the other Commissioner (Prante if before 1/7/91 or Schlangen on or after 1/7/91) would have to review the record and be the tie breaker. If Commissioner Maudlin and he concurred, then the decision would be made. Karen Green said that a similar situation had arisen in the past. Just as the County was ready to adopt its zoning ordinance, staff asked the Board to delay because of a court decision which had just been made. Staff did make some changes to the zoning ordinance based upon their analysis of that court case which she felt made a significant difference on whether the County was acknowledge on its ordinance. She had reviewed the DLCD draft recommendations and overall the PAGE 5 MINUTES: 12/21/90 10 5 - 1866 recommendation was to acknowledge the County with very few exceptions. However the area in which the DLCD had focused most of its comments related to sites which the Board chose not to zone for surface mining based on high levels of conflict. Since the Board had used the same process to make its decision on the Marken site as it had on the sites submitted to DLCD, there was a good change that if this application were denied, it would be vulnerable also. It would not serve anyone's interests, neither the applicant's nor the neighbors' , to proceed with this potential known risk. If the County made some changes in their previous denial decisions in response to the DLCD report and then were acknowledged, but the Marken decision was not done in that way, the Marken decision would be inconsistent with the acknowledged plan and would, therefore, be automatically remanded back to the County. Commissioner Maudlin asked if the Board should postpone the decision to a date so close to the LCDC acknowledgement meeting. Chair Throop said the issues would be laid out two to three weeks ahead of the LCDC meeting and there would be negotiations and consultations with the County prior to the LCDC meeting. Rick Isham asked if the same methodology was used to approve sites as was used to deny sites. Mr. White said yes but the scrutiny from DLCD seemed to be on the denials. Karen Green said DLCD had taken the position that the County had used a different technique in denials than in approvals. She said that the DLCD report pointed out some issues which she hadn't considered in the same way, and it was an area she wanted to review. Peggy Hennesy, on behalf of the applicant, asked if they would have an opportunity to respond to any DLCD comments. Chair Throop said no, there would be no further testimony. The DLCD comments would only pertain to the County's internal decision- making procedures and would not involve any content on the record concerning any particular site. Chair Throop announced that the decision on the Marken application would be postponed until 9 a.m. on Wednesday, January 30, 1991. No further oral or written testimony would be taken. Les Momberg asked whether Commissioners Maudlin and Throop would be making the decision or whether the new Commissioner would be involved. Chair Throop said they would consult with legal staff on this issue, but he felt that he and Commissioner Maudlin would make the decision. If they did not agree, then the decision would have to be delayed until the new commissioner could review the record and cast the PAGE 6 MINUTES: 12/21/90 1 05 - 1867 4. 5. 6. 7. determining vote. Commissioner Maudlin said he felt the two of them would make the decision. Kevin McBride requested a timely decision because he was waiting to take action on his property until a decision was made. DEDICATION OF ROADWAY FOR HUNNEL ROAD EXTENSION Before the Board was signature of a Declaration of Dedication and Acceptance of County property for a possible future extension of Hunnel Road. PRANTE: I would move signature of the dedication of the right of way for the Hunnel Road extension. MAUDLIN: I'll second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES BARGAIN AND SALE DEED AND QUITCLAIM FOR COOLEY ROAD PROPERTY Before the Board was signature of Quitclaim and Bargain and Sale Deed to Charles C. and Sally B. Brown for property along Cooley Road for the consideration of $65,649.48. PRANTE: Move signature. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES ORDINANCE 90-011 SIGNS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY Postponed to the next meeting. ORDER 90-179 TO ABANDON N.W. WESTWOOD LID Before the Board was signature of Order 90-179 Abandoning N.W. Westwood LID. MAUDLIN: So moved. PRANTE: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 7 MINUTES: 12/21/90 1 05 .0 1868 8. MP-90-35 FOR JOHN REAMES Before the Board was signature of a minor partition (MP-90- 36) creating three parcels along Dodds Road for John Reames. PRANTE: Move signature. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 9. DECLARATION OF DEDICATION FROM JOHN REAMES Before the Board was acceptance of Declaration of Dedication from John Reames of property for roadway and utility purposes. PRANTE: Move signature of Declaration of Dedication for John Reames. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 10. CONSERVATION EASEMENT FROM JAMES BENDIS Before the Board was signature of a Conservation Easement from James and Debra Bendis relating to MP-90-29 which created three parcels on Nichols Market Road. PRANTE: Move signature. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 11. WEEKLY WARRANT VOUCHERS Before the Board was approval of the weekly bills in the amount of $168,809.34. PRANTE: Move signature upon review. MAUDLIN: Second. PAGE 8 MINUTES: 12/21/90 1€ 5 1869 12. 13. 14. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES FINAL PLAT FOR MP-90-40 Before the Board was signature of MP-90-40 along Rickard Road for the Merediths. PRANTE: Move signature. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES HEARINGS OFFICER DECISION ON MP-90-75/V-9-38 Chair Throop said that on December 17, 1990, Hearings Officer Denise Frisbee rendered a decision to divide a 9.5 acre parcel into two 4.7 acre parcels in an RR-10 zone. He was concerned that a substandard parcel in an RR-10 zone was divided into two substandard parcels in a fairly sensitive place (around the head waters of Spring River). He wanted to call up the decision for review by the Commission. PRANTE: I'll move that we call up and review the appeal. MAUDLIN: I'd be happy to do that. Commissioner Maudlin explained that his vote did not mean that he wanted to appeal the hearings officer's decision; he just wanted to review it first. Rick Isham said that the Board had to call up the decision within ten days or they would lose the right to call it up for review. So their action would have to be an appeal in order to make the 10 day limit. The Board could decide later if they wanted to drop the review prior to the hearing. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES STERNS/KEATON REDEMPTION SALE Rick Isham said the Sterns/Keaton redemption sale had been pending for a long time mostly because the former owner had filed bankruptcy. The foreclosure had been completed and the redemption period was running. Mr. Keaton had asked the County to allow him, upon his deposit of $29,000 into escrow, to enter the property so that he could recover his personal PAGE 9 MINUTES: 12/21/90 r 105 - 18 70 property, i.e. portable rock crusher, which he was afraid would be dismantled. Rick Isham asked the Board to authorize a lease of the County's interest in the property to Mr. Keaton until the redemption period under the foreclosure had run. The Board authorized the lease for this purpose. DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS is B tow Pr n e, Commissioner ~Z I Im I ~A (71) Tom Throop, Chair D419 a dlin, ommissioner BOCC:alb PAGE 10 MINUTES: 12/21/90