Loading...
1992-21393-Minutes for Meeting June 10,1992 Recorded 6/25/199292-21393 01.18-0898 •t r< MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Oy `tU25 AM June 10, 1992 Chairman Maudlin called the meeting to order at 10:05 aGMjNT13c ,F -4K members in attendance were: Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Nancy Pope Schlangen. Also present were: Bruce White, Assistant Legal Counsel; Karen Green Community Development Director; George Read, Planning Director; Catherine Morrow, Planner; Dave Leslie, Planner; and Dale Van Valkenburg, Planner. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Consent agenda items before the Board were: #1, signature of Agreement with State Highway Division for replacement of Harper Bridge on Spring River Road; #2, signature of Personal Services Contract with Mary Siegler, Speech Therapist; #3, approval of out-of-state travel paid for by the State Health Department for Dianna Pickett; #4, chair signature of Amendment to CYSC 1991-93 Plan for Special Friends; #5, chair signature of Amendment to CYSC 1991-93 Plan for Child Care Block Grant; #6, signature of tax refund Order 92-057; #7, signature of Clinical Affiliation Agreement with SOSC; #8, chair signature of Bond Certification Retention Directive for Hospital Revenue Bonds; #9, signature of Development Agreement for BMX Bicycle Park Site Plan at the County Demo Landfill; #10, signature of MP -91-45 dividing a 21.5 -acre parcel into one 10 -acre parcel and one 11.5 acre parcel in an RR -10 zone on Riverland Avenue in LaPine; #11, chair signature of Renewal of Maintenance Agreement with Oregon Micrographics Inc. for equipment in Clerk's Office; and #12, setting a public hearing on the 1992-93 fee schedule for June 24, 1992. THROOP: I'll move approval of the twelve consent agenda items. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 2. PROPOSAL TO SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES FOR REDUCED WORKWEEK Sheriff Darrell Davidson said that at 8 a.m. this morning the Sheriff's Association voted on and passed the proposal to go to a 36 -hour workweek for July, August, and September, while trying for a special operating levy in September. He asked for the Board's approval of the same proposal and permission to go forward of the special levy. The Board approved to the proposal and authorized moving forward with the special levy. PAGE 1 MINUTES: JUNE 10, 1992 PH 0118-0899 3. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDER 92-051 REGARDING WITHDRAWAL FROM RFPD #1 Before the Board was a public hearing concerning the withdrawal of that part of Crooked River Ranch (units 4 and 5) which were inside Deschutes County from RFPD #1. Bruce White said the request was to withdraw that geographic area within Deschutes County from Rural Fire Protection District #1. At the same time, there was an annexation process going on in Jefferson County, whereby these units would be annexed to the Crooked River Ranch Rural Fire Protection District. There was no desire to stop fire service, they just wanted to be part of the adjoining fire district which served the majority of the Crooked River Ranch. He said the only finding the Board needed to make was that it was not feasible for the existing rural fire protection district to serve the affected territory. There has been a request that the withdrawal not be effective until after the first of July so that it would be in the next fiscal year, and since the second hearing would not be held until July 1, that would not be a problem. The other request was that this withdrawal be contingent upon the annexation proceedings being completed in Jefferson County. Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing. Iva Yost from Crooked River Ranch Fire Department said they had been protecting the area proposed for annexation ever since their fire department had been established and had never received any money for this protection. They asked Deschutes County RFPD #1 if they would agree to this withdrawal, and they gave their permission. She asked the Board to approve this withdrawal. Commissioner Throop asked what the property tax rate was for the Crooked River Ranch Fire Department. Ms. Yost said last year it was $2.48 and RFPD #1 was $2.96. Commissioner Throop said he though RFPD #1 was $2.42 this year. Ms. Yost thought the tax payers would pay a little less in their district. There being no one else who wished to testify, Chairman Maudlin closed the public hearing. Chairman Maudlin pointed out that the final public hearing on this issue would be held on July 1, 1992, if the Board approved Order 92-051. Bruce White said that Deschutes Rural Fire Protection District #1 had consented to this withdrawal. MAUDLIN: I would entertain a motion for signature of Order 92-051. SCHLANGEN: So moved. PAGE 2 MINUTES: JUNE 10, 1992 THROOP: I'll second the motion. 