Loading...
1990-14580-Minutes for Meeting May 16,1990 Recorded 5/24/199090-14580 MINUTES 1 54 DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS May 16, 1990 I OF Chair Throop opened the meeting at 10 a.m. Board members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Lois Bristow Prante. Also present were: Karen Green, Community Development Director; Rick Isham, County Counsel; George Read, Planning Director; Bruce White, Assistant Legal Counsel; Roger Everett, Environmental Health Director; Paul Blikstad, Planner; and Larry Rice, Public Works Director. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Consent agenda items before the Board were: #1, signature of Development Agreement for Les Schwab Tire Center; #2, signature of Easement from setback exception for the Leo R. Bill Family Trust; #3, reappointment of JoAnn Gould and Mary Anne DeWitte to DRRH Unit 6 Vector Control District Board of Directors; #4, signature of Refund Order 90-069; #5, signature of Order 90-069 correcting an entry on Tax Refund Order 90- 058; #6, chair signature of liquor license application for Famous Brooklyn Bar & Restaurant; #7, signature of MP-89-33 to create two 20-acre parcels off Innes Market Road; ,,,,#8, signature of MP-88-43 to create two lots on Plainviw* Ro~id. PRANTE: Move consent agenda. _ MAUDLIN: Second. -,r a VOTE: PRANTE: YES _ THROOP : YES MAUDLIN: YES 2. UPDATE ON CLEAN AIR COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES Dennis Hanson said he was delighted to report on what was happening with the Clean Air Campaign. He said a recent survey revealed that 25% of Bend's population had changed its wood-burning habits last winter because of the "Clear the Air" public education campaign. He said people were becoming increasingly aware of the deterioration of the local air quality and were taking personal steps to halt the down slide. The "Clear the Air" media campaign and the surveys were sponsored by the Clean Air Committee with help from Deschutes County, the American Lung Association, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Given the brief time between the November and the March surveys, they were surprised to see the dramatic change. He said compared to the original study in November, the March survey showed that Central Oregonians PAGE 1 MINUTES: 5-16-90 in large numbers were become thoughtful about how they used wood burning stoves. 25% said they had changed the way that they burned firewood, 19% said they now burned dryer wood, 19% burned less wood, 15% were using new wood burning equipment to cut down on the amount of smoke. 80% of local residents were willing to curb burning entirely on high pollution days which was a 13% increase over the November study. They were able to reach 68% of the population during the media campaign. He said the Clean Air Committee did plan to focus on other sources of Central Oregon's air problems in the future, including slash and field burning, automobile and industrial emissions. He said Bend was close to exceeding Federal Air Pollution Standards, particularly during the winter months. He said if no action was taken, Bend would likely drift into Federal noncompliance during the 1990s when the Federal Government and the State could force some costly mandatory curtailment standards. He said the Clean Air Committee included representatives from local, state, and federal government, area physicians, the Chamber of Commerce, CORA and the Oregon Lung Association. 3. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: DESCHUTES COUNTRY STORE Chair Throop reviewed what he felt was the consensus agreement reached. He said the BP sign and the current wood Deschutes Country Store sign would be moved to the same location, with the store sign on the bottom and the BP sign on the top. The sign would have no internal illumination but could be externally illuminated. He said circulation would require a one way entrance and exit from the store. The canopy over the gas island would have the same architectural style and color scheme as the existing store. The left turn lane into the store on Baker Road would not be required. Before proceeding the applicant would have to get a sign permit from Deschutes County. Chair Throop opened the continued public hearing and asked for testimony. Dave Jordan, owner of the River Woods Country Store, agreed with Commissioner Throop's explanation of the consensus agreement. Dennis McKenna said he also agreed with Commissioner Throop's assessment of the agreement. He said they had measured the new location for the combined sign at 50 to 70 feet from the east of the existing sign. Commissioner Throop asked if there had been a limit on the height of the new sign. It was decided that since the BP sign was six feet tall and the store sign was three, then the sign height limit should be 10 feet. PAGE 2 MINUTES: 5-16-90 Commissioner Throop asked if this combined sign would be considered one sign or two under the ordinance. Rick Isham felt that the language in the agreement did need to be reworked. Paul Blikstad felt that the combined sign would be considered one sign. Larry Kimmel testified they intended to use the existing River Woods Store ground mounted wood sign posts to also support the BP sign. There would only be one support for the entire sign. Duane Clark asked if all of the other conditions were part of the agreement also. Commissioner Throop said yes. Dennis McKenna said they did not want to see any existing trees removed. Commissioner Throop asked what the boundary of the landscape management zone was. Paul Blikstad said it did cover the whole site because the landscape management zone was one- quarter mile from Highway 97. Dave Jordan said he did have to remove one tree near the gas island, but that he would be planting thirty new trees. Paul Blikstad said he felt that met the intent of the landscape management zone. Commissioner Throop said that the agreement was that there would be no tree removal associated with moving the signs. Mr. Jordan agreed with that. He said he had two other trees in the parking lot that had been girdled by cars and were dying and would eventually have to be removed. Commissioner Throop said he felt the Board was now in a position to approve, in concept, the decision including the nine conditions which were established while amending #2 to be ten feet rather than nine feet and also adding a provision which would speak to no tree removal in conjunction with the location of the sign. PRANTE: So moved. