Loading...
1992-03677-Minutes for Meeting January 07,1992 Recorded 1/27/19920108 1109 92-036'77 MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS HEARING t3,, REGARDING THE INCORPORATION OF SUNRIVER JANUARY 7, 1992 �. f S ; l DICK MAUDLIN: At this time we will reconvene the hearing, at,'. this time on January 7th, for the purpose of allowing owners of property improperly omitted from the proposed city to show cause, if any, the owner has why land should not be included in the proposed city. This meeting was scheduled for today at 11:00 a.m., and a list of the proposed properties was entered and it is my understanding that the attorney for the proponents of the incorporation, Mr. Martin, does have an objection he would like to file, and so I am going to let him file it at this time. KEITH MARTIN: I am going to withdraw that. DICK MAUDLIN: Mr. Martin has withdrawn any objections so we will go forward with the meeting and sorry I didn't learn of this sooner, but we will go on and, at this time, we will have the staff report. KEVIN HARRISON: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Just to try to focus this hearing, ORS 221.040(2) provides that the Board, and I quote, . . may alter the boundaries as set forth in the petition to include all territory which may be benefitted by being included within the boundaries of the proposed city." The staff interpretation of the statutory language gives the Board two questions to answer. First, are there properties outside the proposed city limits which would be benefitted by the inclusion within the boundaries of the proposed city and so should the boundaries as set forth in the petition be altered to include those properties. Now, on page 13 of the staff report, item number 16, staff identified properties within a rural service center located on the southwest corner of Spring River Road and Lunar Drive as being property which may be benefitted by inclusion within the boundaries of the proposed city. The alteration of the boundaries of the proposed city to include the RSC zone would also necessitate the inclusion of Pace Estates Subdivision, a three lot subdivision. Staff also identified property located south of Spring River Road and east of the Deschutes River as possibly benefitting from inclusion in the boundaries of the proposed city. The property was recently approved for a new destination resort. The property contains urban level type development and it is to be served by sewer and water from the MAR'i-''01 Sunriver Utility Company. The owners of the properties just described were given notice of this hearing and invited to participate. KEYP NCHED 1 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC HEARING OF JANUARY 7, 1992 FEB C 1952 0108 1110 The Board should weigh the testimony presented today as well as relevant evidence submitted during the comment period to answer the two boundary questions identified in ORS 221.040(2). And now if there are any questions, I'd be happy to try and answer them for you. DICK MAUDLIN: I'm assuming we have, you did bring the maps that show these areas that are included in the staff report. KEVIN HARRISON: We have two zoning maps with the affected properties highlighted. I believe the Commissioners also have their own copies of those maps. These are in the record for today. RICHARD ISHAM: Mr. Chair, for the benefit of the audience, Kevin is going to point out those properties on the large map that Mr. Martin provided. DICK MAUDLIN: Fine. I appreciate that. KEVIN HARRISON: The property in yellow is the area covered by the petition. The property outlined in blue is the rural service center zone. Pace Estates Subdivision is located between this area in blue and yellow here. The area in red is the property that was just recently approved for a new destination resort. So, we have identified this property, this property and Pace Estates Subdivision . . . DICK MAUDLIN: Are there any questions of staff at this time? TOM THROOP: No questions. DICK MAUDLIN: I guess I have one question, apparently, just a definition of what we're saying here that the property that has been included says that it may be benefitted by being included. Is that just an opinion, may be benefitted or shall be benefitted? I mean there is a . . . KEVIN HARRISON: The statutory language is "may be benefitted." DICK MAUDLIN: That means that it may or may not be. KEVIN HARRISON: Right. DICK MAUDLIN: Okay. At this time then, by the way, I forgot one item last time at our meeting that I did not introduce the Board. My name is Dick Maudlin. I'm chairman of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. On my left, Nancy Schlangen and on my right Tom Throop. This comprises the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. 2 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC HEARING OF JANUARY 7, 1992 0108 1111 At this time then I will begin with testimony . . . SOMEONE FROM THE AUDIENCE ASKED A QUESTION. DICK MAUDLIN: There will be testimony given and I will take questions as we go along, but you will have to be recognized and they will all have to be brought up here so we can get them on tape. With that, I would ask anyone who wishes to testify in favor of the property listed, any of the properties listed, who would like to testify at this time to come forward. DAVE OLIVER: I was shuffling papers over there when you, was the question in favor of being included? DICK MAUDLIN: Yes, that's correct. DAVE OLIVER: Basically, I own five acres in the rural service center and I am in favor of that inclusion inasmuch as that there could be a benefit from sewer service in the future. I don't need the sewer service, but the cost factor in putting in the sewer as compared to ten sand filter septic systems is about $70,000, and that's a wash. And for that reason