1989-34001-Minutes for Meeting December 13,1989 Recorded 12/21/1989tall 01573
MICROFlIWED
89-34001 PUBLIC HEARING JAN _ 4 1990
ADDRESSING ORDINANCE 89-010 r
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONER i..;
December 13, 1989 - rl
Chair Prante opened the public hearing at 3 p.m. Board members in
attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Lois Bristow Prante.
Also present were Karen Green, Community Development Director and
Ed Pecoraro, Property Address Coordinator.
Ed Pecoraro reported that he was responsible for issuing all new
addresses and correcting all incorrect addresses in the
unincorporated areas of Deschutes County. He said the current
addressing ordinance was adopted in 1974 and was just a couple of
pages long. The adoption of Ordinance 89-010 would supplement and
clarify the existing ordinance. The main objective of the new
ordinance was to have a more accurate and consistent addressing
system which would benefit emergency services, businesses,
residents, and visitors to Deschutes County. Because of the growth
that was currently taking place in the County, he felt it was
important to have a consistent and accurate addressing system. He
said the main reason for the ordinance was to help emergency
services to quickly locate the people who needed their help. He
said they had been working on the ordinance for the last ten months
and had solicited input from various Planning Departments, the
Planning Commission, emergency services, and other agencies.
Proposed Ordinance 89-010 was a culmination of all the input, and
he felt it was a very comprehensive and complete ordinance.
Ed Pecoraro said that the ordinance would not apply within the City
boundaries of Bend, Redmond or Sisters, and did not apply to the
Redmond Fire District which had its own addressing system. There
was an agreement, however, with the Redmond Fire District stating
that Deschutes County would issue the addresses for their district
in accordance with their addressing system. He said it was not the
intent of the ordinance to change all the addresses or road names
in Deschutes County. They were only trying to correct the
incorrect addresses, change the misleading ones, and eliminate some
of the duplicate or similar sounding road names.
He said there were four major parts to the new ordinance which were
not covered in the old ordinance: (1) address correction; (2) road
name changes; (3) the naming of unnamed roads; and (4) the posting
of address numbers.
He said that some incorrect addresses had been given out and needed
to be corrected, i.e. even address numbers on the north and east
sides of the road and the odd address numbers on the south and west
sides of the road. He said there were also places where the
numbers were out of sequence making them difficult to locate.
PAGE 1 PUBLIC HEARING: 12/13/89
0~)3 0574
He said one of their greatest problems was with duplicate and
similar sounding road names in the County which often caused
confusion. For example, there were six "1st Streets," three in
Sunriver and two in LaPine. He said there were situations where
three emergency vehicles had to be sent out to make sure that the
correct location was found. There were also numerous "Pine"
streets, lanes, drives, etc. He said they did not propose changing
all of these street names. They would review each one on an
individual basis with emergency services and the postal service to
see which ones were causing confusion and problems. He pointed out
that when people needed emergency services, they were upset and
would often give an incorrect or incomplete address.
He said another item the ordinance covered was the naming of
unnamed roads (private drives or easements where there were three
or more residences). There were several dirt and gravel roads in
the County that had never had a name because they were basically
easements or driveways. Besides helping emergency services, naming
them would help the Clerk's Office send out the correct notices.
The Clerk's Office had found situations where, due to a long
driveway, the address was in one voting district and the residence
was in another district.
The ordinance would help them clarify roads that were known by
several different names. He gave the examples of Arnold Market
Road and Nichols Market Road.
He said the new ordinance would also require that address numbers
be clearly posted so when emergency vehicles found the correct
road, they could quickly locate the proper house.
He knew that changing people's addresses would be inconvenient for
them, however he felt the benefit of quicker response times from
emergency services would outweigh that inconvenience.
Karen Lansdowne, 15757 Rim Drive or Road, LaPine said the street
sign in her area said Rim Drive on one side and Rim Road on the
other. She said they had a wildfire a couple of years ago which
the LaPine Fire Department probably could have contained to a
couple of acres if the roads had been correctly named on the map
they were using. They were driving up and down Dorance Meadow Road
which was identified as Rim Lane on their maps. The fire was on
Rim Drive, and they just couldn't find where to turn off. They
finally had to bring in fire trucks from Prineville to help contain
the fire.