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 4. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE 90-018 ALLOWING DOG KENNELS AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN EFU ZONES George Read had given a staff report at the previous public hearing, so he only gave a short report for purposes of this hearing. He said this Ordinance would allow kennels in exclusive farm use zone as a conditional use subject to PAGE 3 MINUTES: 5-16-90 iJ X " s numerous criteria and standards involving review, i.e. impacts on surrounding agricultural uses, access to the site, parking, noise. Chair Throop opened the public hearing. Madeline Davis said she was in favor of the ordinance. She said she was a professional dog trainer, and she had to do the training by traveling to the dog owners' homes. She would like to be able to bring the dogs to her home. She said her family owned about a 150-acre circle of land in an EFU-20 zone. Commissioner Throop said he realized that the 1989 legislature changed state law to give counties the option to allow dog kennels as a conditional use in EFU zones. However, he had some concerns about allowing kennels in all EFU zones. George Read said the original application was just for EFU-20. The staff suggested that it be expanded to EFU-40 because EFU-20 tended to be developed farm land while EFU-40 tended to be land that had very little farm use. The Planning Commission had expanded it to all EFU zones after considerable debate. They felt that the larger zones had even less potential for conflict. Commissioner Prante pointed out as a conditional use, each case would be reviewed on its own merits. If the kennel was detrimental to the area, the conditional use would no be approved. Commissioner Maudlin said he didn't feel the land was that valuable and didn't feel it made much difference in which EFU zones the kennels were allowed. Commissioner Throop asked what issues would be considered during a conditional use application for a kennel. George Read said immediate and future impacts on public services, including existing road services, traffic demands, soil types, development limitations, erosion, development compatibility with existing land use patterns and character of the area, an ESEE analysis had to be done, and retention of class 1-6 soils. Commissioner Throop asked how large of a facility could be approved? George Read said they would not be limited in size by the ordinance but could be through the limits of the conditional use. He said they could limit size, hours of operation, characteristics of the building, color of the building, etc. He said the state of the art kennel was enclosed where reduced the barking dog problem. He said that the person who proposed the amendment to the ordinance wanted to put in a kennel. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the ordinance amendment but recommended denial of the kennel because a quarter mile of easement went by a sheep PAGE 4 MINUTES: 5-16-90 4° tit farm, and they felt that was too great of an impact. Chair Throop closed the public hearing. PRANTE: I would move first and second reading of 90-018 allowing dog kennels as a conditional use in EFU zones by title only. MAUDLIN: Second. Commissioner Throop said he would support the ordinance but that it was a close call for him, and he wanted the conditional use standards adhered to closely. He felt the potential for conflict was fairly high with this type of use. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES Chair Throop performed the first and second readings of Ordinance 90-018. PRANTE: Move adoption. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 5. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDER 90-036 VACATING TWO THIRTY FOOT EASEMENTS NEAR KUHLMAN ROAD Larry Rice reported that the Board had received a petition requesting the vacation of two, thirty foot easements off Kuhlman Road and had accepted the Engineer's report. Chair Throop opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone who wished to testify. Gene Moyer, petitioner, testified that this easement had been in existence for a number of years. He said it originally existed completely around his property. When the property behind him was sold to Commissioner Prante, he allowed a road to go through without objection, which opened up the back 40. He said the easement being vacated would require major bridges in order to be used as a road and would serve no purpose. He said that access to all of the properties in the area had been taken care of, and the vacation would be in the best interests of the adjoining property owners. He said it would also enhance the deer population in the area. He said he had planted 200 trees in the easement area. PAGE 5 MINUTES: 5-16-90 Wes Miller testified that he owned the property east of Gene Moyer, and that he was in agreement with the vacation. There being no one else who wished to testify, Chair Throop closed the public hearing. MAUDLIN: Move signature of Order 90-036. PRANTE: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 6. PUBLIC HEARING: RESOLUTION 90-024 ADOPTING AND CONTINUING FEES AND CHARGES FOR COUNTY SERVICES Chair Throop opened the public hearing and asked for a staff report. He also mentioned that the question of dog license fees was not finalized. Karen Green said she met with representatives from Central Oregon Builders Association and went through the fee proposal with them. They requested additional information on comparative tables of the current fees and proposed fees and some hypotheticals of how the proposed fees would affect the cost of permits for a particular house. She had compiled the information and was meeting with Dennis Luke of the Central Oregon Builders Association. She recommended that the Board leave the hearing open for a couple of weeks to give the building association an opportunity to look over the information and submit testimony. No one from the audience wished to testify. Chair Throop continued the public hearing until Wednesday, May 30, 1990 at 10 a.m. 7. ERNEST MONEY AGREEMENT WITH VINCENT AND MARTA BATHA Before the Board was signature of a Ernest Money Agreement with Vincent and Marta Batha for the purchase of a narrow strip of land from the County for $2,800. PRANTE: I'll move signature. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 6 MINUTES: 5-16-90 0 6 0 8. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR KIM WARD Before the Board was signature of a Development Agreement for Kim Ward. Paul Blikstad said that Kim Ward had applied for a modification of conditions to add ten holdover spaces to his existing RV Park on Brosterhaus. When the park was full, they would use these spaces until a space in the park opened up. He said there was no time limit on how long someone could stay in the holdover area, but that the area was gravel and close to the highway and neighbors and therefore not conducive to lengthy stays. PRANTE: I'll move signature. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 9. WEEKLY WARRANT VOUCHERS Before the Board was approval of the weekly bills in the amount of $176,157.72. PRANTE: Move approval upon review. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 10. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE BROADDUS' AND JAN VAN DEN BERG Before the Board was signature of a Development Agreement with the Broaddus' and Jan Van Den Berg for the Sisters RV Park. PRANTE: Move signature. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 11. APPROVAL OF CYSC PROGRAMS Before the Board was a request from Rosie Bareis, CYSC Director, for the Board to send a letter of approval of the two CYSC programs to the State Children and Youth Services Commission. PAGE 7 MINUTES: 5-16-90 PRANTE: I would move the letter. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 12. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO ZONE ORDINANCE REGARDING RIVER SETBACK EXCEPTION CRITERIA George Read gave the staff report. He said the proposal before the Board was from the Deschutes County Planning Commission and amended the river setback exception criteria. He said there currently was a 100 ft. setback from the river outside of the urban growth boundaries in Deschutes County. He said in 1983 an amendment was made to that 100 ft. setback to allow exceptions in certain situations. There were numerous lots in the County that were small and had difficulty meeting the 100 ft. setback, and there were problems with administering those exceptions. He said the first problem was that there was no initial review of septic system placement, which generally caused the need for a setback exception. Since the septic system had to be placed 100 ft. from the river, it could be placed on the only building site that was 100 ft. from the river. The dwelling could have met the 100 ft. setback if the septic system had been placed in a different location. The Planning Commission proposed that the septic system placement be reviewed as part of the landscape management review required on all lots within 200 ft. of the river. He said the second problem was that the present criteria allowed consideration of existing vegetation when obtaining a setback exception. This criteria did not state whether or not it had to be "significant vegetation." There had been a policy in the County to require it to be "significant vegetation," but much of the uncertainty in obtaining a setback exception revolved around what was and was not "significant vegetation." He said one of the abuses was that the County had no regulation prior to application for a landscape management plan for the regulation of cutting vegetation along the river. So the vegetation could be cut along the river prior to application, leaving trees further away from the river. The lot owner would use the vegetation exception to place the home closer than the 100, setback. The Planning Commission decided that since the vegetation which was being protected by the ordinance was 100 ft. or more from the river, that it was not germane to an exception and proposed eliminating it as a criteria to be reviewed. It did not give rise to a hardship since the vegetation between the PAGE 8 MINUTES: 5-16-90 dwelling and the river wasn't the issue. He said the next problem had to do with dwellings. He said the exception criteria should pertain to dwellings not structures. The hardship was in placing the dwelling, not a boat house or garage. The proposal was to change the language to only allow exceptions for to dwellings. The next problem was the "tunnel vision" situation where there were dwellings on both sides of the lot which were located prior to the 100 ft. setback requirement and were, therefore, closer