Loading...
1990-36803-Minutes for Meeting November 07,1990 Recorded 12/7/1990105 - 1433 90-36803 MINUTES rt' v DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS November 7, ig4n W:,: OFIL; ECc Chair Throop opened the meeting at 10:07 a.m. Board members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Lois Bristow Prante. Also present were Rick Isham, County Legal Counsel; Mike Maier, County Administrator; Dennis Maloney, Community Corrections Director; and Kevin Harrison, Planner. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Consent agenda items before the Board were: #1, signature of Redmond Rod and Gun Club Lease; #2, appointment of Clifford McCabe to Special Road District #8 Board of Directors; #3, signature of Natural Resource Center Indemnity Agreement for removal of Pilot Butte House; #4, signature of Order 90-156 changing Shady Lane to Prado Lane; #5, signature of Order 90- 157 establishing Star Thistle Lane as a road name; #6, signature of Order 90-155 establishing Gatehouse Lane as a road name; #7, signature of Development Agreement for the Penningtons; #8, signature of City of Bend Plat for Hillside Park Phase III; and #9, signature of mylar for Cedar Creek Townhomes Stage IV. PRANTE: Move consent agenda MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 2. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROCEDURES ORDINANCE 90-077 Before the Board was a public hearing on Ordinance 90-077 providing for uniform land use action procedures and repealing Ordinance 82-011, the present procedures ordinance. Chair Throop opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to testify, Chair Throop continued the public hearing to December 12 at 10 a.m. 3. PUBLIC HEARING ON SET BACKS ON THREE LOTS IN SUNRIVER Before the Board was a public hearing on an appeal of the hearings officer's approval of a replat of three lots (Lots 11, 12 and 13 of Block 4 of River Village One) in Sunriver. Chair Throop said the hearings officer's approval the reduction of the original 50 foot set back to 40 feet for lot PAGE 1 MINUTES: 11/7/90 NCHtu r1 1 7`F ~s~ 105 1434 11 and to 15 feet for lots 12 and 13. He announced that issues not brought up during the public hearing could not be appealed at a higher level. Kevin Harrison gave the staff report. This hearing had been continued from October 17, 1990, at the request of the parties. The request to modify the 50 foot set back on three lots in River Village One in Sunriver went before the hearings officer on August 14, 1990. The testimony focused on the reasons for the 50 foot set back with special concern for the environmental impacts associated with the change. The hearing was continued to August 21 to allow the applicant time to submit additional information on environmental impacts associated with the change. On August 21, the hearing was reopened and neither the applicant nor the opposing party attend the hearing. The environmental assessment was not submitted into the record, however the hearings officer approved the request. The hearings officer said it was her feeling from the original testimony that there was not a significant environmental impact associated with this request, and that the requirement that an environmental report be submitted was a "formality." The decision was appealed, and an environmental impact report was prepared by Dave Danley of the Sunriver Nature Center. He said the primary issue before the Board was the environmental report and whether the concerns raised in it constituted a significant environmental impact. The staff position was that if a significant impact was found to be associated with the replat, the application should be denied. Chair Throop opened the public hearing. Mike Levin, General Manager of SROA, Box 3278, Sunriver, 97707, said he was testifying on behalf of the Board of Directors of the Sunriver Owners Association which appealed the hearings officer's approval of the replat. They appealed the decision because the SROA felt there were two concerns needing to be addressed. When these were addressed and satisfied, they would not oppose the set back. The first was that surrounding neighbors and their view corridors not be impacted by the extension of any development. The SROA felt that issue had been addressed, and there were no opposing surrounding neighbors. The second concern was that an environmental assessment be done primarily because there had been a previous incident in the area where native vegetation had been removed from one of the applicant's lots. They felt it was important that an environmental assessment be done because of (1) the healing nature of the area since it had been revegetated less than one year ago, and (2) the concern of any variance to a potential wet land or riparian area which bordered the river. They felt satisfied with the Planning staff recommendation, and the hearings officer's request for PAGE 2 MINUTES: 11/7/90 105 1435 an environmental assessment. It wasn't until they found out that the environmental assessment had not made it to the hearings officer that they decided to appeal. The SROA felt it was the applicant's responsibility to have the environmental assessment submitted by the hearing date, and