Loading...
1992-29842-Minutes for Meeting August 12,1992 Recorded 9/3/199201 6-0503 92-29842 MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS August 12, 1992 j Chairman Maudlin called the meeting to order at 10 a.m. Board members in attendance were: Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Nancy Pope Schlangen. Also present were: Bruce White, Assistant Legal Counsel; George Read, Planning Director; Paul Blikstad, Planner; and Rick Isham, County Counsel. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Consent agenda items before the Board were: #1, signature of Resolution 92-059 accepting petition to vacate a portion of Camp Polk Road, and Order 92-080 accepting the Engineer's Report and setting a hearing for September 23, 1992; #2, signature of Resolution 92-060 accepting petition to vacate a portion of 11th Street in Terrebonne, and Order 92-082 accepting Engineer's Report and setting a hearing for September 23, 1992; #3, signature of Order 92-088 providing for the sale of tax foreclosed property to the owner of record and signature of Bargain and Sale Deed conveying property to Mabel Schmidt; #4, signature of Order 92-087 providing for the sale of tax foreclosed property to the owner of record and the Bargain and Sale Deed conveying property to Steven L. Crane; #5, signature of City of Bend Partition MP -4-91 on Purcell Blvd. for Cleme Rinehart and Rene Verbrugge; #6, Chair signature of liquor license renewals for Sunriver Marketplace, Sunriver Country Mall, Champion's Restaurant and Sports Lounge, Deschutes River Trout House, Vic's Tavern, Marcello's Italian Cuisine, Deschutes Station, Lava Lake Lodge, LaPine Hi -way Center, Ivy's Tumalo Store, and La Siesta Cafe in Terrebonne; #7, signature of MJP-92-2 dividing a 242 -acre parcel into two lots in an RL Zone (15 -acre parcel for new Elk Meadow Elementary School in SE Bend); #8, appointment of Bernadette Sorensen to Library Board of Trustees; #9, signature of Indemnity Agreement for the Terrebonne Good Earth Day Celebration; and #10, signature of final plat for Ponderosa Estates Section Addition, a 13 -lot subdivision in an RL Zone off SE 27th Street. THROOP: Move approval of the consent agenda items 1-10. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 1 MINUTES: 8-12-92 0.119=0540 2. DECISION ON PACIFICORP APPEAL Before the Board was the decision on the appeal by PacifiCorp of the Hearings Officer's conditions on CU -92-61 concerning an electric transmission line in the Bend Urban Area. Bruce White said he had gone through the notice of appeal, the Hearings Officer's decision, and felt the County's previous decisions on CU -91-116 and SP -91-135 were relevant to the Board's disposition in this matter. The Board previously decided that it was proper to consider alternatives in determining whether the line was located in the proper place. The Board's decision stated that it was hampered in its ability to make a decision because it didn't have the entire line before it. In it's previous decision, the Board wanted to consider alternative locations of the lines. This application was for a single line to connect with the PacifiCorp China Hat substation, and PacifiCorp admitted that it did not solve their need for a "loop system." The Hearings Officer felt he had an agreement with all parties to the approach which he suggested, while recognizing that the proposal was not a complete solution to the problem. PacifiCorp then appealed, stating that the conditional use criteria did not apply. The Board had already decided in its previous decision that they did apply. PacifiCorp also appealed stating that the County could not limit the duration of a conditional use permit, and Bruce White said he agreed. PacifiCorp appealed stating that the County couldn't require revocation upon selection of a better route, and Bruce White agreed with that also. However, he disagreed that alternative routes were not relevant to the Board's decision. He suggested that the Board could decide that this particular route was not part of the overall solution but just a solution to hook up to the China Hat Substation, or the Board could decide they didn't have a complete application before it and deny the application. He saw the alternatives as: (1) deny the application as incomplete, (2) affirm the Hearings Officer on the theory that PacifiCorp had agreed to the conditions; (3 ) find that the Highway 97 route was appropriate for the purpose of transmitting power to the China Hat substation, but could not be considered as an overall part of the system, and the applicant would run the risk that this route would be determined not best in terms of the overall system; and (4) find that the Highway 97 route was best suited to become a part of that overall system and grant it without any conditions. Commissioner Throop said he understood people's "fear of the unknown" which was why they were opposed to this appeal. However, he felt PacifiCorp had requested a route that would work, at least in the short term. The primary advantage to this route was that it would give PacifiCorp the ability to PAGE 2 MINUTES: 8-12-92 01-19-0541 link to the rocking horse road substation, however to solve the systemic problem would require a second line. It was possible that when PacifiCorp came in to make application for the second line to finish the loop, the Highway 97 line might not serve as a part of that loop. However he felt that scenario was very unlikely and felt a line down Highway 97 was probably the best of any alternatives he had seen. He felt the Highway 97 route met the criteria, diminished impacts, and provided the best available route for the community. He requested that conditions 7, 8 and 9 be stricken from the decision, and that PacifiCorp be allowed to move forward with a line down Highway 97 connecting with the China Hat Substation. He pointed out that this was a separate and distinct action from what it would take to complete the loop. Chairman Maudlin agreed with that analysis. He mentioned that he had not heard anyone except PP&L testify against a transmission line down Highway 97. All the others had testified they were opposed because of concerns about where the second line would be located to finish the loop. Commissioner Schlangen agreed with the other commissioner's statements and wanted conditions 7, 8 and 9 deleted. She agreed there could not be a "conditional approval." After reviewing the testimony from the previous hearings, she felt that the Highway 97 route was acceptable to everyone except PP&L. She suggested the citizen involvement take place in locating the second half of the loop. Commissioner Throop agreed that the Hearings Officer's conditions concerning public involvement were more appropriate for the second connection which would establish the loop. He felt Highway 97 was a great location since it was an existing utility corridor and wouldn't have any additional impacts. He said there were a couple of possible routes to complete this loop which he felt would not have a lot of citizen opposition, i.e. second part of the loop on Highway 97, or to go south on Highway 97 then to Forest Service land and then over to the BPA corridor. He said the burden was on PP&L, if they didn't want either of these alternatives, to find an alternate which would work for the community. Commissioner Schlangen disagreed that these two route were the only routes available to complete the loop, and felt that was where the citizen involvement would come into the process. Bruce White asked if the Board was deciding that the proposed Highway 97 route was the best route for all situations or just to connect up to the existing substation? Commissioner Throop said he thought they all agreed that this was the best route to connect up with the existing substation, and that the Board would not be in a position to make a value judgement on the PAGE 3 MINUTES: 8-12-92 3. 4. 