to the river. So requiring the middle lot owner to set back his dwelling 100 ft. from the river when the dwellings on both adjoining parcels were closer to the river, created a hardship. The new dwelling would look at the back of the existing dwellings. There currently was an exception in this circumstance but the present ordinance did not state how close the dwellings had to be on each side. So you might have a lot that had 300 ft. of frontage on each side, and it would still qualify for the exception even though there would not be a visual hardship. They proposed limiting that exception to dwelling units which were located within 40 ft. of the proposed dwelling. He said they were trying to make the ordinance more clear and objective, so it wouldn't be subject to so much interpretation, and lot owners would know what was allowed. He said applicants had to wade through the criteria and didn't know what their limits were. They were forced to guess based upon planning staff recommendations which were often called up by the Planning Commission for additional review which created a lot of difficulty for the applicants. He said the next problem was the depth of dwelling units. He said there was a case before the Board recently regarding a property where a dwelling was located so that the long dimension was toward the river. There was nothing in the ordinance which regulated the type or size of a dwelling, or the distance that the dwelling could extend toward the river. This allowed someone, who designed a bigger house or oriented their house in the direction of the river, to receive an unfair advantage over someone who tried to locate their dwelling as far from the river as possible. The Planning Staff recommended that no dwelling be allowed which was deeper than 40 ft. along the river. He said 99% of the lots had at least 80 ft. of width along the river. There was a 10 ft. required setback on each side and, therefore, a 60 ft. buildable area. A 40 ft. deep dwelling would allow a 2,400 sq. ft. single-story structure and a 4,800 sq. ft. two-story structure. They felt that was a reasonable limit and allowed reasonable use of the property without imposing too great of a burden. PAGE 9 MINUTES: 5-16-90 The next problem the Planning Commission had noted was the sand filter septic system option. He said if sand filter septic systems were required for lots along the river, there would be no need to have any exceptions on those lots, except maybe the tunnel vision exception, because these systems required only a 201x 20' area versus a conventional septic system which required a considerably larger area. However the sand filter system were very costly compared to a regular septic system. The Planning Commission felt that an option would be to have the initial system be a conventional septic system, but that the repair area require a sand filter system. This would reduce the equal size area necessary as a back up to the initial system to a 201x 20' square. That still would impose a potential expense liability when the initial system failed. The Planning Commission recommended that the sand filter system be used as the alternative system. However there was some concern that DEQ might not allow the County to regulate whether or not a certain system could be placed on a lot because that issue would be under the State's review. County Legal Counsel would be looking into this matter. He said the minimum extra distance that a dwelling would be able to be moved back from the river with a sand filter repair area would be 20 ft. to 25 ft. He said this change would not affect existing septic systems. George Read said the final issue, which the Planning Commission did not address, was the present criteria which were not allowed were clear and objective standards to use when siting a dwelling, i.e. the views from the river and the surrounding dwellings, and some other factors. He felt those criteria were addressed in the landscape management review, and therefore it would not adversely impact the river to remove those criteria. He suggested that the public hearing be left open to allow additional testimony so that they could have as much public input as possible before proceeding. Commissioner Throop asked what percentage of repairs occurred in the initial drain field area versus the percentage of repairs which had to go to the designated repair area. Roger Everett, Environmental Health Director, said that recent regulations required the use of the repair area whenever a failure occurred. Then the initial area would rest and recover to become the repair area should the second system fail. Commissioner Throop asked if there were failures that did not require moving to the new repair area? Roger Everett said yes, if the lot was a confined space which didn't have a designated repair area. If there was a designated repair area and a system failed, it had to go in the repair area. PAGE 10 MINUTES: 5-16-90 Commissioner Throop asked how frequently the initial septic system failed. Roger Everett said the life expectancy of a septic system was 15-20 years. Commissioner Prante asked if the life span of a sand filter was longer than a traditional system. Roger Everett said no. Commissioner Throop asked how frequently there were failures. Roger Everett said on newer installations there might be a 10% failure rate within 10 years. Commissioner Throop asked if changing the ordinance to require a sand filter system for the repair area would drive the Environmental Health Division to try to handle those repairs in the initial area because of the expense of putting in the sand filter system. Roger Everett said no, that under today's requirements, if there was a repair area established, they would be