Loading...
2001-37-Minutes for Meeting December 27,2000 Recorded 1/11/2001VOL: CJ2001 PAGE: 37 RECORDED DOCUMENT STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF DESCHUTES *02001-37 * Vol -Page Printed: 01/16/2001 09:28:53 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: Jan. 11, 2001; 4:35 p.m. Regular Meeting (CJ) NUMBER OF PAGES: 40 uv� 0., MARY SUE PENHOLLOW DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK KEOP � CHE JA 0! MICROFILMED TW_\ JAN 17 2001 C, J I, V - 9 7 Board of Commissioners 1130 N.W. Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 388-4752 www.deschutes.org Tom De Wolf Dennis R. Luke MINUTES OF MEETING Mike Daly The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Including a Joint Meeting of the City of Sisters on a Land Use Issue - Barclay Meadows Business Park and the Sisters School District - Wednesday, December 27, 2000 The meeting was held in the Sisters City Hall Building, 150 N. Fir Street, Sisters. Chair Linda Swearingen called the meeting of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners to order at 10:00 a.m. Deschutes County Commissioners Linda Swearingen, Dennis Luke and Tom De Wolf were present. Also present was Barbara Warren, City of Sisters Administrator; and Sisters City Council Members Dave Elliott, Lou Kellstrom and Tim Clausen. Mayor Steve Wilson was unable to attend. Also in attendance were Michael Dugan, District Attorney; George Kolb, Road Department; Timm Schimke, Solid Waste Department; Rick Isham, Legal Counsel; Jim Bonnarens, Property Management; Dan Peddycord, Health Department; and Commissioner -elect Mike Daly. In addition, Chris Schmoyer and Kevin Harrison, Community Development, attended, along with members of the media and approximately forty citizens. Chair Linda Swearingen indicated Items I through 5 of the Agenda would be addressed later in the meeting during a joint hearing with representatives of the City of Sisters. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters Quality Services Performed with Pride Page 1 of 40 Pages 6. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2000-115, Denying Review of Appeal No. A-00-13, Submitted by Richard and Jean Schrader regarding the Final Master Plan for Eagle Crest Phase III. DEWOLF: I move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. 7. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Contract for Medical Examiner's Professional Services. Mike Dugan, District Attorney, explained the agreement, and indicated it would involve a transfer of funds with no additional funding being required. LUKE: I move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. 8. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Contract between the State of Oregon Adult and Family Services and the Deschutes County Health Department for Public Health Nurse Services. LUKE: I move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2000-129, Surrendering a Portion of 23rd Street to the City of Redmond. DEWOLF: I move approval. LUKE: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 2 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters 10. 11. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Purchase of a Replacement Front-end Loader. George Kolb indicated that two bids had been received, with one bid being quite a bit less than the other. This is the first of two pieces of equipment that are budgeted for replacement. DEWOLF: I move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of an Agreement with Bend Garbage Company and the Bend Recycling Team. Timm Schimke indicated the Recycling Team is selling, and Deschutes Recycling is purchasing the transfer license. DEWOLF: I move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. 12. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Redmond and Deschutes County regarding the Vacation of a Right -of -Way off Canal Boulevard, Redmond. This item was temporarily been put on hold, and was removed from today's Agenda. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters Page 3 of 40 Pages 13. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2000-126, Accepting a Petition for Annexation of Territory into Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District No. 2, and Setting a Hearing Date (Jacobsen Annexation). DEWOLF: I move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. 14. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of an Acceptance of Aceti Correction Bargain and Sale Deed. Rick Isham explained the history of the transaction between the County, the Oregon Department of Transportation, and the Aceti Family. LUKE: I move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. 15. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Various Aceti Documents: (1) Underpass Easement; (2) Underground Utilities Easement; and (3) Waterline Easement. LUKE: I move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters Page 4 of 40 Pages 16. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Documents Relating to the Royal Blend Coffee Company Business Loan. Rick Isham gave a brief explanation of the small business loan package and the transfer of assets and liabilities between Royal Blend Coffee Company and Mock Enterprises. LUKE: I move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. 17. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2000- 092, Approving an Economic Development Grant for Public Entities (for the Health Department, to Equip a New Building). Rick Isham explained that this is a part of the new Health and Human Services Project equipment authorizations, under the economic development ordinance. Both the Becky Johnson Community Center in Redmond and the new Human Services Building in Bend are involved. LUKE: I move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. 18. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2000-093, Transferring Appropriations between Health Department Funds, within the Fiscal Year 2000-2001 Deschutes County Budget, and Directing Entries. DEWOLF: I move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 5 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters 19. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2000- 096, Declaring the Intent of Deschutes County to Exchange Real Property within Oregon Water Wonderland. Jim Bonnarens gave a brief overview of the situation requiring the exchange of property between the County and a private party. He indicated the private party (the Hoffecker Family) would be paying the necessary costs. DEWOLF: I move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. 20. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of an Intergovernmental Agreement between Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council and Deschutes County, for Completion of the Indicators/Database Project. This item will be addressed at the next regular Board meeting, and was removed from today's Agenda. 21. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of an Amendment to Deschutes County's General Policy No. P-001-2000, Regarding Employee Mileage Reimbursement. This change will bring the County into compliance with the new mileage rate of $.345 per mile as set by the Internal Revenue Service for 2001. DEWOLF: I move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 6 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA A) Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Ordinance No. 2000-021 and Ordinance No. 2000-022, Closing the Public Record and Adopting the Airport Safety Combining Zone, and Scheduling the First Reading for January 10, 2001. C) DEWOLF: I move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. Before the Board was the Re -appointment of James McGrath to Special Road District No. 1 through December 31, 2003. SWEARINGEN: DEWOLF: VOTE: LUKE I move approval. Second. DEWOLF: SWEARINGEN Aye. Yes. Chair votes aye. Before the Board was the Approval of Deschutes County Fairgrounds Agreements and the Acceptance of Deeds. Rick Isham gave a brief overview of the history of the Fairgrounds agreements. He indicated that there are some further documents requiring Board signature in due course. A general discussion then occurred regarding the nature and amount of the bills the County is to cover, the plans for future management of the facility and the operation of the Fair, and the role of the Fair Association in the future. Commissioner Luke indicated that this situation was one of the most difficult he has ever faced during his years of public service. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters Page 7 of 40 Pages Commissioner DeWolf wanted the audience to be clear in their understanding that the Board of Commissioners' problems were not with the Deschutes County Fair Association's volunteer group, rather, it was with the management that was supposed to run the Fairgrounds in a businesslike manner. He stated that many of the volunteers have come to the Board of Commissioners indicating their embarrassment at the situation, and who were offended by what has transpired due to the mismanagement of the facility. He stressed that the Board has supported and continues to support the efforts of the Deschutes County Fair Association volunteers. He said the County is taking over a great deal of obligations, but with the full intention that receipts from the facility, once it is running appropriately and with full accountability, will be able to raise the funds necessary to repay these debts to the Deschutes County taxpayers. DEWOLF: I move approval, subject to the receipt of the remaining documents (the corporate agreement). LUKE: I second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. At this point the joint meeting of the Board of Commissioners and the City of Sisters was opened to conduct a public hearing on the Sisters School District/ Barclay Meadows issue. See Pages 11 through 40 of these Minutes. CONTINUATION OF BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS' MEETING AGENDA CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 4-H/EXTENSION COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 22. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 4-H/Extension County Service District in the Amount of $295.04. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters Page 8 of 40 Pages DEWOLF: I move approval, subject to review. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 23. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Motorola Service Agreement for Maintenance of the 9-1-1 Telephone and Radio Systems. DEWOLF: I move approval. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. 24. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $63,011.00. DEWOLF: I move approval, subject to review. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 25. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $295189355.48. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters Page 9 of 40 Pages DEWOLF: I move approval, subject to review. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Aye. DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Chair votes aye. Being no further input offered, Chair Linda Swearingen adjourned the meeting at 12:10 p. m. See Minutes of Hearing, Attached as a Part of these Minutes, Page No. 11 through Page No. 40. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 10 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters Minutes of Joint Meeting and Hearing Board of County Commissioners and the City of Sisters Agenda Items 1 through 5: 1. Citizen Input 2. Consideration of Signature of Findings and Decisions for Files ZC-99-3/ PA -99-5 (Sisters School District #6), Resolution No. 2000-095, and Ordinance No. 2000-042, Ordinance No. 2000-043, and Ordinance No. 2000-044. 3. Consideration of Signature of Findings and Decisions for Files ZC-99-1/ PA- 99-4 (Barclay Meadows Business Park), Resolution No. 2000-094, and Ordinance No. 2000-038, Ordinance No. 2000-039, and Ordinance No. 2000-040. 4. Public Hearing to Consider Two Development Agreements Relating to Files ZC-99-1/PA-99-4 (Barclay Meadows Business Park) and Files ZC-99- 3/PA-99-5 (Sisters School District #6) - Land use File #IA -00-6. 5. Possible Consideration of Signature of Ordinance No. 2000-041 and Ordinance No. 2000-045, Approving Development Agreements, the Adoption of Findings, and Signature of Development Agreements. Chris Schmoyer of the Community Development Department gave a brief overview of Agenda Items No. 2 and 3. Rick Isham indicated the final draft of the findings of the development agreement are not yet ready, but would be ready by the end of the week if the Board is agreeable. He indicated these items are not required to be a part of the Hearing today. He further indicated if there is a split decision, the law (the "rule of necessity") requires that a tie -breaking vote be taken. LUKE: I move approval of Findings and Decisions for Files ZC-99-3/PA- 99-5 (Sisters School District #6), and Resolution No. 2000-095. DEWOLF: I second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 11 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters VOTE: LUKE DEWOLF: S WEARINGEN: Aye. Yes. Chair votes aye. LUKE: I move approval of Findings and Decisions for Files ZC-99-1/PA- 99-4 (Barclay Meadows Business Park), Resolution No. 2000-094. DEWOLF: I second. VOTE: LUKE: DEWOLF: S WEARINGEN: Aye. Yes. Chair votes aye. Dave Elliott of the City of Sisters then called to order a Special Meeting of the City of Sisters and the Board of County Commissioners, and asked for the Pledge of Allegiance to be conducted at this time. He then opened a combined public hearing on the Development Agreements as set forth in today's Board of County Commissioners' Agenda. Chair Linda Swearingen opened the combined public hearing for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners, and read an introductory de novo hearing statement regarding pre -hearing contacts, as required. Commissioner Dennis Luke indicated he had no pre -hearing contacts other than with staff during public meetings. Commissioner Tom DeWolf stated he had received a letter from Tom Weeks, and e-mail messages from Denny Ebner, and all have been submitted into the record. Chair Swearingen indicated she had received what she believes are the same letter from Tom Weeks and the same e-mail messages from Denny Ebner. These were submitted into the record. (The audio tape on this hearing, from which this transcription originates, begins approximately at the beginning of Side B, Tape No. I of 2; and continues through Side B, Tape No. 1 onto Side A, Tape No. 2.) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting(Hearing with City of Sisters Page 12 of 40 Pages Chris Schmoyer gave an overview of the items to be addressed by today's Public Hearing. The purpose of each development agreement is to provide for limitations on the types of industrial uses allowed on the properties, special setbacks at the north property line, and monetary contributions required under the agreements toward traffic impact issues. He indicated he had received written comments from Patricia Kearney, Howard Paine, Tom Weeks, and Bill and Kathryn Perry. These comments are now a part of the written record. He stated that staff and legal counsel have reviewed the development agreements, and found them to adequately satisfy requirements of Oregon Revised Statutes. He indicated that revised Development Agreement was received on December 20, 2000 regarding Item #1, page 3, relating to the effective date and the term of the agreement; this has been reviewed and revised, and was found adequate. (He then read this clause to those citizens attending the meeting.) The attorney representing the both applicants, Tia Lewis, then spoke. LEWIS: Since both of these development agreements essentially contain the dollar contributions associated with the land use decisions that were just signed, I'm not going to give a very lengthy presentation. However, I do want to give a little background on the intents of these agreements, although I'm sure you don't need to be reminded about the effort that has been put into developing these agreements. The agreements themselves started about a year ago, mostly in cooperation with MOT and the transportation engineers. It came about after the hearings officer's decision, and was designed to address the compatibility and traffic impacts impacts raised by the hearings officer in her decision associated with the land use files. The compatibility issues have mostly been addressed now through the zoning, with the imposition of the limited use combining zone through your decision. The important part about these agreements is how they address the transportation impacts. They do that in two ways. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 13 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters LEWIS: The first way is that they propose a development limitation on the properties to be developed at 68% of the density that would otherwise be allowed; and they also provide for substantial developer contributions to the Sisters transportation system. These are substantial contributions, which are outside of and precede the SDC process. That is essentially all these development agreements do. They don't give approval to build anything, and they don't determine what transportation improvements will ultimately go in. That is through the TSP process, and any approval to build anything has to go through the City's application process. These agreements simply estimate the traffic impacts, which could one day occur when this process is developed. They estimate the cost of the transportation facilities that could ultimately be approved through the TSP; they provide substantial developer contributions to the traffic facilities, and they contain a development limitation on the properties. They still contain setback restrictions and use restrictions, but those same restrictions are imposed through the limited use combining zone, so those restrictions imposed through the development agreement are not as important as they once were. The transportation numbers that are in the development agreements were developed by our transportation engineers, David Evans and Associates. This is also the transportation firm that is developing the Sisters TSP. They were developed closely and with the cooperation of ODOT. In fact, ODOT has written a letter of support for the development agreements, which is in the land use file and incorporated by reference into this file. As you may know, these development agreements originally started out as one document, and they went through the City's process as one document. There was a public hearing held; the City Council voted on the document; and it was ultimately approved and adopted. It was submitted into the record for the land use files prior to the close of the record in July before the County. In fact, the ten -percent contingency fund that you'll see in the chart on page 6 of each agreement is the result of that City of Sisters process. The agreements were a little different before we went through the hearings process, and that's what resulted. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 14 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters LEWIS: The only difference between the two agreements that are before you now and the one that went through City Council adoption is that they've been separated into two agreements, one for each property. The County has been made a party to the agreements during the period of time that the property is inside the UGB but not yet annexed, which we believe will occur in about a month. The prohibited uses have been somewhat expanded to include everything that was listed in each ordinance. LUKE: Has notice been sent out regarding the possible annexation by the City? LEWIS: The annexation has already been voted on. Council action is to occur in February. The limited use combining zone will be adopted in about a month, in January. No, this has not yet been sent out for the February meeting, but it will be within the City's time frames. We believe that both of these development agreements will provide a substantial benefit to the City of Sisters. When you look at them in their simplest form, and in the land use files for that matter, what you essentially have is two quasi-judicial applications, the results of which were already planned through the City of Sisters' legislative process through its comp plan process. This went through many public hearings of its own; and the result of which would otherwise still be in that process had these two quasi-judicial applications not been filed. Through that quasi-judicial process you have two development agreements which impose development assurances on the property in the form of prohibited uses, increased setbacks, and substantial developer contributions; all of which precede any developer approval and all of which that are separate from the SDC process. For this reason, we ask you to approve these two development agreements. LUKE: Measure 7 was passed last November. If Measure 7 is enforced and these agreements hadn't been signed, how would that affect the property? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 15 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters LEWIS: I think the impacts of Measure 7 are a little too complex to be boiled down into a simple answer at this time. SWEARINGEN: I don't think this particular property owner has owned the property long enough to benefit from Measure 7. LEWIS: Possibly not Barclay Meadows; but the School District has owned it quite a bit longer. Chair Linda Swearingen then opened up the public hearing for testimony on the development agreements for both Barclay Meadows, LLC and the Sisters School District. Sisters City Council member, Dave Elliott, opened up the public hearing, and asked that speakers observe a five-minute time limit. WILLIAM BOYER (representing ArluDeco): We've reviewed the development agreements and wish to make the following comments. On page 4 of Section 3, there are permitted uses listed. This only eliminates five objectionable uses from the Sisters light industrial zone. What about the many remaining allowed uses that are incompatible with the adjacent residential subdivision? Consider the noise and activity, twenty-four hours a day, associated for instance with a creamery, bottling plant, laundry, storage warehouse, transfer trucking company, and so on; and how do you propose to quiet intrusive truck backup alarms that may even be operating at night. How do you plan to contain odors generated from electroplating, dry cleaning, rug drying, and the processing of fish and meat? Further, this agreement is meaningless because it gives the City of Sisters authority to add or change uses and increase building size and height, all of which could be detrimental to the residential property owners to the north. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 16 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters BOYER: Under various ORS provisions, Deschutes County is required to make findings that show "the proposed uses are compatible with other, adjacent uses or will be so rendered, through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts". The County has failed to make adequate findings showing the proposed uses have been rendered incompatible. Murray v. Marion County, under LUBA 260.9, is quoted here. The proposed uses are not compatible with the adjacent residential uses, and measures designed to reduce adverse impacts are inadequate. Clearly, the development agreement fails to meet the requirements of law. On the development agreement page 4, there is a minimum setback, allowing a twenty -foot high industrial building fifty feet from a residential subdivision. This is unacceptable, and does not satisfy the compatibility requirements of the law. The development agreement fails to address or limit uses that can occur within the building setback area. Most industrial buildings use the rear of the building for truck loading and unloading, trash containers, parking lots and so forth. These uses are incompatible with upscale residential subdivisions. Furthermore, we believe the setback requirements violate Sisters' urban area comprehensive plan, industrial policy #2, which states, "a buffer of open space and landscaping shall be maintained around industrial areas". A twenty -foot strip of land between industrial buildings and residential property cannot be construed as a buffer of open space. DEWOLF: Did you mean to say twenty feet? BOYER: No, I meant a fifty -foot strip of land. The Sisters zoning ordinance defines open space as the uses, which exhibit an open character, commercial forestry, natural areas, commercial agriculture, or large lot hobby farming consistent with the surrounding landscape. This includes parks, golf courses, and other non -intrusive recreational uses with a minimum of associated structures. The plan then defines a buffer as a strip of land created to separate one type of land use from another; for example, as a screen of planting or fencing to insulate the surrounding property from the noise, smoke, or visual aspects of an industrial zone or junk yard. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 17 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages I through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters BOYER: Current use zone provides a 1,300 -foot buffer of open space that now separates the existing industrial park from the homesites. What sense does it make to reduce this to fifty feet? I'd like to reference the development agreement, page 5, of the traffic impact comments. Traffic studies show that these developments will cause a significant increase in traffic on Locust Street. This creates safety problems for children in the middle and elementary schools. It is highly likely the Sisters School District would oppose this if they weren't one of the participants. A few years ago the school district opposed Hap Taylor's gravel operation off Highway 242 because of the heavy truck traffic that would pass by the high school. How is this any different? Page 5 of the development agreement states that the School District agrees to restrict development on its property, with uses that will not produce in excess of 203 peak hour trips. There's a similar restriction on the Barclay property of 230. Who is going to monitor and enforce these provisions? It is our position that these are just numbers on paper, and are unenforceable. Once the property has been subdivided and sold, the School District and Barclay Meadows are out of the picture. How is the City going to limit the number of employees and vehicle trips? Look at what is now happening in the building formerly operated by Wytech. Since Northwest Marketing has moved in, the number of vehicles has increased, overloading the parking lot and causing street problems. Another transportation safety issue is not addressed in the development agreement, in Barclay Meadows. This is the close proximity to the airport. In a letter to the County from Thomas Hyland, ODOT planner, he recommends denial of the Barclay application because a portion of the proposed industrial park is within the runway protection zone. In the letter he says, "The purpose of the RPZ is to enhance the protection of people and property on the ground. An agricultural zoning designation of lands adjacent to airports is a compatible land use, and provides open space. Open space limits the number of people beneath aircraft overflies, which enhances the safety of people on the ground. ODOT Aeronautics prefers that the land remain zoned agricultural." LUKE: What is the date of the letter? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 18 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters BOYER: August 9, 1999. It was sent from ODOT to Chris Schmoyer. S WEARINGEN: Who signed that letter? BOYER: The aviation planner. LUKE: That was just about the time ODOT lost control of the airports. SWEARINGEN: So, we have conflicting information from ODOT. One department within ODOT agreed with this, and another has disagreed. LUKE: To be fair, there have been a lot of negotiations since that letter was written. In conclusion, the burden of proof is on the County to show that residential property values will not decline as a result of these land use actions. I'm going to submit a list of the affected properties with a listing of the real market values as determined by the Deschutes County Assessor's Office. The total real market value exceeds six million. If these applications are approved, it is highly likely there will be Measure 7 compensation claims for the losses. Is Deschutes County financially prepared to pay $500,000 to $1 million in these claims? Finally, pursuant to DCC, we request that the record remain open for seven days to allow submission of further written testimony. LUKE: Is it your contention that Measure 7 affects property that has not been directly zoned? Everything we have seen from the Attorney General and different attorneys is that your property has to be the property that local government is dealing with, and not the adjacent properties. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 19 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters BOYER: I think those will be legal questions that the residents will certainly want to look into. W8103 That's true, but you explain this as fact and I don't believe that's been found yet. BOYER: There are likely to be claims. DEWOLF: You're not claiming that it's likely they will be successful. BOYER: You never know. 101NO10 VA910.10111 N I'm a residential property owner, right on the direct property line with the Barclay Meadows property. I'm here today to strongly disagree with your earlier written decision, as well as the proposed development agreements. My reason for strong disagreement is the deterioration of public health, safety, welfare and the increase in traffic congestion, and the incompatibility with residential property. Mr. Boyer just mentioned Thomas Hyland's letter. I want to emphasize his quote. "Agriculture zoning designations for land adjacent to airports is compatible with land use, and provides open space. Open space limits the number of people underneath airport landing zones and aircraft overflights." This enhances the safety of people and reduces noise and complaints, and all that. We bought our property fifteen years ago with the understanding that the adjacent land would remain in exclusive farm use, and that is, in fact, what his recommendation is. This is a public safety issue. This is going to increase the risk to public safety from aircraft overflights. Secondly, school children are at risk, as a result of a generation of traffic from the development going on off Camp Polk Road, heavy trucks, lots of employees; all of who would go right between Sisters Elementary and Middle schools. This necessitates what ODOT believes is a requirement for a traffic signal light there. This is increasing the risk to these students. There's a public safety issue here. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 20 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters EBNER: Why would any public representative allow this to happen? It blows my mind. When a better alternative is available for this development. S WEARINGEN: What's a better alternative? EBNER: A better alternative is an exchange of Forest Service lands to the west. I presented this to you before, but you've ignored it. Let's move on to traffic congestion. I am on the Sisters Citizens' Transportation Planning Committee. We have been studying traffic congestion and methods to reduce it for over a year. Sadly, this proposed development would place a tremendous burden on that traffic system. Speaking about the traffic around Camp Polk, N. Larch and N. Pine; they lead right into Cascade Avenue, which is our fundamental problem in Sisters, and has been for over twenty years - congestion on Cascade Avenue. At last count from our committee, there have been ten different committees and organizations during the past twenty years in Sisters trying to solve the traffic congestion problem on Cascade. Our group is number eleven. Even sadder about this whole situation is that exchanging property to the west of Sisters eliminates that burden, and eliminates the saturation at Camp Polk, N. Larch and N. Pine. You talk about public welfare and the cost of lights and roads, an exchange for property to the west would eliminate it, with direct access to Highway 20. DEWOLF: And there would be no impact at that point? EBNER: Certainly there will be. You'd have to have some access. DEWOLF: So you'd be transferring the problem, you're not eliminating it. EBNER: Why would you agree to this proposal? Why would you allow that extra load on Cascade Avenue when you don't have to? There's a better alternative. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 21 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters EBNER: Land use incompatibility? Industrial development is not compatible with low- density residential neighborhoods to the north. Extensive testimony by the public, findings of fact by the hearings officer, and even your concerns have articulated that incompatibility. Everyone understands that. Over the past year two residences that border directly on that property have been unsuccessful in selling. All prospects for these sales went sour after the potential industrial development rezone was disclosed. (He then entered some photos of the current Sisters industrial area into the record.) This is what scares people. If you haven't driven through an industrial development, do it sometime. It's not done well. S WEARINGEN: What would you suggest for an adequate buffer? EBNER: Just for the compatibility issue alone? Four or five hundred feet. But this does not resolve the public safety issues and traffic congestion issues. Measure 7 is very complicated, but you've got to believe that we're going to go after that if necessary. We have to. You have somebody proposing something to you that I feel is against the public good. They stand to make millions of dollars; and in fact, some of that money is going to come directly out of our assets as residential property owners. That's the way I look at it. Once again, this does not have to happen. Measure 7 wouldn't be operative, I believe, if we do in fact pursue an exchange with the Forest Service for lands to the west. Why not protect citizens and the taxpayers, and look at the Forest Service lands to the west. It is much superior in terms of the public good. In summary, I've offered a viable solution to exchange lands with the Forest Service, which would largely eliminate these issues of public safety, traffic congestion and compatibility; and you continue to support these applications to the detriment of the Sisters' area. I'd like you to explain to all citizens why you chose to degrade public health, safety and welfare when an excellent alternative can be implemented to satisfy all citizens, not just those who stand to make potential financial gain by this decision. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 22 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters EBNER: When you do explain it, the original owner of that property sold his water rights - Squaw Creek water rights, a good thing for conservation - and that turns out to be the argument the developers use, a key argument for why these lands are no longer capable of supporting agriculture. Fair enough. Dig some wells. Take that large sum that they received for Squaw Creek water rights, and dig water wells for irrigation. That would resolve that point. LUKE: You can't even get a well for cities now because of the rules and regulations that are in effect, let alone drill a well for irrigation. I don't think you could possibly get a permit. Have you approached the Forest Service at all? And talked with them about an exchange? EBNER: I didn't have to. I had Tom DeWolf ask the Planning Commission to contact the Forest Service. Here is one of their quotes, from Jeff Simms of the Forest Service. It's a telephone conversation that Deschutes County Planning staff had with him on February 1, 2000. He said, "The U.S. Forest Service is willing to do an exchange, but highly prefers it only include a public entity. The Forest Service would need to find that the exchange is in the public benefit, and that the properties are of equal value. In addition, the Forest Service prefers the City to take the initiative." Isn't it interesting to everybody that just recently the City took the initiative to find Forest Service lands for their largest employer, Multnomah Publishers? They should have done this two years ago, if they had had the vision to develop industrial land for the future, as I suggested, and pursued this exchange. Not only to accommodate Multnomah Publishers, but to accommodate these developers and the school district. There is something wrong with this picture. I am a little annoyed at what the will of the people is. It is often decided by you and others what the will of the people is, and understand the annexation vote of November 1999 is illegal. It has been presented by you and others to be a key basis for your decision to approve this urban growth boundary expansion and the rezoning. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 23 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters DEWOLF: If you understand that it was illegal, did you or anyone else try to have it overturned through legal channels? Yes. I received a letter from the Department of Land Conservation and Development and the Attorney General's Office. I believe it notified Barbara Warren about the illegality of that annexation. I'm sure people are backing off because they feel maybe it was just a test and this kind of thing does occur. DEWOLF: Did you sue? If you think it was illegal, I don't know why you wouldn't file suit against it. EBNER: No. I don't go around suing all illegal acts. DEWOLF: I'm just suggesting that if you had an avenue to stop this because it was an illegal vote that took place, I'm just asking why that wasn't pursued. 14 301MIX I'm not interested in going after an illegal annexation. I have no interest in that. I see no reason to do it. The point I am making is that you have rationalized that as the will of the people for a big part of your decision to approve this agreement. DEWOLF: I have virtually no evidence to the contrary, other than your opinion that it is illegal. You haven't shown in any evidentiary way that it is, in fact, illegal. So it's your opinion that it's illegal, but how can I use that as a basis to reject this. EBNER: I'll get you a copy of the letter. DEWOLF: A letter is not evidence. A letter again may be someone's opinion. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 24 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters EBNER: I'm told there is a letter available from .... one moment. LUKE: If the Attorney General's Office has signed it, it's more than a letter. It's a legal opinion. I would be surprised if we haven't seen such a document. BARBARA WARREN: The City of Sisters has not received this document. EBNER: I am referring to a source that provided some information here. My information says it was addressed to Barbara Warren at the City. It doesn't necessarily say how she was notified. This note says they found out about it and notified the City that the vote was actually illegal. So what. I'll strike that comment whether it was illegal or not. My point is that you say you are dealing with the will of the people. These were County lands. I had no participation in that vote. There are thousands of people within three to five miles of Sisters who have a big stake in this whole thing, who had no representation from you. One hundred and fifty-nine people is not the will of the people, to expand this urban growth boundary. I believe fundamentally there is a public safety and welfare issue; we have traffic congestion problems, and tremendous incompatibility problems with the neighborhood land to the north. You know my position on this. I'm just asking you to reconsider it and look to the west, and let's get some serious planning going for industrial development projects out that way to eliminate these problems. CLIFF CLEMMONS: I represent the Sisters Airport, and am a twenty-six year resident of Sisters. I'd like to say that a part of the development that has taken place so far on that property has done more to save lives than what I'm hearing about today. You can cut across down there without having to go down Cascade Avenue. Most of the problems throughout the year are not because of Cascade; it's the fact that we can't use or have access to roads that would take us over to the schools or the market without having to go down Cascade. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 25 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters CLEMMONS: ODOT is spending $100,000 to tell Sisters how to fix its streets and roadways. If they take that same $100,000 and straighten out Pine Street, they could open about three more access roads so that the children can get to school without having to go down Cascade and Camp Polk Road. Camp Polk Road hasn't changed other than having far too much traffic on it; and it has to carry all of the traffic the way it is now. Some of the traffic on the south side of the bed and breakfast where you can cut across and go down to town or on over to Pine Street and out to the market, it's far safer. This thing about being told that these developments are going to create so much of a traffic problem, it makes me a little sick inside. When you have a group of people who have a fine reputation throughout the years for the developments they've made both City and industrial park developments, you don't need to worry so much about all these mountains you are building out of molehills. The land that is laying there now is worthless as far as farming is concerned. I tried farming a few acres here, and the only thing I learned was that if you want to work for thirty cents an hour, try turning this land into farmland. We don't need farmland. We need more industrial land so that the boys and girls who graduate from our school system will have a place to work here. If properly designed, there will be access to it so that there will be technical training for those children as they grow up. I think the plusses for this development and increased industrial area are far greater than the negatives. I hope that you'll keep on using good, common sense, which I think you have done to keep moving along with it. And get busy on Pine Street so that the people over on the north side of Sisters can get where they need to go without having to go down Cascade. We have one problem, and it's on both sides of the town. On the southeast side we have a flood plain area. On the northwest side we have a flood plain area. I've seen water a foot deep across the corner of industrial site that now exists. That's one thing we need to do some thinking about, is what, our flood plain would be. That's what you would have if you took twenty acres across Pine Street on the north side. You shouldn't build just anything there. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 26 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters LUKE: It seems to me about the end of 1999 is when the ODOT was looking at protecting airports. With your cooperation, the City of Sisters and the County chose not to protect the Sisters Airport, which means you could expand it; which means now that you can do what you're already doing but you can't expand it. There has been some testimony about airport safety. Of course, ODOT no longer controls airports and it's now a separate agency. What is your view on the safety issue of developing this property? CLEMMONS: I don't know how you could run an airport that would be any safer. It isn't really for commercial use. The man who wrote the letter to the school saying that we shouldn't build a high school on that thirty acres was fired not too long after that letter came. He indicated that it was in the flight path. It is not; it is too close to the airport to be in the flight path. The high school is directly under some of the traffic that goes in and out. It isn't dangerous traffic because it is up. One of the things about an airport is that when pilots are coming in or going out, they are usually in control, and have no problem there. Sisters Airport is not there for commercial use. We don't have anything commercial. One of the times that the community likes it is when you have a forest fire and need the air support people to come in. Personally, I think what they want to build there is as compatible as anything could be when you do have an airport nearby. DAVE ELLIOTT: I don't know if the County Commissioners are aware of a transportation addition that is going to be made by 2002. (He referred to an oversized wall map.) This can alleviate some of these transportation problems. (He referred to an area on the map that appeared to be located northwest of downtown.) This road will be connected directly to Highway 20. So traffic coming in - heavy truck traffic - would exit here and would not have to go through the school area at all. We are working on other transportation plans to alleviate problems in other areas as well. This road is going to be completed. We have a $700,000 grant that will fully pay for the road, which is inside the city limits. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 27 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters JOEL ABLER: I've lived here for forty-eight years. I'm going to speak in support of this development. A number of years ago I was contacted via a notice that a bypass or loop would actually come out across Squaw Creek, next to my property, which would alleviate the Camp Polk situation. They've worked on several different versions of that to again get away from the problems of Camp Polk. As Cliff said earlier, the ability to travel into the present industrial property has been increased. We have two or three more access points over what we had a few years ago. I might add that I participated in the development of the second portion of the industrial property. To me, the benefits that came to people of Sisters to me were many. There was a chance to complete the loop and water systems through the development of the second park. That land was given to the City. That underground looping system for fire protection, as well as the actual well itself, greatly contributed to this community. When I look at the services that have come about through the development out there. There's a document that the City worked through a number of years ago with a lot of requirements for the developer, and I'm sure the new one will be even that much better. I've been here when there was nothing here; you went to Bend for a package of nails. To see places like Metabolic and other businesses located here and the things they provide to us with jobs and services in the community, I think this will benefit a lot of us. There are a lot of conversations going on around the community about this, and many of us are in favor of this. When you look at the people who are involved in this project, you need to come up with something that is going to work as far as buffers and areas to hide. I can tell you that I'm familiar with these people, and if you sit down and work with them, they'll come up with good ideas that will help. LUKE: Do you live inside the urban growth boundary? ABLER: Yes. Not in the City. LUKE: There has been a lot of testimony about the failure of Camp Polk Road. But isn't a lot of that traffic generated by the subdivisions out that way, not City -generated traffic? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 28 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: That is correct. ROY SCHULKE: I live in Trapper Point, the residential housing development affected by this proposed project. I testified previously with regard to the fact that as a real estate appraiser for forty years, I know a little bit about declining property values as a result of improper zoning, with industrial not a compatible neighbor to residential. This is a hallmark situation where that would apply. I have never seen, after appraising properties all over the U.S., where a proposed industrial development was approved to go adjacent to residential property. I've found instances where existing industrial is already there and housing goes in next to it, but not in reverse. The other question I would have is how many people sitting at the table today currently live adjacent to industrial property? LUKE: I do. SCHULKE: That's a pretty small percentage. That kind of development is absolutely not compatible to residential, and I would doubt that most people, if the situation affected them, wouldn't be standing where I am right now trying to defend against such a use. SWEARINGEN: What would you suggest as a buffer? SCHULKE: I think the buffer is there currently. There are alternative places for industrial expansion to occur. In fact, this City doesn't really need industrial expansion. S WEARINGEN: I know the suggestion was made that a trade could occur. I've got to tell you, though, having been involved in government for years, trades are easier said than done. We might look at a five-year process and still not ever be able to get it done. It's a suggestion, but I must say it's not an easy one to get through. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 29 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters SCHULKE: I feel this problem that we're having right now is worthy of that kind of time, to do something right. It's gong to take time. It would be difficult and there would be a lot of work necessary. But considering the alternatives, and the resulting problems of traffic and compatibility, it should be considered and studied. It's a very significant problem, not only for the people who live adjacent to it but to the entire City of Sisters. Ultimately the City will be greatly affected by the traffic. We've heard that one of the mitigating elements is to put up traffic lights. I would like to see the evidence of how traffic lights would mitigate traffic. You only have to go to Redmond to see how traffic lights and heavy traffic through the middle of town creates a big logjam. I submit to you that traffic lights would back traffic up in either direction many miles. At least now, without lights, the traffic is flowing. LUKE: Since you brought up Redmond, I would point out that the new traffic light at Sisters Avenue, which cuts traffic through the old fairgrounds, has actually relieved Highway 97 considerably and really made better the traffic flow in the City of Redmond. You can now go from the Sisters -Redmond Highway through the old Fairgrounds without going through the heart of town. That light has truly relieved traffic congestion in the City. SCHULKE: I'm talking about Highway 20, which is one way in and one way out. There are no alternative routes. This is not a reasonable solution. The other issue I'd like to discuss is that in the development plan regarding fifty - foot setbacks, with a twenty -foot height limit. Fifty feet is not that big. Clearly, this is no buffer at all. I can't imagine someone thinking that noise wouldn't travel considerably greater distances. As it is right now, we are impacted by the noise of the existing industrial park. I'm concerned that the vote that was taken to approve these developments was done on property owned by the County - LUKE: The County never owned that property. SCHULKE: Well, under the County's jurisdiction - was not actually City property. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 30 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters LUKE: I would point out to you that you can't annex property that is not under your control. SCHULKE: I just want to get the point across that the issues I'm bringing up are significant, not just to us living in Trapper Point in regard to our property values, but to others in the community, too. They won't benefit from this industrial development. PATRICIA CARNEY: I sent you a letter, and I won't repeat all of it. We are not against industrial development itself; it's the location of it. The trade with the Forest Service has my support. I know that it may take a long time. There are a lot of spots in the existing industrial park that have not been utilized. I don't think there is an immediate need for that kind of development. I think I will be adversely affected. I did want to address something that hasn't be said, to the County folks. You represent me, because I am in the County. I do not have a voice in Sisters. I'm very concerned that if you vote this in, I will no longer have any representative at all in this whole process, as it will be handled solely by the City of Sisters. I'm still not sure what the setbacks will be and what kinds of things might be allowed there. I would rather it not happen at all, but if it happens I'd like to see the best quality possible. I urge you not to get out of this now. Continue to represent the people of Trappers Point until there are some satisfactory answers to some of these things, rather than signed off. LUKE: What is your recommended setback? CARNEY: My first recommendation is what is there right now. I bought with the knowledge that there was an industrial park with a wonderful agricultural area in between, so I didn't need to worry about it. I think at least half of that amount of space. LUKE: What would be a logical buffer, because you could build other things in there, like a mobile home park or a campground? That would buffer your house from the industrial park. Would that be acceptable? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 31 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters CARNEY: I think anything that would not create additional noise and traffic. I have some quiet now, and that's part of why I bought there. And as for property values, I don't want to end up suing myself, which is what I would end up doing as a taxpayer. I really think that half of the area that is there now should remain as some kind of buffer. Something that was more passive and quiet would be okay. Something residential maybe. JERRY FORESTER: I live in Trapper Point. I don't understand why the City of Sisters wants to push the industrial area out further. It doesn't make any sense at all. It creates a traffic problem. One thing about Trappers Point residents, there are fifteen homes there and one vacant five -acre lot. We don't ask anything of the City or of the County. We maintain our own street. We go to the post office to get our mail. We're not asking for the County's facilities in there. We like it like that. It's one of the better residential districts in Sisters, and we'd like to keep it that way. There are two areas, east and south, of the crossroad from Wytech that are vacant now. So what happens to those areas? Why push it beyond and create a problem further out than what you have now. I think the potential for an industrial area there would be very detrimental for the values. I have two places just outside of Trapper Point and three inside that have been listed on the market for sale. As soon as the people have to divulge that there was going to be an industrial area there, the buyers walked away. I would call that a decrease in value, right off the bat. LUKE: There are houses, such as the one I built, on the market since April. It's twenty acres in the middle of prime farm ground with a very nice house on it. The market and price range have a lot to do with the movement of real estate also. FORESTER: The industry permitted there should be considered light uses only. Do you classify a wrecking yard and a concrete plant as light industry? DEWOLF: Those are not allowed. It's part of the agreement that these are excluded. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 32 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters LUKE: The thing we did with our agreement is that we brought our zoning and the City's zoning into compatibility on this piece of ground. The City has accepted the fact that it would take a more restrictive zoning on this than they currently have. FORESTER: On page 36, it lists conditional uses. LUKE: What are you quoting from? FORESTER: I don't have the complete paperwork. Those are listed as subject to conditional uses. It's here on paper. DEWOLF: Well, it's the wrong paper. The right paper is the development agreement, which specifically excludes those uses that you've just mentioned. This is a stronger agreement than whatever you are holding. FORESTER: Well, this is what I'm reading. It's from Arlu DeCo. LUKE: In prior testimony, these things were brought up, which is why the development agreements are how they are. FORESTER: Well, this is under conditional uses. LUKE: We changed that. FORESTER: Also, industrial use is certainly not compatible with the bed and breakfast next door. I'm not just addressing the Barclay property; I'm addressing the school property as well. Trapper Point residents are all willing to fight this thing. If I have to I will take it all the way to the Supreme Court of Appeals. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 33 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters CARRIE EBNER: My greatest concern is for the school children. I went to school here. There will be a huge impact, even with additional access away from the schools. The quality of life is changing, possibly deteriorating, too fast. GENE MILLER: I live in Trapper Point. I've been trying to sell over the past year. It's a nice place but any offers have been stifled by proposed development. I never got one offer on my place once the prospective buyers learned there would be an industrial site next to it. DEWOLF: Were there any potential offers? Did anyone say specifically they wouldn't make an offer because of the adjacent land? Do you think the higher interest rates have anything to do with it? MILLER: Interest rates don't affect these buyers. These people have enough money to buy what they want. They just don't want the problem with the industrial next door. TIM CLAUSEN: Do you have any trees now between your property and the existing industrial land? MILLER: We do have a nice view now, and some trees in the buffer area. TIA LEWIS: I would like to do a little bit of rebuttal to some of the comments you've heard. The one thing I want to bring back into focus is that the development agreements provide the dollar contributions. They don't give approval for land uses; they don't rezone property, and they don't amend maps or plans. They just provide the dollar contribution for the land use decisions previously heard and decided on. I want to address the ODOT comments. There is a letter from ODOT's aeronautics division in the file. You are right; there have been substantial negotiations since that letter was written. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters Page 34 of 40 Pages LEWIS: One thing that I should point out is that this letter contradicts ODOT's own guidelines in regard to agricultural uses near airports. They have recommended that some agricultural uses are incompatible; namely, grazing, and uses that attract wildlife and birds, such as places that have water sources nearby. I would not put a lot of stock in the aeronautics comment received over one and one-half years ago. The other thing I wanted to address was the Forest Service quote. What's interesting about this is that what is not explained by any kind of exchange is that categorically they have told private parties "no", they only deal with government entities. Secondly, it is subject to the townsite act. One of the requirements of this is that you demonstrate that there is no alternative property available. Well, we have alternative property so they won't even consider this. The other thing I want to talk about is that this proposal is not new, nor was it our idea. This is been on the books for about eight years, and it went through the Sisters comp plan process, all of which had numerous public hearings. So any disclosures that are being made to buyers should have been done a long time ago. It has been readily available to them for many years. This property has been designated as possible industrial land for a long time. I have a couple of comments about industrial property near residential property. There is a lot of it, some of which is in Bend and Redmond. S WEARINGEN: I don't think that was intentional in most of those cases. That just ended up happening because of the lack of land use planning in prior years, because I don't think anyone intentionally zones residential directly next to industrial unless there is no alternative. LEWIS: You may believe that to be true. I think that in the past that might have been true. Currently the thoughts regarding particularly light industrial uses and mixed use developments, the need to reduce traffic, and to have people live closer to where they work and where they shop is kind of changing that idea a little bit. That seems to be the way the future is leaning; to get people closer to where they live and shop and to get work environments and commercial developments closer. This makes the reliance on the automobile less heavy, and people are able to work compatibly above them, by them and around them. That's kind of the trend. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 35 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters LEWIS: The other thing I want to talk about briefly is the whole idea about a Forest Service trade. What LCDC commented on was the process by which annexation occurs, when there are ordinances requiring voter approval and when a UGB amendment has to occur for that annexation process. My understanding of what LCDC and the Attorney General's Office says - which may have been a letter but was not written as an opinion, but I haven't seen it - the City cannot finalize the annexation until the UGB amendment is approved. Not that it cannot take a vote on it; and not that there were any illegalities in either one of the votes that occurred. Simply it's because they cannot adopt the ordinance finalizing it until the UGB amendment occurs. That's my understanding. There are legal minds that differ with that opinion, and it is not the Attorney General's legitimate, formal opinion; it is simply a position. There are people who differ with that; and rather than put money into process instead of infrastructure, we decided to accommodate LCDC and do it that way. That's why we have a lot of different timelines; that's why we have the land use process before you; that's why the voter approval and the finalizing annexation occurs after the UGB amendment. The last thing I want to talk about is the idea that this property is open space, and the idea that this property is a buffer. This property is not zoned open space. There are open space designations throughout the state. This property is private property. It's held in EFU zoning currently because in the past it was agricultural property. It is no longer useful for agricultural property. The City needs industrial land. We have gone through a lot of analysis to determine there is no alternative industrial land that is viable for the economic development of the City. The idea that our private property should somehow become someone's open space is kind of exactly what Measure 7 was designed to prevent. The idea that people are going to bring Measure 7 claims if this is approved, I find kind of ironic. I have looked enough at Measure 7 to know that what you said about it was right, and that, good luck, I don't think it works here; particularly for people who don't the land that is the subject of this application. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 36 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters LEWIS: Essentially, what I want to say is that this is private property. We respect the compatibility issues; we have worked very hard to try to develop setbacks and prohibited uses; to try to develop contributions to the Sisters transportation system - all of which precedes any development approval. We're just here at the planning stages and yet we've come to the table with ideas and money to help with the planning of this development. When it ultimately does occur, it will be in a compatible way. There are fifty -foot setbacks for one-story buildings, one hundred -foot setbacks for two-story buildings, right in the agreements. Those are in addition to anything that's required through the City's zoning. I think these developers have gone over and above what the law requires in order to try to address all of the concerns. We've worked very hard in bringing ODOT, the City of Sisters, the City Council, the County, all of the parties, and the residents to the table to share concerns and to try to address all of them. I realize not everybody is happy with what we've come up with, but we do believe we have given 100% in making this application. S WEARINGEN: Tia, you may win the battle but ultimately may lose the war if this goes up all the way to the Supreme Court. Based on the people and their testimony here today, it's not likely that you will be able to build on this property for years. Have you given any thought to taking at least a one hundred foot strip around the property and zoning it multi -family in a compromise effort so that you don't have to wade through the court system? Even if we all give you approval today, it really means nothing other than you are on a course to a destination that may preclude a time where money is being waste. Right now is the time to build. Two or five years from now it may not be. LEWIS: We have thought a lot about what the future may hold once we get past the local approval process. My clients are not opposed to communicating with the neighbors and working out a solution, and continue to do so. But we have to get through the local approval process before we know whom those parties are that we can really negotiate with. SWEARINGEN: I don't think so. You've got your parties right here. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 37 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters LEWIS: If you'll let me finish. We've got a lot of different appeal deadlines running. We have a lot of different decisions still to go through. We are listening. We are not stopping the planning of this project, and won't stop until we get the development approval that we need. If it goes to the Supreme Court, so be it. We watched PMR do the same thing. It's kind of unfortunate that the money goes into the process rather than the infrastructure. We don't want that to happen. Right now that is what is happening. We have put a lot of money for the infrastructure in this development agreement and are still willing to try to accommodate others' interests. I don't want people to think that we are opposed to discussions. I want you to understand that in our minds in this process we need to get through the local approval process before we start making more concessions. We've given more than 100% through these documents so far. We recognize that we probably won't please everybody. TIM CLAUSEN: How did you come up with the concessions? Did you ever have a meeting with the adjacent landowners? LEWIS: We have had a couple of meetings, a couple of township -type meetings; and we've had at least four or five public hearings. There's a lot of written evidence in the record. CLAUSEN: I mean just a meeting where you sit down at a table with them without political oversight or involvement. LEWIS: I wasn't even there. It was the developers and the neighbors. I think the school district had one, and Barclay had one. These were all kind of done back in the land use process. The traffic numbers were developed by ODOT and the traffic engineers. The actual setback numbers and the list of prohibited uses came from meetings with the neighborhood and public hearings. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 38 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters SWEARINGEN: I think you addressed the transportation issues pretty adequately in the development agreement. But I would say that as someone who won't be involved in this after this year that I feel it would be in your best interests to sit down with the property owners and work out something that works for both of you. Otherwise, you are going to sit there with that property for years. They'll take it as far as it needs to go. I've got to say, even though I firmly believe that transportation has been addressed and it needs to be rezoned, I think they have a valid complaint about compatibility. I don't know that fifty feet is an adequate buffer without rezoning a strip of that land to address their concerns. As a former real estate broker, I'm telling you that their property will go down in value, absolutely. I'm not going to choose to live next to an industrial park. I suggest they take some time to work out an agreement that works for everybody, and I think you can come up with something. Just redo that top zone for high density, multi -family. LEWIS: That would require that we start this process over. SWEARINGEN: You'll end up starting the process over, regardless. I know exactly what you're saying. LEWIS: We're not opposed to suggestions from community members. We've already taken into account quite a few of them. We are listening, and don't believe that this process is going to end it. We are certainly prepared to go as far as we need to go and to recognize their concerns. We've settled everything that we could so far. This seems to be the last part of it, and these developers are flexible. They have done more than what I'm used to working with, and they are still willing to do more. I take your comments to heart, and we recognize that and are willing to sit down and discuss things further. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Page 39 of 40 Pages Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint MeetinWHearing with City of Sisters S WEARINGEN: We will leave the written record open until Wednesday, January 3, 2001, at 5:00 p.m. Rebuttal to any additions to the written record will be left open until Wednesday, January 10, 2001, at 5:00 p.m. They should come to the Board of County Commissioners' office at 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend. DAVE ELLIOTT: I move we close the public oral comment period for the City, and will leave the written record open to the same dates as the County. They should be mailed to P.O. Box 36, Sisters 97759; or if hand -carried, to 105 NW Fir Street, Sisters. The City will continue discussions on this matter at our next scheduled City Council meeting on Thursday, January 11, 2001. He adjourned the meeting of the City of Sisters at this time. S WEARINGEN: Dave, I just want to say that I started my political career in Sisters, following you as Mayor, and will end my political career in Sisters. This is only fitting. (The Board of County Commissioners then completed their normal business - see Page 8 of these Minutes.) Dated this 27th Day of December 2000 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 27, 2000 Linda L. Sw aringe air Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner Tom DeWolf, Commiss' ner Pages 1 through 10, Regular Business Pages 11 through 40, Joint Meeting/Hearing with City of Sisters Page 40 of 40 Pages