Loading...
1989-25639-Minutes for Meeting September 13,1989 Recorded 10/4/1989y~3 89-25639 MINUTES *SCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS September 13, 1989 Chair Prante called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. Board members present were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Lois Bristow Prante. Also present were Rick Isham, County Legal Counsel; Karen Green, Community Development Director; George Read, Planning Director. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Consent agenda items before the Board were: #1, signature of Intergovernmental Agreement with the Department of Environmental Quality regarding waste tire disposal; #2, signature of agreements with Redmond School District and Sisters School District for food service inspections; #3, signature of mylar for Awbrey Butte Homesites Phase 11; #4, acceptance of Declaration of Dedication from the Gills for Tyler Road realignment; #5, signature of SRI contract for Teen Parent Program; #6, appointment of Ray Bennett to the Historic Landmarks Commission; #7, chair signature of liquor license renewals for 7-Eleven Food Store, Canyon Club Restaurant/Eagle Crest and, LaPine Mini Mart and Liquor License Application for Marcello's Italian Cuisine; #8, signature of Order 89-079 budgeted cash transfers; #9, signature of Resolution 89-081 transferring appropriations within various funds; #10, signature of Tax Refund Order 89-078; #11, signature of MP- 89-26 for Robert and Marcia Smith. THROOP: I move approval of the eleven consent agenda items. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON FORMATION OF THE LAPINE PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT Rick Isham stated that this was the first public hearing on the formation of the LaPine Parks and Recreation District. It was initiated by petition of electors within the area that was described in the legal description with the petition. The proposed district map encompasses the area south of sunriver. The questions of whether or not to form the district or to adjust the boundaries were the issues of the public hearing. The final public hearing would be to determine if an election would be held on the question of formation. He said he did PAGE 1 MINUTES: 9/13/89 receive one inquiry on the procedure to be followed to withdraw from the district. He advised that individual to appear at this public hearing to show why he would not be benefited by inclusion in the district which was the test under the statute. The Planning Division had reviewed the proposal and found it met all land use requirements. Norm Hale, 16105 Jack Pine Road, LaPine, spoke in favor of forming the district. He said the boundaries were similar to the Fire District boundaries but were squared off at the section lines. He said they would start out with just a park in LaPine, but in the future would like to put a park in the northern section of the proposed district. He said the district would start using donations and fees from activities, i.e. baseball, soccer, basketball, etc., and would not be asking for tax support until later. He felt the parks would benefit all groups--children, families, senior citizen; and that it was important to run the park district from LaPine, by the local citizens. They would like to develope a community park with picnic tables, sprinklers, bike paths and walking paths, improve the building, and pave the parking lot. He felt it would bring in more tourism to the downtown area. They would start with two parcels of land, the White school and the land around it and the County-owned Community Park, which they would ask be donated to the new park district. Robert Shotwell, 1513 Riverland Avenue, LaPine, spoke in support of the park district. He said there was no elected representation in the LaPine area, and he felt that once an elected board was established, LaPine would have a greater voice in the economic development of southern Deschutes County. He felt the parks were needed for youth and elderly activities. He said people who wanted to be excluded from the district should do so after the district was formed. He felt that the number of signers on the petition represented the thinking of the residents. When questioned, he said the petitions were gathered in the downtown LaPine area and didn't know the geographical distribution of the signers. Grace Toole, 16367 Leona Lane, LaPine, spoke in favor of the district. She felt that it was needed for the 4th of July activities in LaPine. Joan Walter, 51801 Dorrance Meadow Road, LaPine spoke in favor of the district. She said she was a parent and substitute teacher and felt that students needed more activities to channel their energy. No one wished to speak in opposition to the formation of the district. PAGE 2 MINUTES: 9/13/89 William DePiazza, 50015 Collar Drive, LaPine, was concerned that taxes would be needed after a couple of years. Commissioner Prante explained that if any tax money were to be requested by the District, the members of the district would have the opportunity to vote on the issue. He felt the meeting should have been held in LaPine so that more people would have attended. Chair Prante continued the public hearing to September 27, at 7:00 p.m. in the LaPine Community Park Building. 