Loading...
2000-730-Minutes for Meeting June 21,2000 Recorded 6/29/2000VOL: CJ2000 PAGE: 730 RECORDED DOCUMENT STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF DESCHUTES *02000-730 * Vol -Page Printed: 06/29/2000 09:20:22 DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE (This certificate constitutes a part of the original instrument in accordance with ORS 205.180(2). Removal of this certificate may invalidate this certificate and affect the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence in any legal proceeding.) I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received and duly recorded in Deschutes County records: DATE AND TIME: DOCUMENT TYPE: Jun. 29, 2000; 8:24 a.m. Regular Meeting (CJ) NUMBER OF PAGES: 7 MARY SUE PENHOLLOW DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK K NC p J N 9 2000 eTc1I)Ab - 730 NO Board of Commissioners M�1(ti JUt i'LP,tj+ C%,C,V, Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1947 COUNTY CLERK (541) 388-6570 • Fax (541) 388-4752 www.co.deschutes.orus Linda L. Swearingen Dennis R. Luke MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING Tom DeWolf DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RE: FILE NO. A-007, APPLICATION NO. MP -00-3 (APPLICANT: COOK) Wednesday, June 21, 2000 Before the Board was a Public Hearing on an Appeal of File No. A-007, Application No. MP -00-3 Regarding the Hearings Officer's Decision to Deny a Partition to Create Two Farm Parcels and One Non -Farm Parcel in an EFU-TRB Zone (Applicant: George Cook). Present were Commissioners Linda Swearingen, Dennis Luke and Tom DeWolf. Also present were Tracy White, Community Development; the applicant George Cook, and several citizens. Chair Linda Swearingen opened the hearing at 11:00 a.m. COMMISSIONER DENNIS LUKE: Madame Chair, with the approval of the applicant, I would move that the criteria be made part of the record but we waive the reading of that criteria. (The applicant indicated his approval.) COMMISSIONER TOM DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. Minutes of Public Hearing Cook/Gentry Loop Wednesday, June 21, 2000 Quality Services Performed with Pride Page 1 of 7 Pages TRACY WHITE: I'm Tracy White, Associate Planner with the Deschutes County Planning Division. This is a de novo hearing for A-007, an appeal of the Hearings Officer's decision to deny a partition to create two farm parcels and a farm division to create an isolated, unproductive farm parcel. The ordinance requires me to report on the procedural history to date, and summarize the Hearings Officer's findings. The application was submitted on January 28, 2000, and deemed complete and accepted for review on February 25. Therefore, the 150 -day review period for issuance of a final County decision under ORS 215.428 expires July 24, 2000. On February 15, notice of a public hearing was mailed to a number of public agencies and to all property owners within 700 feet of the subject property. A public hearing before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer was held on March 7, 2000. At the hearing, the Hearings Officer received testimony and evidence, left the written record open through March 21, and allowed the applicant to submit final arguments through March 28, as required by ORS 197.763. The record closed on March 28, 2000, and Hearings Officer Karen Green's written decision to deny the partition was dated and mailed to parties on April 25. The twelve -day appeal period ran from April 26 to May 8, and the applicant, George Cook, submitted a notice of appeal on May 5. On May 24 the Board of County Commissioners signed Order No. 2000-067, agreeing the hear the appeal de novo, and staff scheduled today's hearing, and gave notice to all parties entitled to notice according to the procedures ordinance. (She referred to the applicable criteria as shown on an overhead projection.) Hearings Officer Green denied the partition because the applicant failed to demonstrate the partition meets a number of criteria related to inadequate road access. Green found the application differs from the circumstances and your decision on Clouse/Acuff, primarily because Repine Road and Gentry Loop, the access roads to this parcel, are not County -maintained roads, although they are public roads. Hamehook Road is the nearest County -maintained road, about 3/4 mile to the west. Repine Road connects Hamehook Road to Gentry Loop, and Repine is a twenty -foot wide gravel road in poor condition. All three proposed parcels would front on Gentry Loop, which extends about 2,645 feet along the west property boundary. The evidence to date is that Gentry Loop is very substandard, both in width and surface material, and portions would not allow two-way traffic. The Hearings Officer found that no part of Gentry Loop meets the minimum width and surface for fire apparatus and two-way traffic. Gentry Loop currently provides access to eight houses, and the partition would add one new house. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 2 of 7 Pages Cook/Gentry Loop Wednesday, June 21, 2000 DEWOLF: Is that the total that would be allowed by this action if it were to be approved? Vil.IaillhA There's one large farm there now, with a farmhouse. (Referred to oversized map.) We would end up with two farm parcels, one with a house and one that is just farmland. In addition, we would have a simultaneous farm division, which is actually another partition as a part of this proposal, which would partition off an isolated, unproductive portion of the second farm, which would be the site of the new house. DEWOLF: So you'd still have two productive farms. You have one with a house on it already; and you'd have another productive farm. Would a house be allowed on that second parcel in the future? WHITE: A house on the second farm parcel is probably not feasible under our current land use regulations. To get a farmhouse, there has to be a certain minimum income, which is hard to do. LUKE: On the tentative partition map, Parcel 1 at this time would not have a house. It appears to wrap behind. Then you have Parcel 2, where the existing house is; and then you have Parcel 3, which is 3.2 acres, that you suggest is an unproductive area that's eligible for application for a housing unit. WHITE: That's correct. The concept is to create two farms; one with a house, one without. The second farm has enough dry land and enough irrigation to do something called a farm division. That allows them to get a non-farm dwelling, but the dwelling in concept would actually function as a farm -related dwelling. It's a way to get a house on a piece of farmland when you can't get a farm dwelling approved. DEWOLF: So that's what Parcel 3 becomes. WHITE: Yes, it becomes basically the house associated with the second farm. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 3 of 7 Pages Cook/Gentry Loop Wednesday, June 21, 2000 LUKE: Parcel 3 and Parcel 1, in your testimony, would go together. The house for Parcel 1 would actually be sitting on Parcel 3. There could potentially be a non-farm dwelling on the Parcel 3, but not on Parcel 1. I think that is a good way to describe it. They are actually going to be three separate legal lots that could be sold separately, so there could be one person who buys the little non-farm parcel and build a house on it, with someone else owning the other parcels. LUKE: There appear to be directly to the west a substantial number of lots that are smaller. Are those one -acre parcels? GEORGE COOK (Applicant): Those are five -acre lots. And there are houses on all of them. WHITE: The Hearings Officer actually approved the non-farm dwelling, but the dwelling isn't possible without the partition. The application came in with a conditional use permit for a non-farm dwelling, and the partition for two farms and an isolated non-farm parcel for the house. If we are going to create a new non-farm parcel, we must approve the dwelling. SWEARINGEN: And what Karen Green said is she is denying it because of the road. WHITE: The dwelling was approved. We don't really have to look at all those land use pattern issues that go along with approving a non-farm dwelling. So all three of the parcels would front on Gentry Loop, and the evidence is that it is substandard. It currently provides access to the eight houses across the road. The partition would add one new house. The applicant did not offer to upgrade Gentry Loop to minimum standards, and the Hearings Officer found that requiring those exactions necessary to upgrade Gentry Loop to minimum standards as a condition of the partition approval would exceed what we can require under Dolan. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 4 of 7 Pages Cook/Gentry Loop Wednesday, June 21, 2000 As you know, these cases require exactions to have a rational nexus and to be roughly proportional to the impacts of the proposed development. In order to make it standard, we would have to require a lot of road improvements, out of proportion to the impacts of one new dwelling. S WEARINGEN: What have we heard from the Fire Department? WHITE: I have only heard from the applicant, Mr. Cook, who indicated that he has been working with the Fire Department. I don't have testimony on this. LUKE: For the record, I have know the Cooks for several years. I also have been on these roads, but not since his application. I toured different areas of the County with Legal Counsel about a year ago. GEORGE COOK: (The applicant referred to an aerial photo of the property, and described where the properties are on the map) What I have proposed, and Mike Skeels of the Fire Department has agreed, is to create a turnout at several points; they will be gravel, and in the existing right-of-way except for one on my property. DEWOLF: But you don't have a letter from Mike Skeels at this time? COOK: I do not. He has spoken with Ms. White, who informed him she needed something in writing. I will see that you receive a letter from him. DEWOLF: If I understand all of this correctly, this is the only available parcel in this area that can be divided. WHITE: That is what the applicant has stated. I did not do the analysis. There are a few parcels that are large. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 5 of 7 Pages Cook/Gentry Loop Wednesday, June 21, 2000 COOK: (Referred to aerial photo.) All of this is the City's wastewater treatment plant. The only private property left in this whole area that's undeveloped is over here, and they would have access either on Hughes Road or Cricketwood. This was all divided up in 1963 and 1964. WHITE: Much of the land in the northeast half of the study area appears to be public lands, and some sections of MUA-10 land intermixed with EFU land. You can see that most of these parcels have a house. They would not be using Gentry Loop for access. Ten acres is the minimum lot size there. LUKE: Have you and your neighbors considered a Local Improvement District as a future fix? COOK: I figure an LID would cost maybe $500,000 or more, as a canal would have to be moved. DEWOLF: If the Fire Marshall is happy with the situation, that is the only problem I have. LUKE: Clearly, one house should not have to pay for the whole road. COOK: The Fire Marshall also said that with the improvements we spoke about, the cost of fire insurance on all the residences out there should go down. And we talked about using a stock pond or drilling a well with the neighbors and have a standpipe for the fire department. LUKE: Do you believe that if this had been submitted with the proposed road changes and a letter from the Fire Marshall that the Hearings Officer would have approved it? WHITE: No. It still would not have been to code. That's why we're here. Minutes of Public Hearing Page 6 of 7 Pages Cook/Gentry Loop Wednesday, June 21, 2000 S WEARINGEN: Is there anyone else who would like to offer testimony? SWEARINGEN: Being none, this hearing is closed. S WEARINGEN: I think we really need to have something from the Fire Department to make a decision on this. We will leave the written record open until Tuesday, June 27, 2000 at 5:00 p.m., and we'll reconvene and address this issue again on Wednesday, June 28, 2000. WHITE: I would suggest that any improvements be completely finished before we final a plat. LUKE: I agree, the turnouts should be in before it is finalized. Chair Linda Swearingen adjourned the meeting at 11:30 a.m. Dated this 21" Day of June 2000 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Minutes of Public Hearing Cook/Gentry Loop Wednesday, June 21, 2000 *indaSwearingen, Chair t6ngnis4l. Luke, Co loner Tom 3eWolf, Commissioner Page 7 of 7 Pages