0118-0900 VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING ON TERRILL APPEAL Before the Board was a continued public hearing of the Terrill appeal of the Hearings Officer's denial of a minor partition in an EFU zone. Chairman Maudlin opened the continued public hearing. Dale Van Valkenburg showed the Board maps of the subject property indicating the ownership and use of the surrounding properties. Much of the surrounding property was public land. He said they had been unable to get the information from OSU because the school year had ended. In tier 1 the median tract size would be 40 acres with irrigated acres at 20, which this parcel currently met but would not meet if it were partitioned. The tier 2 test would look at the surrounding properties and the median of commercial contiguous ownership tracts while deleting the bottom 10% which the OSU study recommended. Mick Tye, representing the applicant, had provided some information regarding the surrounding properties to determine if this partition would be similar to surrounding farm properties. Mick Tye, representing the applicant, said he went through the irrigation/water rights map and the Assessor's map to determine how many acres were irrigated in each one of the surrounding parcels. He also did a field visit to determine what was growing on each of those parcels. In the area to the south, there were just small patches of irrigation. Tax Lot 303 had been a dairy at one time, and they were still growing alfalfa, but there was no livestock. The remainder of the tracts were just in pasture. Chairman Maudlin asked if the MUA-10 unrecorded subdivision was owned by one party. Mr. Tye said he thought there were many parcels because when he drove by he could see a number of different homes in this area. Dale Van Valkenburg said he had estimated the median lot size and irrigated acreage, and the median lot size was around 23 and median irrigated acres would be around 16. Therefore, if partitioned, the parcels would be below the median lot size and below the median number of irrigated acres in the area. This calculation did not include deletion of the bottom 10%. PAGE 3 MINUTES: JUNE 10, 1992 0118-0901 Mick Tye pointed out that each of the partitioned properties would have 11 acres of irrigation. Chairman Maudlin closed the public hearing. THROOP: I would move to uphold the Hearings Officer's decision. Using the new tiered test which had come out of the farm study, these 20 -acre parcels with 11 acres of water would fall below the sizes which were characteristic for the area. He mentioned that there were also several large, publicly owned parcels in the area, which were substantially larger than the proposed 20 -acres. SCHLANGEN: Second. She did not feel that these parcels would be that far under the median, however she agreed to uphold the Hearings Officer's decision. Chairman Maudlin asked why the RR -10 zone was not considered in the median calculation. He also didn't feel that the public property should be considered in the decision. Commissioner Throop said he understood that when using the tiered approach, exception areas would not be included in the calculations. Bruce White said that the standard being applied was the continuation of the existing agricultural enterprises in the area; and under the comprehensive plan, the MUA-10 zone was viewed as an exception area and not an agricultural zone. Therefore, he didn't feel that exception areas should not be considered. Commissioner Schlangen said she also understood that the comparison was to existing farm parcels only. Karen Green said the approach in tier 2 was to look at parcels that were in farm use not the surrounding nonfarm tracts. She had taken time to refine the median calculations in this area and found the median for irrigated acres was 18.5 and the median for parcel size was 29. This calculation included all the farm properties with the exception of two, one -acre home sites and tax lot 400 which was Central Oregon Irrigation non - assessed property. Bruce White asked how the tier 2 approach was developed by the Farm Study Committee. Karen Green said the "Pease approach" was to help identify the existing commercial agriculture community in the area of a particular tract. The tier 1 approach analyses was based on an entire subzone, where the median would be considerably larger for irrigated acres than this parcel. So tier 2 was developed to allow people to determine what existing agriculture was in a smaller area, i.e. their immediate neighborhood. The Farm PAGE 4 MINUTES: JUNE 10, 1992 0118-0902 Study Committee had discussed using 1/2 mile as the boundary for that area. The 1/2 acre boundary had been discussed with DLCD staff, and they seemed "comfortable" with it. The goal was to continue the existing pattern which was reflective of Goal 3. In this case, the existing pattern was still larger than the one being proposed. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: NO 5. DECISION ON WILDLIFE AREA COMBINING ZONE AMENDMENTS (ORDINANCES 92-040, -041, -042, -045) Dave Leslie went over the findings concerning surface mining. In response to concerns from DLCD staff, on page 5 site 341 (Varco) staff further revised the findings to include a proposal to use this area as a natural resource/education center which would be a conflicting land use which would further diminish the ability to extract mineral and aggregate resource from this site. On page 6, site 392 (Rose) where DLCD staff was concerned that the Board had both approved and denied the site for protecting the mineral resource, staff had pointed out that there were two types of resources: hard basalt and select fill. The basalt was denied for mining while the fill was protected since blasting hard rock created a higher level of conflict with surrounding land uses. Also there was conflicting testimony regarding the importance of raptor use at this site, and it was staff's opinion that raptor use should no long be considered a significant Goal 5 resource based on the inability of ODF&W to be consistent with the neighbor's testimony. Therefore there would no longer be any natural resource conflicts at this site. On page 7, a concern had been raised about the 5 -acre maximum which could be mined at one time. The findings indicated that this was not contrary to the goal 5 rule which required protection of the resource, but it was appropriate for the County to consider policies and ordinance provisions which enabled the resource to be protected and utilized while imposing some limitations. Staff also pointed out that the County's history since the adoption of the package in 1990 had consisted of four site plan reviews. All four had been approved with certain conditions based on the ESEEs and the zoning ordinance standards, and in all four cases, the applicant's proposal included the five acre limitation with confirmed reclamation. On page 8, these sites were all recognized as being within the Metolius deer migration corridor and additional information had been received since the public hearing. Therefore, they had updated the migration corridor maps to show the Metolius corridor and recommended that the Metolius corridor resource be designated a 1(b) resource at this time. They had an overall boundary map, however ODF&W staff felt that map could PAGE 5 MINUTES: JUNE 10, 1992 0118-0903 be refined with better information on the location, quantity and quality of the resource. At the public hearing there was a finding that the County would include a condition for consultation with ODF&W, however with the designation of a 1(b) resource, that consultation requirement was no longer consistent with the Goal and had been deleted. However the current practice of requesting information and review by ODF&W would continue , but would only carry the weight of a recommendation. It also included a time frame for attempting to complete the Goal 5 process by the next periodic review or sooner if ODF&W staff and other resources permitted. On page 9, sites 501, etc. contained the sage grouse habitat area east of Bend. They had received additional information updating the strutting ground locations and the maps had been revised accordingly. They had revised the ESEE for the habitat area for sensitive birds and the information within the sensitive bird and mammal habitat combining zone to recognize that surface mining was a conflicting use in this area. When a mining site was within 1320 feet of a strutting ground, there would be a consultation with ODF&W to try to balance the conflicts and insure protection of the strutting ground. Currently it did not appear that any of the mining sites in question were within 1/4 mile, however the strutting grounds did move. Commissioner Throop said he found the staff work on this ordinance "totally acceptable" and that it would clearly be adopted with the rest of the package when it was completed. Catherine Morrow said the draft ordinances before the Board were: Ordinance 92-040, the Comprehensive Plan amendments to the goals and policies; Ordinance 92-041, adopting the ESEEs and the revisions to the resource element; Ordinance 92-042 adopting the amendments to the wildlife area combining zone and the new sensitive bird and mammal habitat combining zone; and Ordinance 92-045 adopting the wetland inventory maps. There would also be an ordinance to adopt the zoning maps for the wildlife area combining zone and the sensitive bird and mammal combining zone. Depending on what the Board decided on destination resorts, they might have to get some maps made up to amend the destination resort combining zone. She gave the Board a memo dated June 10 which proposed some text amendments to the draft of Title 18.88, the Wildlife Area Combining Zone, which were discussed in the work session. The first issue concerned Section 18.88.050 which was the density standard in the RR -10 zone. There was a reference in the RR -10 zone which said that was within one mile of the Urban Growth Boundary there could be a density of one per five acres. It was the recommendation of the Planning Commission that the overall density in the Wildlife area combining zone be one for ten acres. The second item on her memo was concerning the issue of siting standards on irrigated lands, Section 18.88.060. PAGE 6 MINUTES: JUNE 10, 1992 0118-0904 She revised the standards to say that if the siting within 300 feet of an existing road or easement would force the dwelling to be located on irrigated land, the dwelling would be located to provide the least impact on wildlife habitat possible, considering grouse, forage, cover, and access to water while minimizing the length of new access roads. She felt this language would deal with the issue of not forcing the dwelling to be placed on irrigated land. Finally, the fencing standards had been restructure to make it more clear which fences were subject to the standards and to state that the County would make the decision regarding the