0 [9`0542 final loop until the application came before them. Again, he felt it was likely that this route would be part of the final loop configuration. Bruce White said the Board had referred to testimony from the previous public hearing, and asked if the Board wanted to include everything from the previous denial into the record of this hearing. The Board said they had considered the previous testimony in making their decision, and therefore it should be a part of the record. THROOP: I'll move Board concurrence with the hearings officer's decision with the exception of conditions 7, 8, and 9 which should be stricken from the Board decision, and then also I want to make sure that it's clear in the motion that the decision that we had on the record should be considered when reading this decision because we certainly peppered the record in this decision discussion with what we thought were the relevant issues and materials that we wanted to carry on and support the decision. SCHLANGEN: Second. Bruce White asked if Paul Blikstad had any comments regarding the conditions. Paul Blikstad asked about the suggested conditions submitted by PP&L as part of their notice of appeal. Commissioner Schlangen said those conditions were not necessary. Chairman Maudlin said they were not applicable. They were a proposed compromise, but the Board did not feel they were needed. Chairman Maudlin mentioned that a number of letters of testimony had been received and were a part of the record. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES PERIODIC REVIEW - This item was postpone one week. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE 92-055 CONCERNING BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS AND ADDING CHURCHES IN MUA-10 ZONES Before the Board was a public hearing on Ordinance 92-055 amending height limitations in most zones in Title 18 and providing for a land use process to exceed the 30 -foot limit; and amending Title 18 to add churches to the conditional uses listed in the MUA-10 zone. Paul Blikstad said the intent of the Planning Commission was to have uniform height restrictions in all appropriate zones PAGE 4 MINUTES: 8-12-92 in the County. This would help the Community Development Department deal with the public at the counter since they would not have to look up anything to establish what the building height would be. Also, since some fire districts in the County had somewhat limited firefighting capabilities, establishing a 30 -foot height limitation would help them fight structural fires. These changes were recommended by the Planning Commission. Chairman Maudlin asked if this height limitation would apply to all buildings. Paul Blikstad said yes, except those which were specifically excepted in the ordinance, i.e. churches, towers, chimneys, flag poles, and agricultural structures, etc. In the EFU, MUA-10 and Forest zones, there were currently no height restrictions, so if this ordinance were adopted, a height restriction would be added to those zones. Commissioner Schlangen asked if it would apply only to residences and not farm -related buildings? Mr. Blikstad said yes, however a shop, would not be considered an agricultural building and would be limited to 30 feet. Paul Blikstad said this ordinance would not cover property in the urban growth boundary. Chairman Maudlin said Jan Ward had some property south of China Hat Road which was RR -10 which he might want to develop like a destination resort. What would happen if he wanted to build a lodge over 36 -feet in height? George Read said he would need to double check the ordinance, however, he thought the County exempted, as part of the destination resort combining zone, all of the set back and height requirement. These would be determined at the time of the conditional use permit during site plan review. He felt the destination resort language was structured in such a way that those were the only regulations which applied not the other underlying regulations. Bruce White said there were some typographical items which needed to be corrected. He also had some concerns with the Planning Commission recommendations in Section 10 on the last page of the ordinance, exception B, "The proposed additional height will not adversely impact scenic views from existing nearby residents." He was concerned that there was no way to measure this adverse impact. If this standard was not workable, how would the County deal with it? Commissioner Throop said he was concerned that this was not a clear and objective standard, and asked how this language would make this ordinance easier to administer. Paul Blikstad said that when the Planning Commission recommended this language, he and George Read felt it might not be workable. He said that condition #4 might need to be struck since it was so subjective. Commissioner Schlangen asked why there needed to be uniform height limits since in some zones there currently were no PAGE 5 MINUTES: 8-12-92 0' 19-0514 height limits. George Read said the fire districts had indicated that they couldn't fight fires in houses over a certain height, which was listed as an issue in the natural hazards section of the Comprehensive Plan. The County was aware of the problem and by allowing houses which were taller, the County was perpetuating the problem. He said for the last 12-13 years there was a 30 -foot height limit in the RR -10 zone and a two-story limit. However, the County had allowed houses which had an extra half story or in some cases three stories, so the limit was not enforced since the people at the front counter of the Community Development Department did not know the rules well enough. Therefore, he felt it was important that there be a clear standard. Originally it took a conditional use in the urban area to go over 30 feet, so they had proposed doing the same thing for rural zones to make it consistent. However, he felt Bruce White was correct when he indicated that the request to go over 30 feet should be an exception instead of a conditional use. He said there were several people waiting to apply for building permits pending action on this ordinance and asked that the Board take some action on the 30 -foot limit today. The permits waiting for action were for houses which would exceed 30 -feet in height in the Black Butte area. Commissioner Throop asked why it wasn't good public policy to have a 30 -foot height limit "out in the pucker brush." George Read said they believed it was, however in certain circumstances, i.e. in Black Butte where there were numerous houses which exceeded the height limit, they felt exceptions should be made. In the County, the height of the structure used to be measured half way between the peak and the eve of the house, while in the urban areas it was measured to the tallest point of the house. When the ordinance was codified, it was made consistent as the peak of the house. That decision affected the height of the house especially a steep, ridged house. When going through staff training, it was pointed out that the height of the house definition was changed and needed to be looked at closely. That's when it came to light that there were houses 32-36 feet in height being constructed, particularly in Black Butte. Sunriver had a 32 -foot height limit. They had rejected building plans for several houses which didn't meet the requirements, and the owners were planning to reapply if this ordinance was changed. He said the Planning Commission was not willing to just change the height limit to more than 30 feet. They felt there should be some review since there could be impacts on neighborhoods, particularly on the smaller lots in the rural residential zones. Historically, the height limit was 30 -feet, so people had an expectation that buildings would be limited to that height. Therefore, the Planning Commission felt there should be at least an on-site review of requests for heights above 30 feet. Chairman Maudlin asked if anyone attended the hearing PAGE 6 MINUTES: 8-12-92 0-7 905 on this issue at the Planning Commission. George Read said yes, but just people in favor of the change. Commissioner Throop asked if there would be an additional permit fee for this height exemption review. George Read said there was not currently a specific exception fee for this review, however he understood when there was a new ordinance, a new fee could be established by resolution. Chairman Maudlin said there was also a solar setback ordinance which would affect how tall a residence