obligated to put the system into the repair area. He said that sand filter systems were approximately $8,000 and standard septic systems were approximately $2,500. Commissioner Throop opened the public hearing and asked for testimony. Roy Miller, 55457 Big River Dr., Bend, said he lived on the Big Deschutes. He asked how this ordinance would mesh with the Wild and Scenic Water Way designation. Commissioner Throop said there was no question that the proposed amendments meshed much better with the State Scenic Waterway Program and the Federal Wild and Scenic Program than the current ordinance. He wanted to see dwellings moved back from the river as far as possible. He said his development had requirements that they not cut trees on their lots. He asked if this requirement might not be used as an excuse for building close to the river? Legal Counsel was asked to look into whether land use regulations could override existing CCNRs. Mr. Miller asked whether the decks on the outside of houses would be considered when measuring the distances for the tunnel vision exception. George Read said it would be measured from the dwelling and not the deck. He was also concerned about waste eventually getting into the river as more and more people build in the area. Commission Throop said there was very little question that it would be more environmentally sound for the river if sand filter systems were required on river front lots, but that this ordinance did not go that far because of the extra expense involved with sand filter systems. Roger Everett said the sand filter provided effluent that was ten times better than the effluent coming out of a leach field. He felt that the recommendation coming from the Planning Commission was a compromise position. He said that 70% of the water going into a drain field was evaporated through the atmosphere and most of the remainder moved laterally because it had trouble moving down through a clay layer. PAGE 11 MINUTES: 5-16-90 Duane Clark, 19717 Mt. Bachelor Dr., Bend, testified that he had seen many violations of the ordinance. He was in favor of tightening up the ordinance. He expressed concern over people who would build decks and then put some structure on the decks. He wanted to tighten the ordinance so that lot owners could not cut down some trees and then request a variance because the only appropriate place for the home was in the opening which they had just created. Norman Frebel, 56242 Solar Dr., Bend, testified that he lived on the Deschutes River. He felt that the set back exception criteria could lead to a lot of problems. The requirements would be too costly i.e., required description, size, species and approximate location of existing vegetation. He felt this would require a naturalist to come out and examine the property. He said a lot owner would also have to hire a special surveyor to get the elevation of the property, which would be difficult to survey because the bank might go straight down for maybe 40 ft. He felt it was discriminatory against the property owner. He didn't feel the 40 ft. limit was proper for the tunnel vision exception and didn't feel it should exclude the end property owner from building closer to the river if the others in the area did. He also felt that sand filters should not be required since they were expensive and were and "abomination" to look at, which would be contrary to the goal of a green view from the river. He said that the County might find itself in court for condemning people's property which he felt this ordinance was technically doing. He felt there were violations to the current ordinance setback and would continue to be violations even if this ordinance were approved. He didn't feel that the ordinance could be enforced without considerable expense. Commissioner Throop said the County enforcement officer was working hard to try to enforce the County's ordinances. Mr. Frebel felt that most of the people along the river have tried to comply with the standards. He said some lot owners removed vegetation to put in something sturdier to help with erosion. Tim Nielson, 19929 Fir Lane, Bend, testified he lived in Tumalo and that most of the lots were 16,000 ft. or smaller and many were presently undeveloped. He had mistakenly thought the set back was 200 ft. instead of 100 ft. George Read clarified that a permit and a landscape management review was necessary if the lot owner wanted to build within 200' of the river. He was concerned that the new regulations would apply to him since he lived within 200' of the river. Roger Everett said with an existing dwelling, the option of last resort was a sand filter system. They would first try to repair the initial system. George Read clarified that the section under consideration only applied to the placement of new septic systems and the building of new dwellings not existing dwelling, unless there was an addition made to the PAGE 12 MINUTES: 5-16-90 existing dwelling of 900 sq. ft. or more. No one else wished to testified, so Chair Throop closed the public hearing for oral testimony but continued the public hearing for written testimony until 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 30, 1990. The Board would consider the issue again on Wednesday, June 6, 1990. 12. POLICY FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FEE WAIVERS Commissioner Throop said that the Community Development Department needed to have a policy for fee waivers. Each Commissioner was requested to give his/her ideas to Karen Green who would prepare a draft policy for the Board's consideration. DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS i ri ;,.C Prante, Commissioner I om hr ophair Di k Maudlin, ommissioner BOCC:alb PAGE 13 MINUTES: 5-16-90