fencing after consultation with ODF&W. Commissioner Throop asked if the language she had proposed on density in the RR -10 zone would retain the density bonus or would override the bonus. Catherine Morrow said it would override the RR -10 and cluster development standards to be one in ten in the wildlife area combining zone. Chair Maudlin asked how the fencing standards had been changed. Catherine Morrow said they had been changed so that they would only apply to people who were developing their property with a conditional use or site plan review, however the actual standards were the same as ODF&W had recommended. There was still a provision which said that these standards would apply unless an alterative fence design which provided equivalent wildlife passage was approved. These standards were applied routinely by Planning staff as conditions of approval, however she didn't know if County staff ever inspected people's fences. Commissioner Schlangen said she didn't see the point in having standards which the County wouldn't be able to enforce and were easily circumvented. Commissioner Throop said it would provide direction to the land owner who was interested in making their operations compatible with wildlife. Chairman Maudlin said he measured some of the fences along Highway 20 and the Old Bend -Redmond Highway and didn't find any which would meet these standards. The average lowest strand was about 111, and the highest strand was at 58" with most being nearly 44". There were cattle, llamas and sheep in these fences. Commissioner Throop asked what information there was on the problems created by lower bottom strands. Catherine Morrow said there was no one in attendance from ODF&W, however this was their standard recommendation. The state highway department had various standards which did not meet the ODF&W recommendations. She had not heard back from the BLM about their fencing standards. Since most of the area where these standards would apply was on Federal land, Chairman Maudlin did see why the County needed to have fencing standards. Catherine Morrow said they had standards because the fences that didn't allow for wildlife passage were a conflict with the wildlife resource which the County was trying to protect. The Planning Division PAGE 7 MINUTES: JUNE 10, 1992 0118-0905 was already using these standards because of supplementary provision 18.116.120 of the zoning ordinance. The Board discussed the pros and cons of having the ODF&W involved with the alternative fence design. Bruce White felt the proposed language made the fencing standard more clear and objective. The Board asked if Catherine Morrow would contact ODF&W and see if they would come to the Board's Monday meeting to defend their standards. Catherine Morrow suggested that the Board go through the ordinances one at a time and make decisions on the remaining issues. Ordinance 92-040, the Comprehensive Plan amendment included the provision that the riparian vegetation protection standards would be done by 1993. Commissioner Throop asked if by putting it off till 1993, the County was actually designating it 1(b). Catherine Morrow said it was not a 1(b) because the ESEE identified the existing protection program for riparian areas under 3(c) as: the 100' setback, the conservation easement, the flood plain ordinance, the fill and removal ordinance, etc. The policy was only discussing riparian vegetation. George Read said there was inadequate quality, quantity and location data to proceed. Bruce White said the County had decided that riparian corridors were important enough to take certain protected actions including the 100' set back, so the County had already decided on a program. What this ordinance was dealing with was a riparian program to deal with one specific conflict (partitioning), however he didn't think the County had identified partitioning as a very significant conflict and the program was too vague. Karen Green said that in a normal 1(b) process, there wasn't adequate quantity, quality and location information for the resource. That wasn't the case in this situation for what was possibly only part of the resource. The public was saying there was more riparian resource than the County had identified and inventoried, and that the additional inventory was not being protected. This language would provide a program to protect the identified riparian resource. If this issue were considered a 1(b) it would mean that the County would drop its protection of the resource, since there was no interim protection for 1(b). George Read said the Planning Commission was concerned that there was no protection mechanism for the vegetative fringe outside of the bed and bank of the stream, which would provide some of the shade or cover or was related to the riparian area, particularly cutting trees which shaded the river. Bruce White said he had gone to court under the existing fill and removal standards to deal with the cutting of riparian vegetation, and he suggested reviewing the issue as a whole to see what was enforceable and what was not. He felt the scope of that issue was bigger than could be addressed at this time. PAGE 8 MINUTES: JUNE 10, 1992 6. 