I would be in favor of it. It's not going to make the value of property go up or down. It's a good location. And, that's where I come from. DICK MAUDLIN: Thank you, Dave. TOM THROOP: I have a question for staff. Refresh my memory on how many acres there are in the RSC? KEVIN HARRISON: Approximately ten acres. TOM THROOP: Okay. DICK MAUDLIN: Anyone else wishing to speak in favor of inclusion of property? Hearing none, I will now ask for those persons who are. . . Before we do that we need to leave that door open for any latecomers because when that door is closed it locks, and we can't do anything about it. We can get out but nobody can get in. We will leave the door open. At this time we will hear testimony from anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to inclusion of any of land so listed. MARTIN HANSEN: For the record, my name is Martin Hansen, attorney for two of the original developers of the rural service center, Jim Montgomery and Don Strasser. Jim Montgomery, due to an illness in the family, could not be here today and asked me to speak in his behalf. Don Strasser is here and will offer his own testimony. 3 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC HEARING OF JANUARY 7, 1992 0108 1112 I previously, I think yesterday morning, delivered to the Commissioners and staff a report from both Mr. Montgomery and myself outlining our position. I ask that that be included. I won't take up your time with repeating it. I want to emphasize the points that I think are relevant. TOM THROOP: Mr. Chair, could I ask a quick question? I know that you sent us one and then you called and said disregard that, I'm sending a corrected second copy. I ended up with both copies and I can't remember whether I'm supposed to hang on to the one with the yellow tab or the one with the magenta tab. MARTIN HANSEN: The magenta is yours. . . TOM THROOP: Okay. Sorry about that. I didn't know which one to toss. MARTIN HANSEN: I should have given you color coding directions. I have provided you with an exhibit. So those in the audience know what we're talking about, this exhibit is a map showing in blue the approximately ten acres of RSC zone that was approved in February in 1990 by this Commission. Outlined in green is the Deschutes River Recreational Homesites, which are the most immediate adjoining rural residential homesites that are benefitted by the RSC zone. The others are obviously the Spring River and Fall River areas and that is already in your records from prior hearings as to what the creation attempt was behind the RSC zone. I give you this exhibit just to emphasize the inclusion is in blue up to the north and would not affect, as I understand your proposal, any of the rural homesites that are currently served by the RSC zone or the Spring River/Fall River area. And that is the point we wish to make today in opposition to this inclusion. We have heard correctly recited the statute regarding what may be benefitted. As used in the statute, there is no definition of what requirement, the case law does seem to handle that fairly well. You, I see, have already had in fact the same cases that I would cite to you presented to you by the attorneys for the incorporator. The RSC zone was created less than two years ago by this Commission to service those areas that are not currently and would not foreseeably be serviced by the Sunriver services that are in place and at that time, were foreseen to be in place in the future. The rural service center as it is throughout the county serves a specific need for rural residents that is different than urban residents. The staff report's only finding or conclusion I would say that would support inclusion is the indication that the RSC zone itself, that land, that ten acres, is planned to be basically urban in nature. I would offer these 4 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC HEARING OF JANUARY 7, 1992 0108 1113 photographs more for the sake of my argument than anything else because I presume that all the Commissioners are well familiar with the area and apparently have visited the site as certainly the staff has. Those photographs depict the current state of the RSC zone. I would submit to you that it is anything but urban in nature. But, even taking the argument that the RSC development is urban, that begs the question. The RSC zone, by its nature, is a small zone surrounded by rural areas that is allowed to develop in a more urban setting than it would otherwise merely to service the rural area, and that's what's been started with this RSC zone. Because there were specific findings and we have cited that in our reports in your earlier decision that there were a lack of services being supplied by the Sunriver Association and the businesses in the Sunriver development itself. The need for the RSC zone was well established at a previous hearing of the Commissioners in February of 1990. Nothing has changed to change those factors that were present in February of 1990. There still is a need for an RSC zone different than Sunriver. Further, we would submit that there is no benefit, even a possible benefit to the small area that you would request to be included because there is already water to most of these lots. The persons that I represent already have wells that service the lots and single wells that service all of the lots adequately. There is no need for a city water system. Sewer is also adequately taken care of. All of these services on the properties that are subject to development have already been approved for sand filter systems and the design is in place. Many of the lots already have the filter system. A sewer system would not be a necessary element in the city's incorporation. We would not necessarily have the sewer for quite some time if it were incorporated