Millard Sayles, 54794 Wolf, Sunriver, Deschutes River Recreation
Homesites, said he had been in the area since 1964. He said he had
two separate addresses on his tax statements--one saying 4th Street
and one saying Wolf Street. He wanted to know if he would be
notified in advance if a change was being made in the name of his
street. He was assured he would be notified.
PAGE 2 PUBLIC HEARING: 12/13/89
u9,4 0575
Charles Traschsel, 68755 George Cyrus Road, Cloverdale Fire Chief
and Chairman of the Deschutes County 9-1-1 User Board, said he was
involved in the formation of the original ordinance which directed
the Planning Department to put in a numbering system without any
direction of how to do it. He felt the confusion started when
several people held the addressing position had made different
interpretations of the addressing plan. The new ordinance would
put the specifics of the addressing plan in writing which would,
therefore, not allow for much difference in interpretation. He
said the new ordinance gave the County the authority to correct
past errors. He said he kept track of at least 30 incorrect house
numbers throughout his district. He recalled one instance when a
woman called in a house fire and when asked what the house number
was, she couldn't remember. She had to look on some mail she had
received before she could give the number. He said during an
emergency, people were upset and confused and often gave the wrong
information. He felt the new ordinance clarified the addressing
system and gave the county authority to correct the errors that
were already out there. He said house number signs on access
drives were also essential. The Redmond Fire Department was the
first to have a program for posting house numbers out on the
streets. He said the area was not entirely covered since it was
a "pay as you go" program, but there were enough signs in the area
to help emergency services identify where any unmarked drives
should be. He also mentioned his frustration with subdivisions
that had circle or loop streets. He felt there would be no way to
facilitate emergency service access in these areas, and that circle
or loop streets should be scrutinized closely before any more were
approved by the county.
Dick Hines, 19939 Fir Lane, Tumalo, felt the proposed ordinance was
needed. He said Tumalo had duplicate street names with other areas
in Deschutes County. He urged that when the county starting making
some changes that overlapping areas (i.e. Bend School District--
Redmond address) that addresses be looked at closely. There was
often inconsistency and confusion where one addressing system ended
and another began.
Linda Talifson, 1560 NW 5th, telecommunications supervisor at 9-1-1
said they had 1,200 to 1,500 duplicate or similarly named streets.
She urged that people be required to post their house numbers. She
said many small children did not know their house numbers, and
there was no way for the children to find them if they weren't
posted anywhere. She said for every minute the Fire Department was
delayed added another $1,000 to the cost of the fire. She felt
this ordinance would save time and the lives of citizens as well
as emergency services people.
Larry Rice, Deschutes County Public Works Director, supported the
Ordinance as drafted and commended the staff for their hard work.
Commissioner Maudlin asked if a group of neighbors worked together
PAGE 3 PUBLIC HEARING: 12/13/89
0576
to put up a sign on the main access driveway into a developed area,
would they be allowed to place the sign in the access road right
of way? Larry Rice said he felt the Public Works Department would
allow placement of a sign in the road right of way since the
individuals putting up the sign would not own the property where
the sign would need to be placed. He said there would be many
instances where the signs would have to be located in the road
right-of-way in order for emergency vehicles to see them. He said
they would also want to look at the signs from a safety standpoint.
He said Public Works would work with Ed Pecoraro to help produce
some of the more complicated signs.
Karen Lansdowne, 15757 Rim Drive, LaPine, suggested that when the
county started deciding which road names to change that they
consider the number of "residences" on each road instead of the
number of "properties" on each road, since many of the properties
might be undeveloped and, therefore, a name change would not create
as much of an inconvenience.
No one wished to speak in opposition to the ordinance.
Chair Prante closed the Public Hearing.
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Lois Bri tow Prante, Chair
V"' I
To Throop, Commissioner
Di k Maudlin, Commissioner
BOCC:alb
PAGE 4 PUBLIC HEARING: 12/13/89