7. Q 0118-Opff Catherine Morrow said Ordinance 92-041 included the E E s which Dave Leslie had summarized. Ordinance 92-042 included the wildlife area combining zone issues of density, fencing and destination resorts. The Board had agreed with the density language and deferred the fencing issue to Monday, so the only item left for discussion was destination resorts. The Board decided to move on to other items on the agenda and come back to this issue later in the meeting since there were people who had attended from out-of-town. LOAN TO WEITECH INC. IN SISTERS Before the Board was consideration of whether to give a loan to Weitech Inc. in Sisters. Kurt Giesler, COIC loan processor, said the finance committee as well as the Board of Directors had approved and recommended this loan. He asked that the Board also approve this loan so the $50,500 County portion of the loan package could be used. COIC would be providing $102,000 and there was private financing of $259,000. Commissioner Throop said this proposal showed the continued high-quality work performed by COIC. THROOP: I'll move approval of the Weitech Inc. package. SCHLANGEN: I'll second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES FINDINGS AND DECISION ON R L COATS REQUEST FOR NOISE VARIANCE Before the Board was signature of the Findings and Decision on the R.L. Coats' request for a noise variance. THROOP: I'll move signature of the Findings and Decision. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES ACCOUNTS PAYABLE VOUCHERS AND TAX OVERPAYMENT REFUNDS Before the Board was approval of accounts payable vouchers in the amount of $467,035.59 and tax overpayment refunds from the unsegregated account in the amount of $77.64. PAGE 9 MINUTES: JUNE 10, 1992 0118-000' SCHLANGEN: Move approval upon review. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES #5 continued Chairman Maudlin reconvened the discussion on the Wildlife Area Combining Zone Amendments. Ordinance 92-042 also included the siting within 300' feet of roads when it would involve irrigated lands. Commissioner Throop said he supported using the proposed language relating to not siting houses on the irrigated farm land. Concerning the siting of destination resorts in wildlife area combining zones, Commissioner Throop supported the Planning Commission recommendation. He did not believe that destination resorts should be acceptable uses in wildlife combining zones because they were incompatible uses. Commissioner Schlangen said she did not concur with the Planning Commission since she felt that the wildlife areas could be enhanced by using them for open space areas in destination resorts. This would give some control to the County and ODF&W over what could happen in the wildlife zones. She did not feel, however, that the wildlife area should be used in calculating density for the destination resort, but should be used purely to enhance wildlife, i.e. trails, ponds, etc. She felt this might encourage people to buy larger parcels and protect them. Chairman Maudlin said what was being discussed here was Goal 5 and not Goal 8, although one of the uses being considered was destination resorts. He felt most of the lands designated as wildlife zones were public lands, which would not come under this ordinance in any case. He felt what needed to be considered was whether there could be some mitigation of the impact of destination resorts on the wildlife zones. He thought destination resorts should be allowed in the wildlife zones. Since the minimum lot size already limited the number of homes, he didn't see what difference it made whether open space was allowed as a portion of the destination resort. Commissioner Throop said the testimony was clear that this wildlife combining zone/winter deer range was as significant as all of the others in the County, and he couldn't see an argument for excluding this winter deer range area from the wildlife combining zone protections which were afforded the other wildlife combining zone in the County. He also pointed PAGE 10 MINUTES: JUNE 10, 1992 0118-0908 out that destination resorts did not have to be allowed in wildlife combining zones in order to use those areas for mitigation areas. He asked if the other commissioners would include the wildlife area in the calculation for open space. Commissioner Schlangen felt it should be included in the open space calculation, and that wild life mitigation should be allowed in all zones. Chairman Maudlin agreed. Bruce White said this would have to be dealt with as a mapping function and not through the text ordinance process. What the Board had done so far in the destination resort siting process was to exclude all wildlife area combining zones in the County. Now he felt the Board was considering a policy change. Goal 8 said you couldn't include destination resorts in certain areas including a wildlife map drawn up by ODF&W in 1984 which could be refined further on the local level. The 1984 map did not include the area being discussed (Smith Rock), however the Board had previously excluded all wildlife areas (even those which were not included in the 1984 ODF&W map) as a local option. Now he felt the Board might want to allow certain portions of destination resorts in wildlife areas. That would alter the way the County got to its positive mapping. Commissioner Throop asked what other wildlife areas would