in the city boundaries. There would be no requirement for that. The cost would be exorbitant to bring that sewer and those utilities across the river. The staff report mentions that this RSC zone is separated by the Pace Estates and that is true. More to the point, though, separated by the Deschutes River. There is a natural boundary there more than just water and acreage. The boundary is that the development of Sunriver is for a particular tourist -oriented type of person and activity. The residential area surrounding the RSC zone is a different type of activity. The residents there have established a need for a different type of service than those that are currently allowed in Sunriver. So under the statute, we would submit that under 221.040(2), this possible modification to the boundary would fall into that category that says that those lands shall not be included in a proposed city when the court does not have findings of a rational basis to say that that property will be benefitted. I would submit to you that in the 5 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC HEARING OF JANUARY 7, 1992 0108 1114 record we have before you, there is no finding that would give a rational basis to a finding that it would be benefitted. The other developer that just got up and talked, Mr. Oliver, even indicated at best in favor that it was a wash on the cost associated with his totally undeveloped properties in including those in the city. Well, the other members of the RSC zone have in part and in some ways totally developed some of those lots. And it's far from a wash, in fact it's a detriment. They've already installed the needed utilities and services. They will not benefit whatsoever, and the restrictions that could be put in place by the city may deprive those rural homeowners of exactly the services that this Commission tried to guarantee for them in February of 1990. We believe that under the test under Oregon law that the findings be sufficient to support the rational basis test. There are no facts, and we would submit in fact that in this case, the inclusion of services is a detriment to the surrounding area. By far to make it clear that they support the incorporation of Sunriver. For Sunriver itself, the incorporation makes sense for the people in Sunriver and the activities that they have generated and wish to continue to generate. We don't want to be seen as in any way in opposition to that incorporation, but as this Commission has previously recognized, the rural homeowners in the surrounding Spring River/Fall River area have different needs to be met and they have been met by this Commission's finding in favor of the RSC zone. We don't want to lose that as part of the incorporation. We think we can work in harmony in this area, but not within the same municipal boundaries because they have two different needs to be met. At this point, we will hear from not only Mr. Strasser, but there are other members that own property in the RSC zone. If you have any questions I can address them now at the Commissions' wish. TOM THROOP: I have a question. Which tax lots does Mr. Montgomery own? MARTIN HANSEN: I presume that was listed in his letter. I would have to . . . TOM THROOP: They didn't jump out at me in the letter. I didn't MARTIN HANSEN: Let me try to find that. NANCY SCHLANGEN: Tax lots 100, 107, 108, 109 and 110 on page 1 of Mr. Montgomery's letter. 6 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC HEARING OF JANUARY 7, 1992 0108 1115 MARTIN HANSEN: That sounds correct. Mr. Strasser, I'll ask him to explain his . . . TOM THROOP: Where did you find that? NANCY SCHLANGEN: Page 1 of Mr. Montgomery's letter. It's the fourth page of the packet. MARTIN HANSEN: First paragraph. TOM THROOP: Why don't you read them to me again. MARTIN HANSEN: For the record, these are tax lots 100, 107, 108, 109 and 110. TOM THROOP: I don't have that in mine. DICK MAUDLIN: Just as a question on this thing. Those lots that have been listed 100, 107, 108, 109 and 110 in the notice are listed under different names, Harlan Miller, Sun Village Realty and Dan Heierman Trustee. MARTIN HANSEN: Mr. Montgomery, we have a representative from a corporation that owns these lots as well and I'll have her speak to the exact ownership, but Mr. Montgomery is the vested owner. I don't know about the notice going to those other individuals. There may be some confusion there. But, Mr. Montgomery, and that's contained in your prior findings of the RSC zone that established these same lots. DICK MAUDLIN: Would you come up, please. I would like to get an answer to that. TOM THROOP: Let me ask another question of Martin before the next witness. How many acres included in these five tax lots? MARTIN HANSEN: There are two and a half . . . TOM THROOP: Total all five? All five two and a half. MARTIN HANSEN: Yeah . . . those five lots . . . two and a half acres. MARY O'CONNOR: I'm Mary O'Connor, president of Sun Village Realty which owns the five lots. The notice that you have has on the first line the names of parties who were notified parties. However, the rest of the notice is care of Sun Village Realty. These records were Assessor's records which were outdated and now have been updated. Those lots are owned by Sun Village Realty and the new notice in full would read in care of Sun Village Realty after the first line. 7 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC HEARING OF JANUARY 7, 1992 0108 1116 DICK MAUDLIN: Thank you. TOM THROOP: Let me ask you, does this constitute your testimony or are you coming back up? MARY O'CONNOR: It does not and I will be coming back. TOM THROOP: Okay. MARTIN HANSEN: Any further questions? TOM THROOP: None from me. DICK MAUDLIN: Nancy? NANCY SCHLANGEN: No. DICK MAUDLIN: Thank you, Martin. Next? SIDNEY REYNOLDS: I'm Sidney Reynolds. I am the owner and developer of the small subdivision called Pace Estates. I currently own one lot, one of the residential lots. I am co- owner of 17 additional acres. I reside at 56352 Solar Drive and that's in the DRRH. I plan to build a home . . . I do not feel that Pace Estates would really benefit in any way by being included in the incorporated plan of Sunriver or the City of Sunriver. I am really concerned about the taxes and the extending of sewer and water. We already have approvals for feasibilities and our septic. Also, I don't know the other ramifications of being in the designed community of Sunriver. Also, what it would do to my taxes. Thank you. TOM THROOP: Let me ask a question. DICK MAUDLIN: Go ahead, Tom. TOM THROOP: You said you own one lot in Pace Estates and the 17 acres is outside of Pace Estates? SIDNEY REYNOLDS: It's common ground along the river there in the same area. It was 23 acres in the beginning. TOM THROOP: Okay. Refresh my memory on how many . . . 23 acres in Pace Estates? SIDNEY REYNOLDS: Yes, just under 23 acres. TOM THROOP: Just under 23? 17 of those in common ground? SIDNEY REYNOLDS: Yes. TOM THROOP: And the remainder is in how many lots again? 8 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC HEARING OF JANUARY 7, 1992 0108 111'7 SIDNEY REYNOLDS: Three DICK MAUDLIN: Thank you. Kevin, on that particular, on the map over here, just from your seat, can you tell us approximately where the Pace Estates is? MARTIN HANSEN: I would like to submit an additional map that I think would answer that as well as possible. I'll turn this in. The yellow portion of the northern end of this blue would correspond with ours to give the entire Pace Estates to the right, the east being the common ground . . . DICK MAUDLIN: Thank you. . . I'll mark that Exhibit 6. That particular map up there was Exhibit 1, and I marked the photos and this . . . Anyone else who wishes to testify? Yes, sir. DON STRASSER: My name is Don Strasser. I own lots 111, 112, 113 and 114 in the RSC center, and I don't feel that the incorporation would benefit us out there as I already have sewer and water to these four lots and the center. The cost of getting it there for the rest of the center I feel would just outweigh any benefit that there might be. And that's pretty basically it. DICK MAUDLIN: When you say you have sewer and water to these four lots . . . DON STRASSER: I have sand filters on these lots already. DICK MAUDLIN: DON STRASSER: Septic system? Yes, sir. DICK MAUDLIN: Thank you. Any other questions? Guess not. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. MARY O'CONNOR: My name is Mary O'Connor. As I have mentioned, I am president of Sun Village Realty which owns five of the lots in the rural service center. I reside at 1 Goldfinch Lane in Sunriver. I am also a property owner in the Sunriver Business Park and am on the board of directors of the Business Park Association. I am, in addition, on the Sunriver Owners' Association board of directors, however, I am not testifying as a member of the board of the business park or SROA. I disagree with the recommendation in the staff report to include the rural service center within the boundaries of Sunriver. The statements and opinions to this effect I feel are unsupported by any facts of record and are contrary to the Commissioners' findings on February 14, 1990, and the files in PA -89-6 and ZC-89-7 which created the rural service center and which are incorporated by reference in the staff report. 9 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC HEARING OF JANUARY 7, 1992 0108 1118 I wish to address the findings in the order in which they appear in paragraph 16 of the staff report. (1) "The service center is located immediately south of the proposed city." This is not true. In addition to being on the far side of Pace Estates which includes three lots and 17 acres of common area, Tract A, which is located in the floodplain and too marshy to be developed, the rural service center is on the far side of Spring River Road and separated from Sunriver by the river. Furthermore, there is no access to the rural service center from the southern areas of Sunriver either by car or bike path. The rural service center is geographically separated from Sunriver and is located in DRRH. For staff to look at a tax map and reach this conclusion ignores the physical separation of the river and the lack of access from the closest part of Sunriver and the fact that the rural service center is part of DRRH. (2) "Its development is limited due to a high water table." This statement also is not true and in fact it is false. No one from the Planning Division or anyone responsible for preparing the staff report ever inquired of any of the owners in the rural service center if development there is limited by a high water table. When I inquired of the Planning Division the basis of this conclusion, I was told that it was assumed to be the case. In fact it is not the case. The Strasser's property has been developed. Sun Village's property has and is being developed. In fact the only property which has not been developed is that adjacent to Sun Village's which has been for sale since the rural service center was established. Future development of Sun Village's lots is in the planning stage and is not limited or even affected in any way by the high water table. These situations would hardly seem to indicate a limit on development. Therefore in my view, staff's opinions and conclusions, which were based on assumptions, are in fact not the case. (3) "It is staff's opinion that this commercial strip is urban in nature, should be included in the proposed city boundaries and would be benefitted by inclusion in the proposed city boundaries by the provision of public