Loading...
1994-34255-Minutes for Meeting June 15,1994 Recorded 8/17/199494-34255 88k MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS June 15, 1994 Chair Schlangen called the meeting to order at 10:01 a.m. Board of County Commissioners in attendance were Nancy Pope Schlangen, Tom Throop, and Barry Slaughter. Also in attendance were Rick Isham, County Counsel; Tom Blust, County Engineer; Bruce White, Assistant County Counsel; George Read, Community Development Director; Dave Leslie, Planner; Catherine Morrow, Planner; Larry Rice, Public Works Director; and Sue Stoneman, Support Services Manager. 1. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 1-8 Consent agenda items before the Board were: 1) signature of Local Agency Fund Agreement for overlay projects on Knott Road and Baker Road; 2) signature of Cooperative Improvement Agreement with the State of Oregon for the traffic signal on Cooley Road; 3) signature of a Correction Warranty Deed from Patrick and Joel Gisler for right-of-way; 4) signature of Resolution No. 94-062, changing the name of Fund 25, Children & Youth Commission, to Commission on Children & Families; 5) signature of Maintenance Agreement renewal with Oregon Micro - Imagining Inc. on a Canon PC 80; 6 ) signature of mylar for Oak Tree, Phase I; 7) signature of Conservation Easement for the Bautorichs for property adjacent to the Deschutes River on Merganser Drive; and 8) reappointment of Deborah Taylor and Dick Spray to the Deschutes County Bicycle Committee. SLAUGHTER: I move approval of the consent agenda.. THROOP: I'll second the motion. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES SLAUGHTER: YES THROOP: YES f 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON THE INTENT TO TRANSFER REAL PRC"PT-"?TO NEWBERRY HABITAT FOR HUMANITY `r - Before the Board was a public hearing on the intent to transfer real property to Newberry Habitat for Humanity. Chair Schlangen opened the public hearing. Darrell Robinson, representing the Newberry Habitat, testified in support of the transfer of the property and thanked the Board. There being no further testimony, Chair Scclosed the public hearing. phi; ` _1 ]99 1 41 9r 3. 4. 0136-1881 THROOP: I'll move the transfer of real property to the Newberry Area Habitat for Humanity. SLAUGHTER: I'll second that. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES SLAUGHTER: YES THROOP: YES REPURCHASE REQUEST OF REAL PROPERTY BY BARBARA PRESKITT and SIGNATURE OF BARGAIN & SALE DEED Before the Board was a repurchase request of Barbara Preskitt, and signature of Bargain & Sale Deed. Brad Chalfant reported this is a remainder parcel that provides access to a larger piece of real estate. We have a request for repurchase for the amount of $933.27. Brad recommended the Board authorize the repurchase. THROOP: I'll move the repurchase. SLAUGHTER: I'll second. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES SLAUGHTER: YES THROOP: YES PUBLIC HEARING ON SQUAW CREEK CANYON RECREATIONAL ESTATES LID Before the Board was a public hearing on the Squaw Creek Canyon Recreational Estates Local Improvement District. The Board had requested that the record be reopened for additional testimony. Bruce White reported there had been letters in opposition from Wayne Ellis and the attorney of Ms. Gallick. Tom Blust reported letters had been received in opposition from the same people that were in opposition at the last hearing. The remonstrance total has not changed from the previous hearing. He reported the total number of "No" votes were 31 out of the 130 votes. Chair Schlangen opened the public hearing. Tom Blust reported the roads in the area are unimproved roads. The roads were built in the late 70's and not to road standards of today. The repeated grading requires additional base to be put on the road over a period of time. The roads are not through roads. Ballot Measure Five has created new risks and if the improvements are to be made to Squaw Creek, MINUTES PAGE 2 JUNE 15, 1994 01,136-1882 it needs to be done in a phase process. The purpose is to improve these roads for safer and more convenient access. If any road were to be classified as collectors in the future, they would have to widen the road to higher standards. Commissioner Schlangen asked if school buses travel on gravel roads. Bruce White responded that the buses did not travel on these roads currently. Chair Schlangen asked about doing this project in phases. Tom Blust responded that this was a normal way of doing local improvement districts. Bruce White stated that he spoke with Mr. Ellis on Friday, June 10th. Mr. Ellis was threatening legal action. Mr. Ellis reported that there was one person that had not received the original notice. Larry Atkins, owner of property that borders the proposed subdivision, reported that he was told that he would not be one of the participants