could be built. He suggested making the height limit 36 feet with no exceptions. George Read said there was testimony in the record from some fire departments stating they could not fight fires in houses 36 -feet high, which was why there was criteria which required that it be reviewed to make sure the fire district could protect houses that tall. Commissioner Throop asked if there were areas in the County where the fire districts could not even handle the 30 -foot height limit? Paul Blikstad said LaPine had a 25 -foot maximum unless it was a split level building which could go up to 30 -feet. Bruce White suggested a couple of changes in the language: In B(3) on the last page, it needed to start with the word "after," and he requested that the word "capabilities" be changed to "requirements" in the last part of (3). Chairman Maudlin suggested again that the height limit be changed to 36 feet with not exceptions. Paul Blikstad pointed to the testimony from fire districts regarding their inability to fight fires at that height. Chairman Maudlin felt that any pumper truck could shoot water 36 -feet high. Paul Blikstad said their concern wasn't just getting the water to that height, but their ability to get on the roof and evacuate people from the top floor. Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing and asked for testimony. Rick Isham, Deschutes County Counsel said he wished to testify as a citizen of the County. He had recently gone through the process of building a home. Historically in the County, the building height limit was determined by looking at the midway point between the peak and the eves, so in areas like Black Butte and Sunriver there were a lot of houses which were between 32 and 40 feet in height depending on the roof pitch and the way it was measured. There was also a problem concerning a sloping lot where there was an issue about where you would measure the height, particularly when the slope was not equal on both sides of the house. Concerning the solar ordinance, the County had a reasonable interpretation of its ordinance to be the shadow off the north property line, however the City of the Bend, with exactly the same language, PAGE 7 MINUTES: 8-12-92 Q� [ q-OmAs interpreted the ordinance totally differently. So it was extremely frustrating for a home builder to determine how high a home could be. He felt the solar ordinance which was written in 1982 was "totally antiquated," didn't meet modern needs, and should be reviewed and amended. Secondly, he felt the issue of having distinctions and differences within the approval process was a "prescription for failure." There were common situations where new employees or employees answering questions out of their field ended up giving incorrect advice to people at the CDD counter. The public would then go out and expend funds based on that erroneous information, then later find out they couldn't build the structure. Making the system more complicated by having a 30 -foot limit with possibly a 36 -foot exception would only increase the possibility of mistakes being made. The simpler the height limit, the fewer mistakes would be made. By the time a problem reached his office, a structure would have been built which exceeded the height limit. For example: their plans had been submitted and approved, the building was inspected periodically during the building process, and they were never notified that it was too high. Now their neighbors were saying their house blocked the neighbors' mountain view. This was the kind of situation which the County should not create by having a complicated system. It should be simple and clear so that any person would come to same conclusion in the field when looking at a structure or a set of plans. George Read said that part of the reason for this ordinance change was to clarify the situation since there were 17 residential zones in Deschutes County many of which had different height limitations. Every ordinance defined the height of structures a little differently. This ordinance would bring them all into conformance. The Planning Commission had a problem with a height above 30 feet because of fire district testimony, and they didn't expect houses taller than 30 -feet in their neighborhoods when they purchased their property, so they felt taller houses should be regulated. The Planning Department did not want to regulate views, and didn't regulate views anywhere else from people's houses, however that was the Planning Commission's recommendation. Chairman Maudlin closed the public hearing. Commissioner Throop said he would move adoption of this ordinance as long as a fee was quickly established for the exception. He said this would be a new Planning Department responsibility which should be paid for by the individual who was requesting the exception. Commissioner Schlangen said she felt uncomfortable going forward with this ordinance since she had just received the ordinance language that day. PAGE 8 MINUTES: 8-12-92 0119-0547 Bruce White pointed out that in areas where dwellings were a permitted use, if conditions 3 and 4 were left in the ordinance, it would require notice to adjoining land owners, and the associated costs would need to be paid by the applicant. Commissioner Schlangen said she couldn't adopt the ordinance with the language in B(4) regarding impacts on scenic views. She felt most neighbors could find some reason to object under this language. Chairman Maudlin said the Board couldn't adopt the language he would like without going back and holding more hearings. Bruce White said that after their own review, the Board was entitled to decide whether to adopt the Planning Commission's recommendation or not. Commissioner Throop said he and Commissioner Schlangen differed over the language in B(4). He said he couldn't support the ordinance without taking into account the impact on neighboring properties. Commissioner Schlangen asked how it could be done. Commissioner Throop said some County staff would have to go on the site to make a determination. There were a number of other planning tasks which required on-site visits, and this would just be another one. Chairman Maudlin said that County staff would be deciding not only whether it would adversely impact scenic views but also what scenic views were, and wondered how that could be done. Commissioner Throop felt the Board had the alternative to stay with the existing language or move to the new standard which provided some level of protection for the fire departments and the neighboring property owners. Commissioner Schlangen said she didn't have a problem with B(3), but still didn't know how the County would implement B(4). THROOP: I'll move first and second reading by title only of Ordinance 92-055. The only two changes would be then in B(3) on page 8 which would be "After consultation" and then "fire fighting requirements." SCHLANGEN: Second. Commissioner Throop said inherent in the motion was recognition that staff would be submitting a fee to fund this new Planning requirement. Chairman Maudlin said that if it weren't for the pending applications, he'd be voting no. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chairman Maudlin performed the first and second readings of Ordinance 92-055 by title only. PAGE 9 MINUTES: 8-12-92 5. 6. 7. 011 1 9--05 *18 SCHLANGEN: Move adoption. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES ACCOUNTS PAYABLE VOUCHERS Before the Board were accounts payable vouchers in the amount of $146,833.42. THROOP: Move approval subject to review. SCHLANGEN: Second. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES MP -91-43 IN PLAINVIEW Before the Board was signature of MP -91-43 creating two 10 - acre parcels zoned MUA-10 in the Plainview area. SCHLANGEN: Move signature. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES ORDER 92=093 CONCERNINGINVESTMENT OF FUNDS FOR SCHOOL DISTRICT #1 Before the Board was signature of Order 92-093 authorizing and directing the investment of funds for Administrative School District #1. The District had deposited $308,000 with the Deschutes County Treasurer as a cash bond for an improvement agreement related to MJP-92-2 in lieu of completing required improvements under the partition approval. This order would authorize and direct the Treasurer to invest the money in a legal investment for the benefit of Administrative School District #1. SCHLANGEN: Move signature. THROOP: Second the motion. PAGE 10 MINUTES: 8-12-92 01119-05,415 VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES 8. APPEAL OF DECISION ON J BAR J BOY'S RANCH CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION Before the Board was a public hearing on an appeal of the Hearings Officer's decision on a conditional use permit application for an equestrian activities facility at the J Bar J Boys Ranch. Chairman Maudlin said that a number of letters of testimony had been received and had been placed in the record. Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing and asked for a staff report. Paul Blikstad said the appeal was of the hearings officer's decision on CU -92-40, a conditional use permit for an equestrian event facility at the J Bar J Boys Ranch on Hamby Road. The original application was for an equestrian facility on the site with no specific number of events during the year listed. As indicated in the Hearings Officer's decision on page 4, the applicant had, in response to neighbors' concerns, agreed to a condition that the Michelob Classic would be the only equestrian event held on the site. Item 7B on page 4 indicated that the Classic would be held on Wednesday through Sunday on consecutive weeks of competition to begin at 8 a.m. and be completed by 5:30 p.m. except Sunday when open events would conclude at 4:30 p.m. The applicant had appealed this decision based on their interpretation of the ordinance that the Michelob Classic did not fall under the conditional uses listed in the zoning ordinance for the MUA-10 zone. Staff and the Hearings Officer determined that it was similar to the uses listed in the ordinance. The applicant had also contended that this facility was not compatible with the uses on the surrounding properties. The appellants contended that: (1) alcohol would be served on the premises which would be inappropriate for the J bar J Boys Ranch; (2) there had not be sufficient information provided for septic facilities for crowds in excess of 750 as well as for the horses; (3) there was no mention of how the noise would be handled and whether it would meet the County noise ordinance; (4) there was no information on the traffic impacts, i.e. weight limitations and speed limits; (5) there was no mention of the use of the permanent facility on a year-round basis; (6) the site was not large enough to accommodate the proposed use; and (7) they were concerned that the site would be used for other purposes beyond the Michelob Classic. Paul Blikstad said a phone call had been received from an adjacent property owner to the existing Classic site at the Stevenson Ranch. This person had lived there for several years, and he stated that there had been loud music originating from the Classic well into the PAGE 11 MINUTES: 8-12-92 01-19-0550 evening on some weekend nights. He was also concerned about roaming dogs, trespassers and litter from the Classic on his property. Mr. Blikstad felt these issues needed to be addressed by the applicant at this hearing. The Hearings Officer approved the conditional use in his written findings and decision of May 22, 1992, with some conditions: (1) event to be held only in July every year; (2) allowing just one permanent structure; (3) temporary facilities had to be placed and removed before and after the Classic, i.e. bleachers; (4) provide parking for 750 patrons and no on -street parking would be allowed; ( 5 ) restricted generally to daylight hours with no special lighting allowed; and (6) revising the site plan to delete a road which was never intended in a particular location. Bruce White said the appellants had stated that the nature of the facility went beyond what was allowed in this zone. In reading the Hearing Officer's decision, he was confused about what use the Hearings Officer found in the zone that this event fell into. Paul Blikstad said it was under finding #1 on Page 4 in the staff report: "a semi-public use which is defined as a structure or use intended or used for both private and public purposes by a church, lodge, club or any other non-profit organization." He also quoted (I) "Private parks, playgrounds, hunting and preserve, campgrounds, motorcycle tracks, rodeo or livestock arenas and other recreational uses." Bruce White said it needed to fit within one or the other. Paul Blikstad said it would be (I) then. Bruce White said he could not see any findings in the Hearings Officer's decision referring to (I). Paul Blikstad said he had assumed the Hearings Officer had found it was covered in ( I) . He said when the Planning Commission had similar use rulings before them, they had sometimes chosen more than one listing in the ordinance. Bruce White asked if this was a similar use ruling or was it found that the use came within particular language. Paul Blikstad said in this case it was found that it came within particular language in item (I). He said the only reason he listed (B) was because it listed nonprofit organizations which J Bar J Boys Ranch was. Bruce White said the reason he was asking these questions was because the County had another application being considered dealing with what constituted a rodeo or livestock arena. So he pointed out that these decisions should be consistent, and should provide a definition for rodeo or livestock arena which would "suffice for all situations." He asked whether any consideration had been given to where the scope of physical facilities fell within a rodeo or livestock arena. Paul Blikstad said there was thought given to it, however the Michelob Classic was an unusual case in that it was just one event of short duration. Bruce White asked if it would require any permanent, physical facilities? Paul Blikstad PAGE 12 MINUTES: 8-12-92 0-1-119-0551 said none other than the proposed permanent structure which would be used for classes or an office at other times during the year. Bruce White said that building might fall under a separate use than as a school and not as a part of this particular use. Chairman Maudlin asked for testimony from the J Bar J Boys Ranch. Bruce White pointed out that usually the appellant testified first. Alta Brady, for the ranch, said there was a lot of background that she could give which might shorten the hearing if she were able to testify first. Bob Lovlien, for the appellants, said they had no problem with the J Bar J representative testifying first. Alta Brady, 1070 NW Bond, Bend, attorney and president for J Bar J Youth Services, and testified that J Bar J Youth Services was a nonprofit organization which included a multitude of programs, i.e. Cascade Youth and Family Center, Chaparral Runaway Service Project, Rosie Bareis Center for Alternative School, Drug and Alcohol Prevention Program, Youth Sex Offender Program in addition to the J Bar J Boys Ranch. The ranch was located on 37 acres on Hamby Road in a MUA-10 zone. The ranch housed up to 24 boys at a time. The purpose of the ranch was to provide these boys with school, counseling and treatment, and it was a very successful program. Most of their funding was public and would be affected by ballot measure 5. Their other funding came from the Michelob Classic. Since they would be losing some public funding, they considered having the event at the ranch. In the past it had taken place on the Stevenson Ranch, however that ranch was being sold and could no longer be used. There were very few facilities which could accommodate this type of event because of the type of turf and grass necessary. They would have to pay about $7,000 in rent to use another facility. At the previous hearing, many of the J Bar J Ranch neighbors who came to oppose the application changed their minds and supported the application after hearing the presentation. She felt the first hearing was able to alleviate a lot of the misinformation and panic about what they were trying to do. After reading the letter from the appellants' attorney which set out the grounds for the objections she felt there was