services, including water and sewerage." It is clear from the decision of the County Commissioners of February 14, 1990, that the rural service center was specifically created to meet the needs of the rural residents of the area, particularly Spring River, Fall River and DRRH, not to serve Sunriver. The files are clear on this point. The decision of the Commissioners also distinguishes between the needs of the rural residents of the area and those of Sunriver, and therefore conflicts with inclusion in paragraph 16. Furthermore, nowhere in Oregon statute 222.042 does it require that public services, including water and sewerage, be provided to all areas of an incorporated city. In fact I understand that there are areas of Eugene and Bend that do not have sewers. Rather, I understand that public facilities, including sanitary facilities, are part of the LCDC planning and development goals, 10 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC HEARING OF JANUARY 7, 1992 0108 11.19 particularly Goal 11 of the statewide land use goals. Thus, there is nothing in the Oregon statutes which requires a city to provide sewerage and water to all areas within its boundaries as indicated in the staff report. I have inquired of the Incorporation Committee whether if Sunriver were incorporated, it would be the intent to provide sewers to the rural service center. While I appreciate that the Incorporation Committee cannot speak for the incorporated city, I understand that there is no such intention and if sewers were to be provided, that it would be at the expense of the owners in the rural service center. This would be extremely expensive and probably prohibitively. At the hearing on December 10, 1991, Sunriver was described by petitioners as a fully integrated community which would be benefitted by being incorporated, including financial benefits, local control enhancement, general advantages, cultural and so forth, ability to concentrate on public works projects and localized planning functions. None of these stated benefits apply to the rural service center or would necessarily benefit the rural service center. Also at that hearing, opponents set forth perceived problems with an incorporated city, including housing, transportation, public service and the need for an ad valorem tax. Their concerns are quite frankly separate from those of the rural service center. Thus, in addition to not being benefitted, there could well be a downside to being included in an incorporated city. I feel there is a marked difference between the Sunriver Business Park, which was included in the boundary, and the rural service center. The business park is adjoining, is not across the river and its entrance is close to Sunriver. There is a steady stream of traffic and commerce between the two areas. Businesses there directly serve Sunriver. It is urban in nature. A school and apartments provide schooling and housing for people who live or work in Sunriver. It is connected to the sewer and water systems. Property values and rents are high. The business park is part of the master plan of Sunriver. The rural service center, on the other hand, is part of DRRH. It is separated from Sunriver geographically and has been historically. It was specifically created by the Commissioners to serve the needs outside of Sunriver. Unlike the business park, it is not a major provider of services for Sunriver. It has separate design and planning considerations. The properties there were purchased and rezoned in this framework and would not be benefitted by a change in status. The purported benefits of sewers I feel is illusory and even if accomplished, would be costly. Moreover, it is not even 11 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC HEARING OF JANUARY 7, 1992 0108 1120 needed as there is septic approval as was required by the Commissioners at the time of the approval. This feasibility could well meet the goals as required by Goal 11. In conclusion, I would like to add that I was quite surprised by the staff report inclusion of the rural service center in the proposed boundaries. The issue of incorporation has been active in Sunriver for quite some time and the proposed boundaries as including the rural service center has never been an issue. No one from the rural service center ever approached the Incorporation Committee and asked to be included in the boundaries. Rather the concern has been wariness on the part of the owners in DRRH. On December 12 I met at the County Commissioners' office and asked to review the background file on this recommendation. There was nothing in the file to support the findings and conclusions in paragraph 16. Rather, I was told that the basis was a tax map, zoning and interpretation. The map, however, shows that the rural service center is clearly a part of DRRH and the zoning expressly documents the rural service center as serving the needs of the outlying rural areas. There was nothing in the record to support the finding that development is limited due to a high water table. It may be that the rural service center and other areas could become part of an urban growth boundary, but I feel that it is premature at this time to make that decision. That decision would be made if and when Sunriver were ever incorporated by the county and the city elected officials. Sunriver and the business park are cohesive areas separate from the rural service center. Any benefits accruing to them from incorporation would not be shared by the rural service center and there could well be detriments. Thank you. DICK MAUDLIN: Any questions? TOM THROOP: I have a question. clear, you're testifying on the testified on earlier? MARY O'CONNOR: Correct. Just to make sure the record is same parcels that Mr. Hansen TOM THROOP: Looking at the material I'm