in the LID. He testified in opposition of this LID and requested that his property be withdrawn from the LID. Bruce White asked if there were any plans to divide the property. Mr. Atkins stated there were plans and the partition had been approved. Don Mauser, Sisters/Camp Sherman Fire District, testified in support of the LID. The road improvements would make it less abusive to their equipment. He felt any improvement in the road would be of benefit. Bruce White asked if the response time would be faster on the paved roads. Don Mauser reported the unimproved roads definitely slow the response time and it is a matter of safety. Bruce White asked about the hose being shaken off of the truck because of the vibrations of driving on the rough road. Don Mauser stated that a hose has shaken off the truck because of the washboard condition which slows down response time. Fred Read, realtor, spoke in favoe of the L.I.D. He has sold 42 lots in the Squaw Creek Canyon and all lots have been sold at reduced prices to compensate for the poor road conditions. He felt that had the LID been in effect, the lots would have sold at $35,000 to 37,000, which is twice their current value. He reported the average sale price in the last 90 days was at $17,000 to 23,000. MINUTES PAGE 3 JUNE 15, 1994 0136-1883 Dan McKay reported that the $17,000 lots on the low side were Habitat for Humanity houses. He reported the majority of homes are fully occupied by people who live and work in the Sisters area. He felt that Squaw Creek provides affordable and suitable housing. He testified in support of the LID and expressed concern regarding public safety. Bruce White stated the number of remonstrances stand as reported. Commissioner Throop asked what would happen if a law suit was filed. Bruce White stated that we could not sell bonds. The Board would have to decide whether they wanted to indebt themselves with the L.I.D. without the assurance that they could sell bonds. Commissioner Throop stated that we could not sell bonds until after the law suit was settled. Bruce White concurred. Rick Isham stated that the purpose of a challenge was not to cause problems with the county financing. If a challenge is filed you don't have the ability to go forward with the project not knowing that you have the security of your liens. Chair Schlangen asked if would be slowed down? Tom Blust reported the contractor would probably start sometime around the first of August. Tom stated that if the County had to wait a 60 day period, the contractor would not be able to start for two to three weeks longer and it would be best to wait until next spring. Larry Rice stated that the Board has tried to keep the faith with the people in Squaw Creek. He reported that Public Works has run out of time on the bidding of the contract. He felt that with the 60 day wait the cost of the contract would probably go up considerably. It would cost less to let the bids next spring. He felt the Board should go with a one time improvement to get them through the winter which would be an attempt to meet the commitment to the Squaw Creek people. Bruce White brought to the Boards attention that security would need to be provided for any one person holding more than three lots. SLAUGHTER: I would move approval of the Squaw Creek Canyon Recreation Estates LID to be started as soon as possible. MINUTES PAGE 4 JUNE 15, 1994 0136-x.884 Commissioner Throop asked what as soon as possible meant? Commissioner Slaughter stated he felt the Board should go forward without waiting the 60 days and if there was a law suit, so be it. Commissioner Throop asked if Commissioner Slaughter felt the bid could be let and the project completed within this year. Commissioner Slaughter stated that it was hard to say in this town. SLAUGHTER: (Amended motion) Go ahead with the project after 60 days and we may have to put it off until next spring. THROOP: I'll second the motion. It is my understanding that we are approving going forward with the LID, we will wait for the 60 day appeal period, and in the context of that it is likely that the project will not be able to go forth this year, and if that is the case, we authorize public works to do the temporary improvements to make the facilities subject to the LID livable until the project could be constructed, if in fact it does need to go until next spring. Dan McKay expressed concern that the Board was allowing one individual to hold them hostage and holding up this project by waiting to see if a law suit was going to come forward. Bruce White stated it is common practice not to take any action following the determination of the Board for 60 days. Chair Schlangen closed the public hearing. Commissioner Slaughter retracted the motion and Commissioner Throop retracted the second. THROOP: I'll move the approval of the LID project, that the project not be initiated