3. RESOLUTION 89-076 ACCEPTING PETITION TO VACATE 27TH STREET IN TERREBONNE AND ORDER 89-069 SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING Before the Board was signature of Resolution 89-076, accepting the petition to vacate 27th Street in Terrebonne and accepting the Engineer's report, and signature of Order 89-069 setting a public hearing for October 25 at 10:00 a.m. THROOP: I'll move signature of Resolution 89-076 and Order 89-069. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 4. RESOLUTION 89-075 ACCEPTING PETITION TO VACATE A PORTION OF ARNOLD ROAD AND ORDER 89-066 SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING Before the Board was signature of Resolution 89-075 accepting the petition to vacate a portion of Arnold Market Road and accepting the Engineer's report, and signature of Order 89- 066 setting a public hearing for October 25 at 10:00 a.m. THROOP: Move approval. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 5. RESOLUTION 89-078 ACCEPTING PETITION TO VACATE MILL ROAD AND ORDER 89-071 SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING Before the Board was signature of Resolution 89-078 accepting the petition to vacate Mill Road and accepting the Engineer's report, and signature of Order 89-071 setting a public hearing for October 25 at 10:00 a.m. PAGE 3 MINUTES: 9/13/89 3.~u 6. 7. 8. PRANTE: Entertain a motion. THROOP: Move approval. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES AWARD OF BID FOR CONCRETE ON SOUTHWEST LANDFILL TRANSFER STATION Before the Board was approval of the low bid of $100,561 from Bend Concrete Service for concrete work for the transfer station recycle center slab and the stem wall and footer for the attendant building at Southwest Landfill. THROOP: I'll move approval of the award of the bid for concrete for Southwest Landfill Transfer Station with the understanding that there will be some negotiations that will reduce that amount by roughly $10,000. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES BUSINESS LOAN TO WILSON PRECAST PRODUCTS THROOP: I'll move that the consideration of the approval for business loan to Wilson Precast Products be deferred to a week from today at 10:00 a.m. to give us all a chance to look at the financials. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES MENTAL HEALTH CONTRACT WITH SANDRA RICKON, SPEECH THERAPIST Before the Board was signature of a Mental Health Contract with Sandra Rickon, speech therapist, contingent upon County Counsel approving the insurance. THROOP: I'll move signature of the contract with the speech therapist contingent upon counsel approval of insurance. PAGE 4 MINUTES: 9/13/89 O C96 li88 7 MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 9. WELCOME CENTER LEASE Before the Board was signature of the Welcome Center Lease among the County, City of Bend, and Bend Chamber of Commerce. MAUDLIN: Move signature of the lease. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 10. WEEKLY WARRANT VOUCHERS Before the Board was approval of weekly bills in the amount of $126,054.88. THROOP: Move approval of the warrant vouchers subject to review. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 11. AMENDING AUGUST 23, 1989 COMMISSION MINUTES Before the Board was a request from Doug Mollet, Midstate Electric to amend Item #15 of the August 23, 1989, Deschutes County Board of Commissioners minutes to his suggested wording which is attached. MAUDLIN: I move the amendment to the minutes. THROOP: I'll second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 5 MINUTES: 9/13/89 96 1888 12. RESOLUTION 89-083 TRANSFERRING PROPERTY TO BEND METRO PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT Before the Board was signature of Resolution 89-083 declaring the County's intent to transfer property to the Bend Metro Park and Recreation District without consideration and setting a public hearing for October 4 at 10:00 a.m. THROOP: I'd like to move that this Board's intent is to transfer this real property located west of Century Drive to the Bend Metro Park and Recreation District and to also approve Resolution 89-083 which establishes this public hearing on Wednesday, October 4. MAUDLIN: I'll second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 13. MP 88-36 FOR LLOYD AND PAMELA BURKS Before the Board was signature of MP-88-36 for Floyd and Pamela Burks. THROOP: I'll move signature. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 14. PLAT FOR PHASE I OF LANE KNOLLS ESTATES Before the Board was signature of a Plat for Phase I of Lane Knolls Estates. THROOP: Move signature. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 15. LOG HAULERS FOR COMMUNITY WORK PROJECTS Dennis Maloney said they were considering a personal services contract with a log hauler to bring logs to the landfill site where they would be cut and sold as a Community Corrections PAGE 6 MINUTES: 9/13/89 16. 