still some misinformation out there. On page 2 of the objections, it stated that the proposal was to place a significant equestrian facility in a rural residential area not an agricultural area. She said it was an agricultural area since it was zoned MUA, and they were not proposing a "significant equestrian facility." There would be no permanent structures except a classroom which was permitted in that area. That building would be used for a two-week period as the office for the event. All of the other structures ( stalls, fences) would be brought in and set up before the event and then dismantled and removed right after the event. PAGE 13 MINUTES: 8-12-92 01] 9-0552 They were really just requesting a short-term use. During the other 50 -weeks of the year, there would not be any commercial horse boarding, breeding, or raising, or any equestrian events or public events. During the two weeks of the Michelob Classic, the boys would participate actively in the event. A second objection concerned the use of the additional facilities for the remainder of the year. She said again the only facility was the classroom which would be used for the remainder of the year. She felt the primary concerns were about noise, traffic, and septic facilities. She pointed out that the figure of 750 people was spread over the course of a one-week period. There were very few spectators at the events during the week, since the majority came for the grand prix event on the weekend. They would have no events which would last longer than 5:30 p.m., and they would not be bringing in any kind of lighting. The other activities done in conjunction with the event, i.e. bar-b-que, would take place at a site other than the ranch. The event was very formal and the only amplification system would be used to announce the riders and who won the awards. The amplification was limited because high -bred horses were sensitive to noise, and it was not anything like the Sisters Rodeo. The horses involved were expensive and the equipment was expensive, and it was a "fairly sedate event." Concerning the traffic, she said during the week it was typical for 40 cars to be at the event. Concerning the sewer needs, the Hearings Officer's decision required that the County do an environmental health evaluation. They would be using portable stalls at the site which would be taken care of by the professional who provided them. The people who attended this event expected good treatment and it was provided. Concerning the waste from the animals, they had always made arrangement to have that waste taken care of in the past. If they were able to have the event on the ranch, they would contract with Land Systems to come in and remove the waste on a regular basis which they would use for fertilizer. Concerning traffic, she pointed out that Hamby Road was a designated, major arterial. There was a 45 -mph zone in front of the ranch, and there were no weight limitations which would have any impact on people bringing in a truck and trailer with horses. The access permit had been applied for and approved for the proper access and parking. The appellants had suggested that the site was not sufficient to accommodate a Class A rated hunter/jumper competition. She said this site was actually larger than the Stevenson Ranch. They had a specialist who ran the show each year and who ran shows all across the country. She had reviewed the ranch site and felt it was perfect for the event. The appellants suggested that it was inappropriate to serve alcohol because there would be youth working at the event. The alcohol would be limited to three days each week and would be served only with the necessary permits and age limitations. There had never been any problem with alcohol consumption at this event. PAGE 14 MINUTES: 8-12-92 o uJ.9-0553 It was a sedate event and the participants didn't drink. She felt these boys had seen more and experienced more than anyone would think, and every form of media pushed alcohol so children could not be shielded from it. They felt the manner in which alcohol was presented at this event would show responsible use. What people feared most was what the didn't know. When people came to the first hearing they were very concerned --when they left there were supporters throughout the group. Everyone who testified said they felt J Bar J was a very good neighbor. They would continue to be a good neighbor and were in this area to stay. They had voluntarily sent out letters to 75 neighbors of the ranch to let them know what they were considering so they wouldn't be surprised. The Hearings Officer's decision minimized any impacts on the neighbors, and they had done everything they could to minimize the impacts. They had "no grandiose plans of this becoming some big facility in the future." She said Craig Christianson, executive director of the ranch, was in attendance and could answer specific questions about the event. Commissioner Throop asked which criteria they believed they were applying under. Ms. Brady said the criteria they were applying under was subsection (I) which referred to rodeos or livestock arenas and other recreational uses. He asked her to expand upon the permanent classroom facility and how it was involved with this application. Ms. Brady said that it was part of the application because the classroom would be used as a building in conjunction with the classic for two weeks out of the year. She said if they were just going to build a classroom, they would only need a building permit not a zoning application. Commissioner Throop asked if all the facilities except for the classroom building would be temporary. Mr. Brady said yes. She indicated that the reason the Hearings Officer gave them a 20 -day period was they needed a couple of days before and after the event to put up and tear down the facilities. Bruce White asked if the ranch had considered apply for that classroom as a conditional use for a school facility rather than as part of the event since its use at the event was "incidental to its use as a classroom." He thought it should have been as separate application as an expansion of the school rather than a part of the event. From the audience, Mr. Christianson said they put the show office in the event proposal because they needed some kind of a show office facility there. But to construct the classroom they would go through a building permit process just like any other structure on the ranch. Mr. White said "maybe you've got it in the pigeon hole, in terms of the land use, and that structure should have been applied for as part of the school and not part of this event." Ms. Brady said they did not have PAGE 15 MINUTES: 8-12-92 o 1.19-0554 to apply for a use permit for the building because a classroom was a permitted used. Mr. White said they were in an MUA-10 zone in which schools were a conditional use. Ms. Brady said the building was the "least of their concerns." Mr. Christianson said the ranch had educational program which were accredited by the Bend-LaPine School District, so they already were performing educational function at the ranch and had for the last 23 years. Mr. White said he did not dispute that, he was just trying to determined how they should get the "classroom" building permitted, and whether this was the appropriate way. Mr. Christianson said they could bring in a temporary, mobile facility to accommodate the office needs if necessary. Chairman Maudlin said he had attended the Michelob Classic for a number of years, and asked how much rent they had been paying. Mr. Christianson said it was a two-week event this year so they paid $8,000 while previous years had been $4,000- $5,000. J Bar J had been the beneficiary of this event only since 1989. Chairman Maudlin asked about the growth of the event during those four years. Mr. Christianson said there were 168 horses in 1989 and 435 in 1992. They saw a "cap on the event at about 500-550 horses." Part of the reason people came to Bend for the horse show was because it wasn't among the largest horse shows. Chairman Maudlin asked if that was the cap because that was capacity for the ranch site. Mr. Christianson said he wasn't the best person to answer that