until the appeal period runs its course and that if that necessitates deferring the project until next spring, the Public Works Department be authorized to do an improvement project on the roads that would be subject to the LID to try to eliminate some of the grief which could be caused over the next winter season. SLAUGHTER: VOTE: I'll second that. SCHLANGEN: YES SLAUGHTER: YES THROOP: YES MINUTES PAGE 5 JUNE 15, 1994 0136-.11885 5. PUBLIC HEARING: ON TA -94-15 A TEXT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW IN-LINE SKATING IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OF THE PLANNED COMMUNITY OF SUNRIVER Stacy Warren reported the Planning Division had received two letters in opposition. She stated that if the applicants request was granted, it would be subject to site plan review. Staff recommended that use be approved conditionally with a conditional use permit. She reported the Planning Commission recommended that the Board of County Commissioners allow the conditional use. Commissioner Slaughter asked if the in-line skating would be restricted elsewhere. Stacy stated they would be subject to conditional use. Commissioner Throop asked if this would allow for in-line skating on the bike paths. Stacy reported that this decision would not directly restrict it in other areas but the Sunriver Owners Association restricts it in other areas. Chair Schlangen opened the public hearing. Joseph Weston, applicant, stated that in-line skating (roller blading) is becoming very popular. Sunriver Owners Association does not permit it. This will find a place for the in-line skaters to go rather than the bike paths, etc. which is not permitted. The in-line skate path is 8 feet wide and flat which goes in an oval. No fences, no lighting system, no bleachers or speakers will be provided. Richard Miller testified in opposition. He felt that no one had considered the impact on Sunriver. There being no further testimony, Chair Schlangen closed the public hearing. Chair Schlangen stated no written testimony will be accepted. The decision will be made on Wednesday, June 22, 1994, at 10 a.m. in Redmond at the Board of Commissioners Meeting. 6. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES NO. 94-004, SENSITIVE BIRD ESEE, TITLE 20, ORDINANCE NO. 94-005, SENSITIVE BIRD AND MAMMAL ZONE AMENDMENT, TITLE 18, AND ORDINANCE NO. 94-021, AMENDING ZONING MAP FOR SENSITIVE BIRD AND MAMMAL ZONE Before the Board was adoption of Ordinance No. 94-004, sensitive bird ESEE, Title 20, Ordinance No. 94-005, Sensitive Bird and Mammal Zone Amendment, Title 18, and Ordinance No. 94-021, amending zoning map for sensitive bird and mammal zone. MINUTES PAGE 6 JUNE 15, 1994 MINUTES PAGE 7 JUNE 15, 1994 THROOP: I would move the first and second reading of Ordinance No. 94-004, by title only. SLAUGHTER: I'll second that. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES SLAUGHTER: YES THROOP: YES Chair Schlangen performed the first and second reading of Ordinance No. 94-004, by title only. THROOP: I move adoption. SLAUGHTER: Second. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES SLAUGHTER: YES THROOP: YES THROOP: I would also move first and second reading, by title only, of Ordinance No. 94-005. SLAUGHTER: I'll second that. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES SLAUGHTER: YES THROOP: YES Chair Schlangen performed the first and second reading of Ordinance No. 94-005, by title only. THROOP: I move adoption. SLAUGHTER: Second. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES SLAUGHTER: YES THROOP: YES THROOP: I also move first and second reading by title only of Ordinance No. 94-021. SLAUGHTER: Second that. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES SLAUGHTER: YES THROOP: YES Chair Schlangen performed the first and second reading of Ordinance No. 94-021, by title only. MINUTES PAGE 7 JUNE 15, 1994 0136-1887 THROOP: Move adoption. SLAUGHTER: Second. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES SLAUGHTER: YES THROOP: YES 7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 94-027, AMENDING TITLE 19, AND ORDINANCE NO. 94-028, AMENDING TITLE 22, REGARDING THE DESCHUTES RIVER CORRIDOR Before the Board was adoption of Ordinance No. 94-027, amending Title 19, and Ordinance No. 94-028, amending Title 22, regarding the Deschutes River Corridor. THROOP: I'll move first and second reading, by title only, of Ordinance No. 94-027. SLAUGHTER: I'll second that. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES SLAUGHTER: YES THROOP: YES Chair Schlangen performed the first and second reading of Ordinance No. 94-027, by title only. SLAUGHTER: SLAUGHTER: VOTE: I move approval. Second. SCHLANGEN: YES SLAUGHTER: YES THROOP: YES SLAUGHTER: I move first and second reading of Ordinance No. 94-028, by title only. THROOP: I second the motion. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES SLAUGHTER: YES THROOP: YES Chair Schlangen performed the first and second reading of Ordinance No. 94-028, by title only. SLAUGHTER: I move approval of Ordinance No. 94-028 THROOP: Second. MINUTES PAGE 8 JUNE 15, 1994 0135-1888 VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES SLAUGHTER: YES THROOP: YES 8. SIGNATURE OF FINAL PLAT FOR MP -94-6 PARTITION TO DIVIDE A .85 -ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS IN AN RL ZONE FOR DONALD & EVELYN GRESORY Before the Board was signature of a final plat for MP -94-6, a partition to divide a .85 -acre parcel into two parcels in an RL Zone for Donald & Evelyn Gresory. THROOP: I move signature of final plat. SLAUGHTER: I'll second it. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES SLAUGHTER: YES THROOP: YES 9. APPROVAL OF WEEKLY ACCOUNTS PAYABLE VOUCHERS Before the Board was approval of the weekly accounts payable vouchers in the amount of $384,576.27. THROOP: I'll move approval subject to review. SLAUGHTER: I'll second it. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES SLAUGHTER: YES THROOP: YES 10. SIGNATURE OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TO PREPARE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY Before the Board was signature of an Intergovernmental Agreement to prepare a Transportation System Plan for Deschutes County. THROOP: I'll move signature of the Intergovernmental Agreement. SLAUGHTER: I'll second it. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES SLAUGHTER: YES THROOP: YES MINUTES PAGE 9 JUNE 15, 1994 0136-1889 11. SIGNATURE OF MYLAR FOR GOLDEN BUTTE, PHASE I Before the Board was signature of a mylar for Golden Butte, Phase I. SLAUGHTER: I move signature on mylar. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES SLAUGHTER: YES THROOP: YES 12. APPOINTMENT OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR FOREST VIEW SPECIAL ROAD DISTRICT Before the Board was appointment of Fran Marchant, John Sanders, and Raymond Rademacher to the Board of Directors for Forest View Special Road District. THROOP: I'll move approval of the three appointments. SLAUGHTER: I'll second it. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES SLAUGHTER: YES THROOP: YES 13. SIGNATURE OF ORDERS NO. 94-068 AND 94-069, AUTHORIZING THE REFUNDS OF TAXES Before the Board was signature of Orders No. 94-068 and 94- 069, authorizing the refund of taxes. SLAUGHTER: I move refund of taxes. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES SLAUGHTER: YES THROOP: YES 14. SIGNATURE OF FINAL PLAT FOR MP -93-30, A PARTITION TO DIVIDE A 10.78 ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS IN AN RR -10 ZONE Before the Board was signature of final plat for MP -93-30, a partition to divide a 10.78 acre parcel into two parcels in an RR -10 Zone. SLAUGHTER: I move signature of final plat for MP -93-30. THROOP: Second the motion. MINUTES PAGE 10 JUNE 15, 1994 VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES SLAUGHTER: YES THROOP: YES 15. SIGNATURE OF LETTER TO COIC FOR HIGH TECH TRUST LOAN SUBJECT TO REVIEW Before the Board was signature of a letter to COIL for High Tech trust loan, subject to review. THROOP: I'll move approval of the letter subject to review. SLAUGHTER: I'll second it. VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES SLAUGHTER: YES THROOP: YES 16. DECISION: ON AN APPEAL OF SP -93-127 BY CASCADE PUMICE Dave Leslie reported he had received a letter dated June 14, 1994, from Ed Fitch. It addresses the ongoing concern about the ESEE decision and the context of that decision with respect to the findings and decision and the maps that were adopted as part of the package in 1990. The second issue was a concern raised about any contact that Tumalo Irrigation District may have had with the Board regarding this issue. Commissioner Schlangen stated Cascade Pumice has submitted more information than any application we have ever received. They have gone beyond what criteria that has been listed in response to the appellants. On one hand there was a mining business in a surface mining zone that had expectation of the use of the resources. On the other hand there were conflicting land use issues. People have also had expectations of the limit of the mining of that resource. The applicants position goes beyond the specific criteria of the zoning ordinance. They had an original ESEE analysis that can be argued whether it is valid or not because of inaccurate information given by the applicant. At the time of the ESEE analysis the policy was set on sites 355 and 356. It is being argued now that it may not be complete or valid but it was adopted. Commissioner Schlangen stated she had no trouble understanding where the appellants are coming from. Both staff and the hearings officer have agreed that the applicant can meet the requirement. There appeared to be a