curious, Mary, you identified yourself as the president of Sun Village Realty, Inc. and looking at Jim's letter, he states that he is in favor of incorporation, but opposed to this area being included in the incorporation proposal. I was curious, is that your position as well? Do you support incorporation and oppose this from being included in the incorporation proposal? MARY O'CONNOR: Mr. Throop, I do not feel that that question 12 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC HEARING OF JANUARY 7, 1992 0108 11.21 bears on the issues before this hearing today, however, I'm pleased to answer it. I feel that there are pros and cons to the issue of incorporation and I can't honestly say at this point whether I am for it or against. My purpose in testifying today is specifically in regard to the rural service center and I feel that I have enough familiarity with both property in the rural service center and in the business park where I also own property to perceive a difference between the areas. The two are diverse. The property values in the business park are high and more upscale, more tourist -oriented and so forth. Does that answer your question? TOM THROOP: There may be division on the question of incorporation, but there's not division on the question of whether being included in incorporation is appropriate? MARY O'CONNOR: Jim Montgomery and I agree on many things. We also don't agree on many things. I think that anybody who knows the two of us would be able to testify to that. TOM THROOP: Okay, you answered the question. DICK MAUDLIN: I have one other question ma'am. I have a question that in reading the information that was provided on page 6 of this information you provided us, there were a number of items that were included, uses provided under a limited use combining zone and appropriate for this proposed rural service center, and included in that was a full-service gas station with auto repair services, a welding shop and an excavation business. Are there any businesses of this kind located in the Sunriver Business Park? DON STRASSER: I don't believe so. I've got the only excavating and it is in the rural service center. There is no welding shop to my knowledge in the business park. I think there is an auto repair shop in the business park. There is no service station in the business park. There are two in Sunriver. DICK MAUDLIN: Are you aware of any rules and regulations under the existing Sunriver zone that would disallow any of these businesses as it is today? DON STRASSER: I believe so. I couldn't say for sure, but I know that it would take probably a conditional use permit to get those in the business park. DICK MAUDLIN: Thank you very much. DAVE OLIVER: As I stated before, my name is Dave Oliver and I own five acres which is more than half of the rural service center. I would like to point out that the staff was correct when they did say there was a high water table and that is 13 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC HEARING OF JANUARY 7, 1992 0108 1122 evident by the fact that Mr. Strasser had to put in sand filter systems for septics. That's an indication of a high water table. So the staff was correct. And I also, in regards to the Sunriver Business Park, the majority of the uses in that Sunriver Business Park are on conditional use permits. They were not outright uses and there are probably things that shouldn't even be in that industrial zone park. RICHARD ISHAM: Mr. Oliver, when you put a sand filter on a piece of property, does that require a certain portion of that property to be dedicated for disposal of sewage on the property? DAVE OLIVER: Yes. I believe as above ground, I believe that we are looking at a 20 X 40 designated space area. RICHARD ISHAM: Does that have lines also that have to come from that or is that just a . . .? DAVE OLIVER: It's contained within itself. It's a reserve and a, the use is there right now, the facility, and a reserve facility in case that one fails. Mr. Strasser would know about that. Am I correct, 20 X 40 approximate? DON STRASSER: You've got to have a 365 square foot. RICHARD ISHAM: And additionally, isn't it required, Mr. Oliver, that your wells be located some distance from any septic or sewage disposal system? DAVE OLIVER: Yes, within at least 100 feet away from. RICHARD ISHAM: So it is possible in that area you could have an area that could not be basically used because you could not put a well and septic system . . . DAVE OLIVER: Exactly. And specifically the above -ground systems, which actually could be used for parking if there were underground sewer systems or for a building site. And also the water system could be from one source as opposed to, in this case, in the whole center there could be 19 different water systems. RICHARD ISHAM: Is it your belief that you would have a higher use of the property if it were served by sewer and water as opposed as being portions of it dedicated to wells and sand filters? DAVE OLIVER: I would think that the fact that the ground would be more useable as far as parking and building and then also that the sewer system would be much more efficient, especially when you get into heavy commercial use, and there are at least 16 uses out there that are pre -approved uses, the full-service gas 14 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC HEARING OF JANUARY 7, 1992 0108 1123 station being one and a restaurant. There are several uses there that lend themselves to a sewer system as opposed to a septic system. Not that it couldn't be done with a septic system. It is just that there are more problems with septic systems as opposed to sewer systems when you're looking at commercial operations. RICHARD ISHAM: Thank you. DICK MAUDLIN: Anything else? Thank you Mr. Oliver. Anyone else wishing to