question, however he "wouldn't want to see it go much larger than that." Chairman Maudlin said he had been at both sites and thought the Stevenson ranch had a much larger area than what was available at the J Bar J Boys Ranch. Mr. Christianson said that on the Stevenson ranch, they only leased a 22 -acre strip. They had much more room (30-31 acres) and more flexibility in the way the event could be configured at the J Bar J Ranch. Most of the Stevenson Ranch was in alfalfa or other grasses and was under production. The arena was not part of the 22 -acre strip, but they only used the 40 stalls in it. They would use portable stalls at the J Bar J Ranch site. He said there were some automobiles which sometimes parked in the arena which would be parked in the designated parking area at the ranch. The Stevenson barn was outside of the 22 -acre strip. Ms. Brady said this event was run by Diane Johnson and volunteers and no one had the desire to create more work than was already involved with running a show of this size. Paul Blikstad brought in a map of the area surrounding the J Bar J Boys Ranch. Commissioner Schlangen asked Bruce White whether the school building should not have been in their application or whether PAGE 16 MINUTES: 8-12-92 01 19-05575 they should have just gotten an "event" application. Mr. White said it was an incidental part of the event and really should not have been considered as a part of this application. Commissioner Schlangen asked if they should have applied for a two-week event like the music festival in Bend?. Mr. White said he wasn't aware of how the music festival was handled, but he recommended that since they had indicated they could use a temporary structure, that this application not be approved on the basis of the building. He felt that the building should not be considered as a part of this application but under a separate application for its primary purpose. Commissioner Schlangen said this was really an "event" not a land use. She pointed out that there were lots of events in the city where they fenced off areas for a beer garden and kids were there. Bruce White said an "event" did rise to the level of a land use. Commissioner Schlangen asked if the lack of permanent structures changed the degree of the land use. Mr. White said his only question was whether that part of it fell within the definition of the use which was being considered. Ms. Brady asked that the record be left open for seven days for rebuttal testimony. Chairman Maudlin said the Hearings Officer allowed a 20 -day period for this event, so there would be three days before the event to set up and three days after the event to dismantle. Mr. Christianson said that was correct. The event was actually only held Wednesday through Sunday. Chairman Maudlin asked if there were people who stayed overnight in RVs, etc. Mr. Christianson estimated there were 10-12 people who stayed overnight on the grounds. The majority of the people who attended stayed at hotels in town. Ms. Brady said that the ones who did stay overnight where the people who were taking care of the horses. They had just recently received a grant from tourism because of the amount of money this event brought to the community. Bob Lovlien, PO Box 1151, Bend, 97709, said he was testifying more as a resident of the area than some kind of an attorney/client relationship, however he did assist the named appellants in filing the appeal. He found out about this proposal by reading it in the newspaper after it was approved. He lived in the Quail Ridge Subdivision which was south of the ranch on Hamby Road and across from Buckingham Grade School. Referring to Mr. Blikstad's map, he indicated that the dark line which ran along the west side of the J Bar J Boys Ranch was the outer urban growth boundary, and there was predominantly MUA-10 zoning around it. He felt most of the lands were not "resource land." Las Sorinos had deed restrictions limiting it to no more than two horses and no pigs. Quail Ridge had the same type of deed restrictions. He PAGE 17 MINUTES: 8-12-92 0'9-Q5V felt that planners at the time these subdivisions were done and before the implementation of the urban growth boundary, had contemplated that these roads would extend into land south and east of the project. The map did not show Buckingham Grade School located across from the north entrance to Quail Ridge, Luke Damon Field/Big Sky complex and the fire station. He was attempting to make the point that this area could not be considered much of an agricultural or resource area. It was predominantly 2-1/2 acre subdivisions. This development had been in place for a minimum of 12 years and most had been divided into residential zoning. Commissioner Throop asked Mr. Lovlien whether when he investigated the record of this case, he had any sense for why the J Bar J Boys Ranch property was zoned MUA-10 rather than RR -10. Mr. Lovlien said he had not looked at the record carefully. The RR -10 zoning appeared to be the subdivisions, especially from Sunriver south, that have never had any agricultural use whatsoever. While, for example, the Woodside Ranch area immediately south, there were some irrigation rights which accrued to some of these properties. So he felt property was given a "blanket MUA-10" when anything was divided in this particular area. Not all of these properties had irrigation rights. Along Eagle Road, his property was homesteaded probably within the last 30 years by the potato farmer who lived just north of there. There was an occasional pasture or garden in that area, but only two fields which had cattle or alfalfa on them. He referred to the J Bar J Ranch as "basically an island" in the middle of a rural residential area even though it wasn't zoned RR -10, particularly those subdivisions which were immediately adjacent to the ranch on the north and on the west. They made a video tape of this year's event which they wanted to submit into evidence to show the scope of the event. He requested that the Board visit the site along Hamby Road. There was a weight and speed limit on Hamby Road. There was a school there and a number of residences along that area. He said that nobody was here to testify against the operation of the J Bar J Boys Ranch. His children had ridden with their boys to school and have known them on a first -name basis. He felt they had done quite a remarkable job at the ranch. His concern was whether this event was appropriate at this location. From a legal standpoint, there were a couple of confusing issues. He said the Hearings Officer had not identified paragraph ( I ) as being the use under which he approved this application, because he approved it under paragraph (E) which implied permanent facilities, i.e. country clubs, parks, playgrounds, not temporary uses such as a rodeo or livestock arena. The Hearings Officer's report had it one way and the staff report had it another. He felt the applicant had just chosen to go along with the staff report. There was a criteria which the Hearings Officer did not address which was the second criteria PAGE 18 MINUTES: 8-12-92 01.05` 9-'7 under the general conditional use permit criteria about compatibility with surrounding land uses. He felt it was important to consider whether this event was appropriate for this particular area. The reason the first hearing did not attract more people was because many of the people in the area weren't aware of it. The more the neighbors found out about the event, the more concerned they became, as evidenced by the number of people at the hearing today. John Cooley, 62850 Pearl Lane, Bend 97701, testified that he lived next to the southwest corner overlooking the ranch. The view from his home encompassed almost the entire ranch. He objected to the Hearings Officer's approval. He didn't believe that a "fairgrounds type activity" should be allowed in this rural residential area. He felt the decision violated the conditional use guidelines in Sections 18.128.015(A)(a), 18.128.015(B), and 18.128.040(E)(c). He did not feel that the proposed use was compatible with the existing and projected uses on the surrounding properties. He submitted some pictures (Exhibits A and B) of the event. He