17. Work Project. Rick Isham pointed out that the log haulers would need to have their own Workers Compensation insurance or the County would be responsible for them in case of an accident. It was decided to postpone this issue until the next week's work session while alternatives were investigated. APPEAL OF STAFF DENIAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT FOR MIRE MCDANIEL Before the Board was an appeal of a staff denial of a building permit for a 2,610 sq.ft. building in an RS, Standard Density Residential Zone at 20106 SW Reed Lane. Commissioner Prante said that the Board visited the site and felt that if he could get a written statement from the surrounding property owners who would be directly impacted by the building,, indicating they were not opposed to the building, the Board would support the issuance of a building permit. Commissioner Maudlin said he would allow the building subject to the receipt of the letters. MAUDLIN: I would move that we allow the building to be placed subject to the receipt of written permission by the property owners of the two homes immediately to the east and the property to the north and west which is owned by one person. THROOP: I'll second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES PUBLIC HEARING: LOT OF RECORD DETERMINATION FOR THE ATRINS Before the Board was a public hearing on an appeal of the Hearings Officer's decision on a request for a Lot of Record Determination. The attorney for the appellant, Greg Hendrix, indicated there was confusion regarding the time of the Public Hearing, and his client would not be available until 1:30 p.m. that day. Chair Prante postponed the public hearing until 1:30 p.m. PAGE 7 MINUTES: 9/13/89 9 ! .890 18. ADOPTION OF DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMUNITY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES COMMISSION PROPOSAL Ernie Mazorol, Judge Mosgrove, and Bill Lindeman came before the Board to recommend adoption of the Community Children and Youth Services Commission Proposal. Ernie Mazorol said the proposal had broad-based community support, support of the Children's Network, and addressed the provisions of HB 3466. He asked that the Board adopt the plan and appoint the commission by November 1, 1989. He said that the Networking group would be a good place to get a broad spectrum of nominations. Judge Mosgrove requested that he be involved in the appointment process with the Commission. Commissioner Throop suggested that Chair Prante, as the liaison to the Health and Human Services Division, take the lead on behalf of the Commission in compiling a list of potential appointees. PRANTE: We'll entertain a motion to adopt today. MAUDLIN: I so move. THROOP: I'll second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 19. OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL REQUEST FROM CLERK'S OFFICE Before the Board was approval of an out-of-state travel request from the Clerk's office to attend a training conference in Seattle. The trip was mandatory if the Clerk's office wanted to continue issuing passports. MAUDLIN: Move approval of out-of-state travel. THROOP: Second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chair Prante closed the meeting until the 1:30 Public Hearing. 20. PUBLIC HEARING ON LOT OF RECORD DETERMINATION FOR THE ATKINS Chair Prante opened the public hearing at 1:30 p.m. Board members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Lois Bristow Prante. Also present were Karen Green, Community Development Department Director, and George Read, Planning Director. PAGE 8 MINUTES: 9/13/89 ~ ~jA.891 Karen Green said the Hearings Officer denied the Legal Lot Application which affirmed the previous Planning Director's administrative decision denying the Legal Lot Application. She said it was a single lot application, but the decision would impact any of the nonrecognized lots in the subdivision. It was an unrecorded subdivision, and the only document on file was the survey that had been filed with the Surveyor. The issue she felt the Board needed to determine was whether or not the lots were created as required by the Lot of Record Ordinance by the filing of the survey in 1963. The Ordinance said that for it to be a legal lot, it had to have been "created, " and under the ordinance, the filing of a survey did not "create" a legal lot. She said there were several tracts within the subdivision that had been recognized because they were sold as a parcel prior to the subdivision partition ordinance taking effect in 1979, or because they were issued some type of permit, even if in error. Commissioner Throop pointed out that it was not through the Board of Commissioner's initiative that the Lot of Record ordinance - had been adopted, but because it was required in order to conform with state law. The County Ordinance had been acknowledged by LCDC as in conformance with the state land use goals and rules. Karen Green pointed out that even if there were zoning changes on a legal lot, the most recent zoning, not the zoning in effect at the time of creation of the legal lot, would control. Greg Hendrix, Attorney for Eloise Atkins, adamantly disagreed with Karen Green's interpretation of the issue. He submitted a letter from a Sisters realty firm indicating the lots were marketable and needed. He preferred to speak of the area as "a recorded survey partition" instead of an "unrecorded subdivision." He said that in 1963, a subdivision of five acres or more could not be recorded with the County Clerk's office. County law existing at the time said the partition must be recorded with the County Surveyor which was done in 1963, which gave notice of their intention to develop the lots. The only other state law requirement was that a developer had to file with the Oregon Real Estate Division and show that there was an intention to develop under the Real Estate Division laws, which the Atkins did. He said that nothing else was required in 1963. He felt that the cases cited in the staff reports were not related to the situation under appeal to the Board. He mentioned that the Atkins had also been paying taxes on all