speak? DON STRASSER: I would like to state that I am a DEQ -licensed septic installer and under the rules and regulations from the DEQ, your sand filter system will actually take up less room because once you put in a standard system, you cannot drive on the leach lines, that type of thing. You do take up about twice as much area as a standard sand filter system. So your standard below ground actually takes up more room than a sand filter. Today, if all the lots in that area were tested, probably 75% would test as sand filter systems. The standard system is virtually non-existent anymore out in our area, so I feel that it is a good argument saying that a sand filter or whatnot actually you're taking up less room. You've got a little more cost involved and that's about it. DICK MAUDLIN: Thank you. Anyone else now? Yes, sir. HERBERT KOPPEL: My name is Herbert Koppel. I live at 17255 Azusa Road. (Change of tape.) . . . if it is incorporated then you do not get the fire department. That is still held by the Owner's Association. And if this is incorporated into the city, who is going to maintain the fire here on this corner? DICK MAUDLIN: That is not a decision that has been made one way or the other. At the present time the fire protection is being provided just as it is today. There may be in the future an answer to that question, but it is not a question that we can answer for you today. HERBERT KOPPEL: I think it should be given a lot of concern because if you put a service station down there and everything else and Sunriver isn't going to cover it, who is going to cover it? It won't be in the LaPine Fire District. I'm sitting less than a 1,000 feet from there with trees all the way up there. And that is my concern why I do not think that thing should not be brought into the city until things are figured out and where they are going to get their fire protection. DICK MAUDLIN: Are you presently under a fire protection contract? 15 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC HEARING OF JANUARY 7, 1992 0108 1124 HERBERT KOPPEL: I belong to the LaPine Fire District. DICK MAUDLIN: I am quite certain that you will not lose that coverage. HERBERT KOPPEL: That is the main thing that I'm really concerned about. Thank you. DICK MAUDLIN: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to . . . Let me see if there are any new people and then I'll go back. Anyone else? Okay. SIDNEY REYNOLDS: . . . question. DICK MAUDLIN: Okay. SIDNEY REYNOLDS: . . . said in the beginning his reason for including the rural service center . . . I'm curious as to why he didn't include DRRH, the homesites. DICK MAUDLIN: Kevin, did you get the question? KEVIN HARRISON: Well, I think that what we did was identify two particular areas that we believe had been designated for urban type development; one a commercial area zoned RSC, and two the new destination resort which is designed to have 100 -odd single- family lots and 25 condominiums and was proposed to be served by water and sewer from Sunriver Utility Company. So what we did is identify those properties which we felt were designated for development at urban level type densities and, in the case of the new destination resort, to be served by urban level facilities. DICK MAUDLIN: I guess that that tells us about the, this blue area. But what about the Pace Estates? KEVIN HARRISON: Well, Pace Estates is a chunk of land that separates the RSC from the proposed city limits. What we said was that in order to include the RSC zone, it would have to take in Pace Estates. SIDNEY REYNOLDS: Why couldn't we . . . DICK MAUDLIN: We can't hear you from back there. Would you come up here and ask your question? I am not going to keep you from doing this, but really I think we need to be sure to get it on the record so we have it. SIDNEY REYNOLDS: I wondered why it couldn't be accessed from the other side of, why does it have to include Pace Estates? The development is on the opposite side. 16 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC HEARING OF JANUARY 7, 1992 TOM THROOP: It before us and we That was a staff going to change decision. SIDNEY REYNOLDS: doesn't have to include. are the three that have recommendation. They've it. We're the three that Okay. 0108 1125 That is the issue to make the decision. made it. Their not need to make the DICK MAUDLIN: Thank you. Anyone else that has not spoken at this time? Martin, do you want to close . . . go ahead . . . MARTIN HANSEN: I want to answer the matter of fact of Mr. Montgomery and the questioning of Mr. Isham. I think he really brings up a point that needs to be addressed as a matter of fact. The size of the lots in the RSC zones as originally established were made with the sand filter system in mind. There was enough room given for a development with a sand filter system which in fact would now make the lots oversized if you had originally planned it with a sewer system. These lots in fact take into account the need for enough room for parking and the other development necessities and you will have no net benefit. The fact that you may confer a sewer ultimately on them when they can organize their own private sewer, they don't need that because the lot size has already taken into account the need for sewer of some type, either a drainfield or in this case a sand filter. So the issue before us is that there is a net benefit and the testimony you have heard is that there is no net benefit due to the enormous cost of crossing the river with the sewer system at that place. The land is not either. It is already designed for the sand filter, designed in fact through the planning staff recommendations originally. That is all we have to add. Thank you. DICK MAUDLIN: Thank you. Now, I'm sorry. I'm going to let you get up there. KEITH MARTIN: I recognize this is a continuation of our other hearing. Just so it is clear to the Commission, the petitioners oppose the inclusion of these three areas. Our opposition continues for all of the reasons stated here, those we have stated earlier, and will yet state in written material to be submitted before the record is closed. I didn't want you to think otherwise. DICK MAUDLIN: We assumed that that would be forthcoming. I guess I hate to do this, but I am going to ask a question anyway. The only property that apparently has not been addressed at all is this 600 acres that is designated as a new destination resort and it hasn't even come up. I guess I will assume that we can make some assumptions on that basis and we probably will. SHERIDAN ATKINSON: I can respond to that . . . 