questioned the size of the proposed site, since he felt they were currently using more than 22 -acres to hold the event. When he attended the event, there was a constant cloud of dust over the area especially in the warm up area. The public address system could be heard very clearly from 500 feet away, and after the event they played music constantly. There was also a loud horn which signaled the event was over for the current rider. He felt there would be noise before the 8 a.m. start-up time since there was noise during the warm-ups. He was also concerned about the smell and flies coming from the piles of manure and shavings which he said "were extremely large" and were placed within 50 feet of adjoining property. He was concerned about the traffic especially since there was no shoulder along Hamby Road. He and his children road bicycles on this road and it was dangerous. He felt there were a lot of discrepancies in the application for the event. He thought it indicated there would only be about 275 horses at the event and that figure was used in some testimony. He also submitted a transcript of a radio interview, and numerous news accounts from the Bulletin indicating there would be up to 750 horses (Exhibit D). He was concerned that there was no maximum limitation on this event since it had tripled in size in the last 3-4 years. Commissioner Throop asked if he would be willing to compromise on his position if limits were placed on the size of the event. Mr. Cooley said "no, there was no compromise." He had worked diligently for 25 years to be able to afford a nice home, and he felt that he would have to sacrifice if the event were held at the ranch. His property would be devalued, he would lose privacy, and the enjoyment of his home. He felt the people being served by the event were wealthy horse owners PAGE 19 MINUTES: 8-12-92 0-1_ 19-0m3 using his back yard as a play ground. He also felt that eventually J Bar J would want to expand their facilities. He said it was a commercial event with a profit of $50,000 and purses of $20,000. There were concession stands and commercial auto and horse trailer sales. He showed the Board an aerial view of both sites. The site on Stevenson Road was completely surrounded by rural or open land with only two homes directly impacted. The J Bar J ranch had over 100 homes in the immediate area which would be impacted by the event. He also submitted a video of the event taken on Saturday, July 18, into the record - Exhibit C. Pat Brown, 62492 Quail Ridge, testified that he was down the road "quite a ways from the event." However he felt the traffic would impact him, especially with the ball field, which had just been approved, going in across the road from him. He had empathy for the adjacent property owners. He attended the event and the set up started shortly after the 4th of July and "as of Sunday there were still manure piles -- this last Sunday." He felt several points about the event were understated at the previous hearings, i.e. the size of the event, dog shows, dance. The event wasn't the "genteel, neighbor -friendly dog and horse show that it was portrayed to be," but a "mini County fair" which should be located in an area suitable for a county fair. His concerns were that the amplified noise, traffic, dust, congestion, glare, and alcohol didn't fit in this neighborhood. It was of great concern to him that there be no activities or amplified noise beyond the time when he would put his kids to bed. The requests by Bend Little League to put in amplified sound and lights at their ball park in the area had been denied. He was concerned that if they were allowed at the J Bar J Ranch, they would eventually be allowed at the ball park every night of the week during the summer. He didn't want people who had been drinking at this event to drive on Hamby Road while he was riding his bike or his kids were walking there. Lindsey Stevens, 21585 Stub Place, testified that he lived in the East Villa Subdivision, 2nd lot on the north edge of J Bar J property. He had reversed his opinion at the initial hearing, however his attendance at the 1992 event conflicted with what he had heard, and he changed his opinion again. He said the character of this area was rural residential and wasn't appropriate for a mini county fair. All of the information he had seen indicated there would be 750 patrons at this event. While he attended the event, he counted about 100 RVs of 20-40 foot length parked permanently for the two- week period. There was at least 15 vehicles which were obviously set up for overnight stay with dogs, kids and fences, etc. He counted 15 craft booths selling horse -related goods while this was not mentioned at the first hearing. The manure removal and watering for dust was not performed at the PAGE 20 MINUTES: 8-12-92 0-1.19-055#3 1992 event as it was discussed it would be at the initial hearing. The felt that the fact that J Bar J Ranch was a "nonprofit organization did not change the commercial character of this event." If there were violations of the restrictions on the approval, what recourse would the neighbors would have? How would it be enforced? Commissioner Throop asked what he meant by commercial sales at the event. Mr. Stevens said they were selling horse trailers, automobiles, and there were craft booths. John Lindse, 21495 Hyde, testified that he would be one of the most impacted neighbors, and would have a full view of the event area. His house was just to the west of the ranch on the end of Hyde Lane. He said Hyde Lane was intended to go through the ranch property should it ever be subdivided which was why it wasn't a cul-de-sac. They had no problem with the Boys Ranch expansion, however they felt granting this use would set a precedent for this area. Any other uses would "probably be smaller and would probably go right through." The original application was for permanent on-site facilities and fencing. He felt it would be turned into a fairgrounds. This part of the J Bar J ranch had been productive farm property, and he had no objection to their farming the property. This event would be a commercial use and more like a fairgrounds in a residential area which would eventually be in the city limits. Commissioner Throop asked how long Mr. Lindse had lived at this site. Mr. Lindse said he had lived there for four years. Commissioner Throop asked him what he had anticipated the future use of this property would be? Mr. Lindse said he thought it would all be subdivided. Commissioner Throop said this property was not currently within the Bend City limits or the urban growth boundary and abutted the outer urban growth boundary line on the outside. The inner urban growth boundary was considered to have enough space for approximately a 20 - year period to accommodate all of the urban uses; and including the outer urban growth boundary would add another 30 years. Therefore he felt that outer urban growth boundary would not be moved for 50 years. Mr. Lindse argued he thought there was activity outside the urban growth boundary now. Vern Johnson, 1214 Vendehay, testified that he was concerned about this request because it wasn't compatible with the neighborhood. He owned four pieces of property west and next to the J BAR J Ranch and his family lived in the area also. He had a herd of cattle and knew what 500 head of cattle would look like and knew the manure and dust which they would create. It overwhelmed him to consider the magnitude of the ramifications of 500 horses, trailers, trucks, traffic, and people coming into this area. He also owned property within PAGE 21 MINUTES: 8-12-92 01-19-0560 three blocks of the Deschutes County Fairgrounds and knew the effect that fair had on the neighborhood, i.e. people coming onto his property from the fair. He asked that the Commissioners look at the video tape and ask whether they would want this event in their front yard. He felt the monetary gain to the ranch would only be between $4,000 - $8,000 a year since that is what it would cost them to rent another facility. Commissioner Throop asked what Mr. Johnson felt was the appropriate location for this kind of event. Mr. Johnson said he felt the appropriate place