2017-228-Minutes for Meeting June 09,1987 Recorded 5/9/2017Recorded in Deschutes County
Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk CJ2017-228
Commissioners'Journal 05/09/2017 1:34:03 PM
ror necoraing ramp %July
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
Bend, Oregon
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Audio Cassette Recording Titled: PUBLIC HEARING
June 9, 1987; 10:00-11:15 AM.
A meeting of the Board of County Commissioners was held on June 9, 1987.
Commissioners present were Lois Prante, Dick Maudlin and Tom Throop. Also
present were Rick (sham, County Counsel; County Administrator Mike Maier; and
other staff, media and citizens.
A Public Hearing regarding the Neighborhood Church; an appeal of the Hearings
Officer's Decision, CU -87-14, an application for a conditional use permit to allow a
school facility in an RL, urban low density zone. This specifically relates to
condition #5 of the findings and decision.
Representatives of the media and public were present. An opening statement
was read detailing how the hearing process would be handled.
None of the Commissioners had pre -hearing contacts to proclaim, except Mr.
Mauldin said he spoke with Mr. Marks in the Board's Office. There was not much
of a conversation. Mr. Throop said he spoke with Mr. Marks regarding the
transcript. No challenges came from the audience.
Transcription of Audio Recording of a Public Hearing, June 9, 1987 Page 1 of 6
Mark Shipman?, Assistant Planner with the County, presented an overview of the
staff report. There was a public hearing held by the Hearings Officer on April 21,
1987, with a decision made on April 29. The applicant appealed the decision on
May 13. The appeal is related to condition #5 of the decision, which deals with
the necessity of the applicant providing sidewalks on Reed Market Road and SE
15th Street.
Staff from Public Works also provided a report to explain the conditions as
required, and which were discussed with the applicant prior to the Hearings
Officer's decision. (He referred to oversized maps of the area.) This would
involve the dedication of property and the vacation of properties for
development. The enabled the applicant to put in parking and meet the 50 -foot
building setback requirement. There was no reimbursement involved. It is not a
trade per se. (There was a long discussion about the properties that were
deeded, acquired or vacated.)
The applicant's appeal stated that the County would build the sidewalks if the
applicant deeded certain land to the County. There is no written record of this.
Staff had been asked to research the file and has found no record of this,
although there was an announcement that the County was considering putting in
sidewalks as a part of the entire Reed Market Road project. Evidently the
applicant assumed the County would be responsible for sidewalks throughout the
project.
Mr. Maudlin feels that this issue is separate from the Reed Market Road project.
This is a school with potentially 300 students plus a church, not just a small
residential lot. Staff noted that site plan approval for a variance includes the
installation of sidewalks at the expense of the applicant. This is a long-standing
policy.
Bob Wilson, representing Ken Marks and the school, then spoke. No one seems
to be in opposition of the school site, so they are only talking about condition #5.
Transcription of Audio Recording of a Public Hearing, June 9, 1987 Page 2 of 6
(Mr. Wilson went into detail how he got involved in this situation.) There is
another property owned by Mr. Lewis, with 600 feet of frontage on 15th Street
and 300 feet of frontage on Reed Market Road, much bigger, plus it is zoned
convenience and commercial. Someone else, Joe Bartos, owns ten acres across
from this property. He got a letter that says no improvement requirements would
be placed on his property until all the project is completed.
Mr. Wilson's client maintains that he got the same letter. He does not feel that
his client's development of the church and school should mean this letter no long
applies.
They feel sidewalks are appropriate, but the reason behind the dedication of the
land was that the County would not require the owner to do these improvements.
The County was already talking about these improvements, and they were happy
to dedicate the land needed for the County to do this.
It appears that the County doesn't want to build sidewalks on Reed Market Road
itself, but they should not require his client to do this, based on what has been
promised to others.
There was a long discussion about the students, how many were expected to walk
to school, and the extra space required as a condition of approval for parents to
drop students off.
Mr. Maudlin asked if this understanding was that important, why it was not
submitted with the application or a paper trail generated to support it. There
seems to be no paperwork that speaks to this claim. Mr. Wilson said they don't
have it now, but it supposedly was sent to them in 1985.