17 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC HEARING OF JANUARY 7, 1992 0108 1126 DICK MAUDLIN: I wondered where you were. SHERIDAN ATKINSON: Sheridan Atkinson, president of Sunriver Properties and also president of Sunriver Utility Company, which for the record, is not owned by anyone other than Sunriver Properties. So while everybody is worried about who is going to do what with the sewer and whether it is a benefit or not, it probably ought to be stated simply that we own it and at this point in time, don't have any plans to go anywhere with it except to the 600 acres that we have planned and approved which is the area in red. I'm already on the record as an individual and as a representative of Sunriver Properties opposing incorporation. I am really quite neutral on whether or not the staff report should be accepted relative to the 600 acres. My opposition to incorporation has to do with the abandoning of the PC zone which was created way back when when Sunriver was first organized and in fact all of the protection that goes with it. Whether or not Sunriver is incorporated at this point in time and whether it has a relationship to the 600 acres I don't think is necessarily important because at some point in time, it would be my assumption that if incorporation happens at Sunriver, the property would be included in the urban growth boundary and undoubtedly at some point in time, would end up being a part of the city. Quite frankly, a lot of the property talked about today would also be included in the urban growth boundary, including Recreation Homesites and Oregon Water Wonderland and any other property that exists to the south and southwest of Sunriver. And this would be no exception, this 600 acres. Therefore, I'm really quite neutral on it. I oppose the incorporation, but don't really oppose the inclusion. DICK MAUDLIN: Thank you, Sheridan. Anyone else at this time? TOM THROOP: Let me ask one question. I don't recall, did the witness from Pace Estates testify on behalf of the other two owners in Pace Estates as well? SIDNEY REYNOLDS: No. . . . I have communicated with them some. I thought it was up to them to present themselves. And they are not here so I'm just . . . I am the developer of it. So, I feel that they would be opposed, but I can't speak for them. DICK MAUDLIN: Before you leave, the 17 acres along the river there, is that owned by the three lot owners or is that owned by you? SIDNEY REYNOLDS: It's common ground among the three of us. 18 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC HEARING OF JANUARY 7, 1992 0108 1127 DICK MAUDLIN: Okay. Thank you. TOM THROOP: So for the record, we have heard from owners of every tax lot in question with the exception of two or three small parcels in Pace Estates? DICK MAUDLIN: Correct. Anyone else? As you are aware, or maybe perhaps not aware, we have set a date for a decision on both incorporation or non -incorporation by the Deschutes County Commission and that date was, if I'm not mistaken and I don't mind being corrected, but I think it was the 22nd of this month. And the time we were to do that was . . . NANCY SCHLANGEN: It's 11:00 a.m. TOM THROOP: That's essentially for both sets of decisions on the lots, what the boundary is and also on incorporation. DICK MAUDLIN: We did allow written testimony through Tuesday, January 14, 1992. We will accept that testimony through that date, and it can also include testimony on the hearing today. Any testimony regarding this information today will be accepted through Tuesday, January 14, 1992. The time, once again, that we will have the decision and order is Wednesday, January 22, at 11:00 a.m. There being nothing further, this meeting . . . Oh, yeah, well, we keep moving you around. If we do this often enough, we are going to lose a lot of folks. Actually we are going to have our own room finished on that date, so it will be at Room A of the Juvenile Justice Building and it may not be totally finished, but it will be a lot better than it is right now, which is not saying much. TOM THROOP: Let me ask you a question before we adjourn. It is totally unrelated to this set of proceedings before us. But, we have three other decisions that we need to schedule at some point, the destination resort, PP&L and the LM . . . DICK MAUDLIN: . . . which also must be decided before the 22nd day of this month. TOM THROOP: Do we want to schedule that now or do we want to do that tomorrow at the Board meeting? DICK MAUDLIN: I thought we discussed that yesterday. I thought that that was the time we were going to do it since they had to be done. And everybody will be there. TOM THROOP: Okay. Perfect. DICK MAUDLIN: We are adjourned, and thank you all. 19 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC HEARING OF JANUARY 7, 1992 DATED this day of of Commissioners of Deschutes ATXE-T: ot�21,Ck�liww Recording Secretary 0108 1128 �77o 1992, by the Board `n,-? . - /li> LIN, Chairman� �► �,_ ►,.aril � �. � � � �I- 20 - MINUTES OF THE BOCC HEARING OF JANUARY 7, 1992