would be a fairgrounds, otherwise in a ranch area not in a rural residential area. Robert Morrissey, 21560 Fletcher Lane, testified that he had five acres to the south of the ranch. He didn't feel this area could safely support this kind of influx of people. When he drove by the horse show, he was amazed at the noise, trailers, and motor homes. He agreed with the other people's testimony in opposition. He had not received any notice of this hearing. Bill Herrs, resident of Vista Del Sol Subdivision, wanted to point out the "capriciousness of the notification process." He lived "a good deal further away than 250 feet" from the ranch property, however he received a notice of the original hearing. He was concerned about the ability of Hamby Road to handle the traffic. He was concerned that the fire station was also on Hamby Road and felt the event traffic might block fire access. He understood this event was proposed to occur at the same time as the Little League finals at the Big Sky Park which would compound the traffic problem. He didn't feel the issues of noise control, dust and sanitation had been addressed at all. He felt this issue was handled much differently from the Big Sky development where there was a considerable effort to work with the neighborhood to find out what was and wasn't compatible. He understood their problems in raising funds, however he was concerned that this event could damage the rapport the ranch currently had with the neighborhood which could end up being more costly than anything they would gain from holding the event at this location. Lawrence Keyte, 21457 Keyte, testified he lived in Eagle View Estates which he developed in 1973. He felt this kind of event was inappropriate for this area. He thought it should be located at the fairgrounds or the County should purchase property for it. He agreed with the others who testified in opposition. Denise Moody testified that she would like to speak as a participant of Michelob horse show for the last four years. PAGE 22 MINUTES: 8-12-92 02".19-0561 One of the reasons this event drew so many people was because it was put on in a "very nice grass pasture" not a county fairgrounds. They didn't want dust at the event either, however, this year the pasture was brown because of the draught. The watering took place in the early morning hours, so they wouldn't be riding in puddles and the horses wouldn't fall down on slick pastures. She felt the dust would only travel an area of maybe 15 feet around the horse. There was a rural residential area nearby, however it also sat in the middle of MUA and EFU parcels where agricultural activities took place. She said it was a nice event, and it would be a shame for this arep to lose it. Commissioner Throop asked if the J Bar J Ranch was the appropriate size and configuration to host that kind of event. Ms. Moody said absolutely. She felt it would be surprising if this event expanding to 550 people in the next 30 years. She had been a show manager in different states, and the number of shows was decreasing and the number of people who attended these events wasn't growing. A lot of people worked to support their horses, so they weren't all rich people. A lot of the horses at this event were purchased for $1,000-$1,500, and then there were a few which cost $150,000-$500,000. It was a nice, safe activity for children to be involved in and was a good role model for the J Bar J boys. She said the county fairs did not have pastures, and she didn't think the golf courses would want to rent out theirs. Commissioner Throop asked if she believed the issue of uses, relating to equestrian activities in multiple use agricultural zones or EFU zones, was sufficient? Ms. Moody said the whole issue needed to be confronted since there were some things missing from it. As the community grew, there would be more and more rural residential areas right next to agricultural uses which would create the "not in my back yard" kind of response. She said you couldn't hold an event like this on EFU land which had sage brush and rock piles and no water, nor could it be held at the county fairgrounds if you expected anyone to attend. This was the only event in this class held in Oregon. Greg Cashwell, 21469 Hyde Lane, testified that he lived on the west end of the J Bar J property. He felt there should be a compromise on this issue. He was in favor of what J Bar J did. He felt a larger parcel which wasn't surrounded by residential areas would be needed for there to be a compromise. Commissioner Throop asked if he knew any other people who were opponents who would be interested in compromising? Mr. Cashwell said he didn't know. Jim Koehler, 21464 Hyde Lane, testified that he was four one - acre lots west of the ranch. Two of those lots were vacant. PAGE 23 MINUTES: 8-12-92 Ol- 11-05C2 He could agree with Greg Cashwell on a compromise. He liked the peace and quiet of this area. He said there were some neighbors who supported what J Bar J was doing. He appreciated that J Bar J did not go door-to-door begging for their money, but were willing to work for it by putting on the horse show. He felt that comparing this event to a rodeo was like comparing a drag race to a golf tournament. He had a long-range concern that if J Bar J could not continue this method of funding, they might have to close and that 40 -acres of land would quickly become a development of 40-60 homes. This would create 365 days a year of increased traffic, noise, loose dogs and kids, and "a share of drunkenness." He saw no reason to be upset by two weeks of commotion to keep a good neighbor near by and to keep a successful program running. Dick Yuler, member of the J Bar J Board, testified that the gentleman before him had "covered all of the good stuff." He was coordinating the fundraising activities for the ranch. Public funding was being cut back, so they had to be more serious about raising more money. There were already a lot of legitimate causes competing for donations from this community. This event was an extremely effective fundraiser. Concerning the minimal sacrifices of the neighbors, he suggested the community consider the major needs in this community for the J Bar J program. The only message he got from opposition testimony was "not in my back yard." If the community was not willing to make some sacrifices, the "J Bar J program will go away whether we like it or not." These tough decisions had to be made to perpetuate the program. They needed the exposure and the cash from the Michelob Classic and without it, they had some serious problems. He said there were not a lot of alternatives to using the ranch site for the event. Bob Simmons, 62936 Florence Dr., testified that he had lived just to the north of the ranch for 20 years. He also felt that not all of the "neighbors were up in arms about this" and thought something could be worked out. Commissioner Schlangen said that a few people testifying had mentioned compromise. She asked if that meant a different site or modifications at the J Bar J Boys Ranch, i.e. less PA system, less vendors. Someone came up from the audience and asked if the ranch site could be used for a couple of years while another, more favorable site was located. Bonnie Norton, 19016 Shoshone Road, testified that most of the objections which she had heard could be worked out while still having the event at J Bar J Ranch. She was not a neighbor but a horse supporter. PAGE 24 MINUTES: 8-12-92 4! 9-0503 There being no one else who wished to testify, Chairman Maudlin closed the public hearing for oral testimony. He announced that written testimony would be accepted until 5 p.m. on August 19, 1992, and the Board would make its decision on Wednesday, August 26, 1992, at 10 a.m. No more oral testimony would be accepted. DATED this c nly' day of Commissioners of Deschutes ATT T: Recording Secretary PAGE 25 MINUTES: 8-12-92 PUBLIC HEARING SPEAKERS' LISTING 0 9`4 PUBLIC HEARING TOPIC: DATE. % TEME: NAME ADDRESS CITY ZIP I /�V,4-- � , / ) --� o lq.,j &,V ql-1 o I 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 4.Yom"�id�� �<'�/5Z ���,/G'y`�'� �r,/� U2 --,7--x,/ 5. 6. 27.1 7. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.