be impacted by this proposed change? Catherine Morrow pointed out the wildlife areas which were not on the 1984 map. Bruce White pointed out that open space was considered part of the destination resort and could not be sited on any area which had been excluded through the Goal 8 mapping process. The purpose of Goal 8 was to draw a "bright line" on where any and all portions of destination resorts could be, and destination resorts could only be located on those mapped areas. Conversely, since Goal 8 indicated resources which should not be impacted, the positive maps was inverse to the map used to exclude. The Board made the decision earlier that all wildlife area combining zones should be excluded, if that were no longer the case, the reasons would have to be explained somehow. He felt it would be easier if it were consistent. Commissioner Schlangen felt the Board's job was to protect wildlife, and she felt the large areas of open space in destination resorts would protect the wildlife habitat. Chairman Maudlin pointed out that the amendment being considered had been agreed to by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. ODF&W said that if a destination resort were in a wildlife area combining zone, it could be mitigated. Catherine Morrow said if the Board decided they didn't want to have destination resorts in wildlife area combining zones and wildlife area combining zone map was overlaid on the positive PAGE 11 MINUTES: JUNE 10, 1992 0118--0909 map of where destination resorts could go, the maps would not be consistent. The maps would have to be made consistent if the Board wanted to allow open space as a destination resort use in the wildlife area combining zone. If the Board did not allow the open space as a destination resort use, but did allow the mitigation, trail, etc., the maps would not have to be changed. Commissioner Throop said he didn't feel that destination resorts in wildlife combining zones could be considered an enhancement. He used as an example the conflict with wildlife at Black Butte Ranch. Chairman Maudlin felt the concentration of wildlife in that area was a result of the resort and people taking care of the land. Commissioner Throop countered that the Black Butte Ranch area had been a large meadow with lots of wildlife before the resort was built. Chairman Maudlin said the grass in that area had been so poor it would not even support a cattle ranch. Commissioner Throop said the Board made a decision earlier that destination resorts were not compatible with wildlife combining zones, and he felt an exclusion should not be made for one project. George Read said he specifically asked ODF&W at the Planning Commission level if the Smith Rock area was any more sensitive than the especially sensitive area designated on the map and they said no, they were the same. George Read said that if the Board wanted to allow destination resorts as open space in the wildlife area combining zone, staff would need more time to research this issue in order to advise the Board on how it could be done. Chairman Maudlin said he wanted to be able to use the Jaqua amendment on all wildlife area combining zones, however he had been told by staff it could not be done in all wildlife area combining zones because destination resorts were not allowed in the especially sensitive wildlife areas. Chairman Maudlin said he did not want to have destination resorts in the especially sensitive deer range either, however the Smith Rock area was not shown on the especially sensitive map. The only ordinance left to discuss was Ordinance 92-045 concerning adoption of the wetland inventory maps. The Board had no questions or comments regarding this ordinance. Commissioner Throop said that if the majority of the Board approved allowing destination resorts in wildlife area combining zones, that he would vote no on the entire package. The Board decided to postpone this decision until 10 a.m. on Monday, June 15, 1992. PAGE 12 MINUTES: JUNE 10, 1992 0118-0910 9. RESOLUTION 92-050 TRANSFERRING APPROPRIATIONS Before the Board was signature of Resolution 92-050 transferring appropriations within the Deschutes County Budget. THROOP: I'll move signature of the resolution. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 10. MYLAR FOR JUNIPER CREEK PHASE III Before the Board was signature of a mylar for Juniper Creek Phase III off 15th Street and north of Reed Market Road for Gary Bell. THROOP: I'll move signature of Juniper Creek Phase III. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 11. MP -91-23 FOR DANNY RASTOVICH Before the Board was signature of MP -91-23 dividing a 49 -acre parcel into two lots in an EFU-20 zone for Danny Rastovich. THROOP: I'll move signature of MP -91-23. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 12. SUPPORT LETTER FOR AIRPORT TOWER Before the Board was a request from Bob Riggs, Mayor of Redmond, that the Board send a letter of support for funding of the Airport towers to Representative AuCoin. The Board agreed to send a support letter. PAGE 13 MINUTES: JUNE 10, 1992 0118-091,/, DATED this Vrld day of 1992, by the Board o Commissioners of Deschutes Co ty, Orego . Z9 AT EST: Nancy Pcp� ScAlangen, Commissojoner Recording S cretary Di Mau in, C4ar6man PAGE 14 MINUTES: JUNE 10, 1992