Staff indicated that they checked and the letter did not come through the
Planning Division. It appears that there should be a way to search this if it was
done through a word processor and other property owners received it. But it
might have come through another department or even from the Board of
Commissioners.
Transcription of Audio Recording of a Public Hearing, June 9, 1987 Page 3 of 6
The letter concerns Reed Market Road and not 15th Street. This needs to be
figured out. Mr. 'sham thought that this property was subject to a prior
conditional use application or site plan permit, when it was converted from a
house to a church. This might have been related to the improvement of Reed
Market Road.
Mr. Throop asked for an explanation of what the contents of the letter mean. Mr.
Isham said the hearing is on the condition of approval, and the applicants want
this condition removed based on a document that cannot be found. Mr. Throop
wants to understand what the letter the others received actually means to the
County. Mr. Isham feels that the prior conditional use permit file should be
entered into the record as well. It might clarify what was expected from this
property owner in the future.
Mr. Isham referred to a letter dated January 7, 1986, addressed to Joe Barto, one
of the property owners in that area. The letter talked about improving the road
from the railroad to Fargo Lane. It said there would not be any type of
assessment made on the property owners for the cost of the project, nor would
there be any improvement requirements.
Mr. Isham stated that $25,000 had been budgeted for right of way acquisition. In
response to that, the then Public Works manager engaged in somewhat a quid
pro quo for additional right of way, to save some costs. There might have been
an understanding that the right of way would count towards the property owner
not having to put in any additional facilities, such as sidewalks. Whether this
constituted a commitment on the part of the County is not known.
Early in the Reed Market Road project, the 15th Street part of it was dropped due
to cost. There was a lot more property acquisition needed than was anticipated.
The letter refers to the Reed Market Road project and could have been the reason
for a certain understanding by property owners.
There is also a letter on file that went to the Nottingham Road Homeowners'
Association, and they are located off 15th Street, so it obviously applied to both
Reed Market Road and 15th Street.
Transcription of Audio Recording of a Public Hearing, June 9, 1987
Page 4 of 6
Right of way was acquired along 15th Street about the same time. However, it is
not known if everyone received the same letter. The 15th Street project might be
years away.
Mr. Billeau, past president of Nottingham Square HOA, testified that he was told
by the Road Department that 15th Street would be improved, affecting 1,300 feet
of their property. Plans were presented that it would be widened and would
include curbs and sidewalks. He still has a copy of the plans and the letters from
the County.
The HOA had to have 2/3 of the property owners approve deeding any lands. The
County was very cooperative and letters were sent to all the property owners.
They were advised that the road would be widened, some of the ups and downs
in the road would be leveled, and that there would be bike paths, curbs and
sidewalks. They were led to believe that the project would occur within a couple
of years and there were be no cost to the property owners. The letters are from
1985, and one was from the County Engineer. This was supposedly done with the
knowledge of the Commissioners.
They deeded property over to the County with the understanding that the work
would be done within a reasonable time. It appears now that this might never get
done. They took out some of the landscaping and signs to accommodate this
work. Then, at some point, the County decided that the project was too costly.
This in direct violation of everything the County told them. (Mr. Billeau provided
copies of the letters and the map at this time.)
Mr. Maudlin said he would like to see two weeks' time allotted for the Board to
get all the necessary information. Obviously they need to see the letter or letters
that are being referenced, and need to further investigate what department the
letters came from, and who they went to.
Anyone who has new information or material to submit will be able to testify at
the continuation. The hearing was continued to June 19 at 10 AM. A site visit
will occur on June 11 at 9 AM.
Transcription of Audio Recording of a Public Hearing, June 9, 1987 Page 5 of 6
I certify that the above is a true and accurate record of a meeting, as reproduced from a
cassette tape identified as Minutes of a Public Hearing of the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners, held on June 9, 1987. This record was completed subsequent to the presiding
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners' tenure.
Bonnie Baker
For the Board of County Commissioners
Transcription of Audio Recording of a Public Hearing, June 9, 1987 Page 6 of 6