of the lots as divided in 1963. He said that there were subdivisions surrounding the property in question, and that no one had come forward in opposition to partitioning of area. His client made an offer that if the PAGE 9 MINUTES: 9/13/89 r x.;.'146 892 Board recognized these lots and wanted to put a condition on the recognition, they would be willing, by lot line adjustment, to make sure that every parcel was at least 10 acres so that they would at least conform with the RR10 zoning in the area. They would also be willing to work with Fish and Wildlife on fencing and dog control, and place deed restrictions notifying the purchaser that no roads other than those currently existing would be built or maintained by the County or the developer. Larry Atkins, son of the property owner, testified that his father originally developed the property. In 1982 he had an Oregon real estate license, and they complied with the state and county laws in effect at the time. He said when his father died about 15 years ago, he advised his mother to keep the parcels in question off the market to sell for her retirement. He said they had been paying taxes on the individual lots. He did not know anything about the new zoning until someone came into the Planning Department who was interested in building on one of the concerned lots and was told they were not legal lots. He said the approximate appraised value of the lots was $10,000. The total acres left are approximately 125-130 acres. He said it has been and would be a real hardship on his mother, if they were unable to sell the lots. Karen Green stated that even if the property owner had done everything that was required at the time they recorded a subdivision, if the zoning laws subsequently changed and there was no vested use on the lot, the new zoning laws would prevail. There was no contract created between the property owner and the local government, guaranteeing that the rules wouldn't change if the property was held and zoning changes were made. She said that the Ludwig case spoke to the fact that filed surveys were not a permanent lot designation. In response to the attorney's suggestion that they would be willing to do a lot line adjustment to create 10-acre lots, she said there was no lot line to adjust since there was only one lot line for the entire area. She said there might be configurations that would be legal under the RR 10 and Wildlife area combining zone, i.e. clustering of dwellings. George Read testified that cluster developments allowed density of housing to one unit per 7.5 acres with the housing close together and major areas of open space. He said it was an involved process that specified how the common area was to be maintained. Commissioner Maudlin pointed out that it would then come under the subdivision ordinance and the developer would have to provide roads, power, and water. PAGE 10 MINUTES: 9/13/89 .r .t,.6 8 9 3 Greg Hendrix said that one of the reasons he felt the staff was incorrect was because of ORS 92.017 which stated that "a lot or parcel lawfully created shall remain a distinct lot or parcel unless the lot or parcel lines are changed or vacated or the lot or parcel is further divided as provided by law." Commissioner Throop asked Karen Green to respond to the law quoted by Greg Hendrix. Karen Green said her interpretation of the statue was that if you had a lawful created lot, it stayed a lawfully created lot; and the question before the Board was whether the lot was lawfully created. She said the Board was bound to follow Deschutes County's current legal lot ordinance which was duly adopted and acknowledged. That ordinance did not recognize lots created by a survey. The local jurisdiction had the authority to change the conditions under which you could develop a parcel unless a vested use had been established. Commissioner Maudlin indicated that he'd like to have another a week to study the case. Chair Prante closed the public hearing and announced that the decision would be postponed until 9 a.m. on Wednesday, September 20. DESCHUTES CO TY BOARD COMMISSIONERS Lois B ow Prante, Chair ~flll I Tom hroop, Commissioner Di Mau lin, Commissioner BOCC:alb PAGE 11 MINUTES: 9/13/89 RECEIVED S E P 1 1 1989 Ans'd............ ' S i, 15. L6 PINE INDUSTRIAL COMMITTEE PROPOSAL FOR POWER AT L6 PINE INDUSTRIAL PARK A Midstate Electric representative came before the Board to discuss a proposal made by the La Pine Industrial Committee to provide power to developing sites at the County-owned La Pine Industrial Park. The proposal said that Midstate Electric would provide power to the industrial park as a community orientated project if the County would agree to be the collection agency and to reimburse Midstate Electric for their costs upon sale of the lots or at the end of ten years. If Midstate Electric had not been fully compensated at the end of 10 years, the County could then renegotiate the remaining payment with Midstate. The Board felt that the committees proposal was very reasonable and community oriented. Midstate had estimated the costs associated with adding power to the developing sites at $18,000, however before an agreement were signed, actual cost figures would be determined and become a part of the agreement. The Board asked that upon approval of the proposal by the Midstate Board, Midstate work with Deschutes County's Counsel to proceed with the preparation of a contract to finalize these discussions.