conflict of goal five resource and land use. Commissioner Schlangen asked if the ESEE analysis was invalid. She asked if there was any legal basis to modify or rewrite a previous ESEE on a site that has been zoned surfaced mining. MINUTES PAGE 11 JUNE 15, 1994 Bruce White felt the question was whether the standard under which an application is filed can be changed. He stated the answer was clearly no. You cannot change the rules in the middle of the game. The Board did not put a time limit in their previous decision. Commissioner Throop reported that he was the only one of the present commissioners who participated in those deliberations earlier. He has reviewed the previous records. Commissioner Schlangen asked if this was improper zoning. She felt the ESEE pointed out that you should look at the quality and the quantity of the resource at the site, but she could not say if it was zoned improperly. Bruce White responded that if it is zoned it still did not mean it was free to operate without conditions. One of the issues was whether all of the conditions got put into the decision. The issue of a time limit was brought up and discussed but the decision was made without direction to put in into the decision. Commissioner Schlangen asked if there were ever any time limits put on any of them. Bruce White stated there was one. Bruce White felt there may have been some concerns because this was a previously permitted site. The decision on 356 did reference putting in these conditions from that 1982 Site Plan. The 1982 site plan had a five year time limit on it. Those conditions did not make it into Site 356. Commissioner Schlangen asked if the Board had the authority to open an ESEE. Bruce White stated he was unable to find anywhere we had the ability to open the ESEE. Commissioner Throop felt the policy of Cascade Pumice was different in 1994 than it was when the ESEE was based on it. He felt that question should be addressed. He stated he didn't know what the means was to get there. He felt they would not be able to meet all of the conditions now, especially the dust standards. He would be prepared to vote no if the ESEE could not be opened. Commissioner Schlangen felt that the ESEE could not be reopened. Commissioner Slaughter felt time limits needed to be established as to how many years, hours per day and days per week. He felt schedules and methods of reclaiming should be addressed, noise abatement should be addressed, the building of berms to reduce noise has to be addressed as to whether they have planting on them, need to reduce noise and the MINUTES PAGE 12 JUNE 15, 1994 0136-1892 possibility of air pollution, and should have some monitoring group that looks at the noise, dust, etc. to report to the Board of Commissioners periodically in order to monitor it as it goes. Commissioner Schlangen asked Commissioner Slaughter how he felt about the reopening of the ESEE? Commissioner Slaughter felt it should be reopened, and stated that he agreed with Commissioner Throop on that. Bruce White felt it would be a hard fight to reopen it. The Board can decide that a wrong has been done and take measures to resolve that. Commissioner Throop stated that if it can't be done or if it was extremely difficult to do, he was prepared to go to the decision. He would be prepared to move to a position to deny the Site Plan. Commissioner Slaughter stated he would like to reopen the ESEE. Commissioner Throop stated that if the best legal advice says there is no way to open the ESEE, then he was not interested in doing that. THROOP: I would move that the site plan be denied because it does not meet standards provided for for this type of mining operation in State Law Administrative Rule, specifically the way the site plan is structured, and believe the evidence in the record indicates that it could not meet the dust standards. SLAUGHTER: I will second that. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Throop stated that it would have been his preference to allow a more deliberative process. He felt that the site plan application that came to the County was not consistent with the ESEE that was approved. Commissioner Slaughter stated that he did not have the background that Commissioner Throop had since he had not been around that long. He felt the Board needed to be real careful regarding the dust issues. Commissioner Schlangen stated her major concern was dust, the ESEE analysis cannot be MINUTES PAGE 13 JUNE 15, 1994 0136-1893 rewritten, and the failure of sufficiently controlling the dust on the site VOTE: SCHLANGEN: YES SLAUGHTER: YES THROOP: YES DATED this J,5 -f day of , 1994, by the Board of Commissioners of Deschute County, Orf-gon. ATTEST: ( -2 A -A., Recording Sec tary Nancy Looe Sc#langen, Chair Tom (Throop, l Commissioner /111� �; / h�)[ Barry H. Slaughter Commissioner MINUTES PAGE 14 JUNE 15, 1994