did not feel the hearings officer should have approved the application without it. When they received a copy of the environmental survey, their interpretation was that there were some environmental impacts. He said they would acquiesce to whatever conditions and modifications which would satisfy the environmentalist. They were not against a set back, but they were against a set back which would harm the surrounding environment. Commissioner Maudlin asked who hearings officer to provide the Levin said the applicant was environmental survey by the Commissioner Maudlin said that he transcript, although planning sti October 2, 1990. had been directed by the environmental study. Mike responsible to obtain an continued hearing date. had never seen a copy of the iff said it was delivered on Chair Throop said that he would like to take all of the testimony, and then take time to review all of the record before making a decision. Rick Isham asked if there had been any discussion in the original hearing regarding a 401 water quality permit for any alterations within the riparian area. He was told it hadn't come up. Dave Jaqua, attorney for the SROA, 1655 W Highland, Redmond, 97756, testified he didn't feel there was a disagreement on the order of events. He said the study had been done in time, but, for whatever reason, it had not reached the hearings officer in time for the continued hearing. The SROA had relied upon the environmental study being considered before a decision was made. Win Francis, attorney for the applicants (Swans, Simpsons, Greys), testified that the issue was whether the potential harm to the river and riparian area had been adequately considered. In his presentation before the hearings officer, this issue was dealt with in considerable detail. All of the impacted neighbors had agreed there was no impact on their views, and therefore that was not an issue. In reviewing the map of the concerned area, he pointed out that next to the river there was common area, then an asphalt bike path, then more common area, then a horse path, then common area, then the edge of the lots, then there was the lot setbacks. The distance from the edge of the lots to the river was at minimum 100 feet, plus there was a five foot elevation rise. He said PAGE 3 MINUTES: 11/7/90 105 -d 1436 there wasn't any significant riparian area in the set back, and that the hearings officer had significant information on which to make a decision. Mr. Levin had recommended using the Sunriver Nature Center for the environmental study, so he spoke with Mr. Danley on Wednesday (the day after the hearing). Mr. Danley said he had a time problem since he was going to be out of town on Thursday and Friday, but that he might be able to have it done by Monday. He got the report done late Tuesday afternoon and gave the report to Carl from the construction company which was contracted to build the decks. Carl contacted him about 3-4 that afternoon, but there wasn't time to deal with it before the hearing. He felt he had complied with his responsibility by attempting to get the report done on time. He said the two south lots both wanted to extend their decks. The Swans on the southern end wanted to have a 6-8 foot deck on the lower level, and the Simpsons in the middle lot wanted an 8-foot extension on the second level from the existing deck. Mr. Grey on the north had no specific plans at this time to do anything but wanted to be able to build 5 feet into the set back. He had the construction company do some drawing of the decks. Mr. Danley had told him that he had done his report assuming there would be a building with a solid face at the edge of these new setbacks, and therefore the maximum possible impact, even though that was not what the property owners were intending. Commissioner Prante asked if they would be allowed to build the worst case scenario if the hearings officer's decision were upheld. Win Frances said yes, so the Board needed to fashion a way to make the proposed deck plans binding upon what the owners could do. He said they had originally applied for a variance, but George Read told him that a variance wasn't the appropriate vehicle and suggested changing the set back on the plat. Commissioner Maudlin asked if the 50 foot set back applied to all of the other lots in this subdivision. Win Francis said he understood the set back went from lot 13 on the north to lot 5 on the south. He said lots 11 and 13 were currently behind the 50 foot set back and that lot 12 encroached by a small amount. Dave Danley, Director of the Sunriver Nature Center, said he was a botanist specializing in plant ecology. He said he had not been asked by Mr. Levin to look at the ecological impact of these set backs, and the Sunriver Nature Center was not part of the SROA. He said his assessment was independent, and he did not receive any funds from either side to do the assessment. He looked at the original setback proposal, which was fairly major, in making his report. Since he had no building proposals, he looked at the set back as if the area was going to be built on. He said he had three major concerns with the proposal: (a) the set back would mitigate riparian PAGE 4 MINUTES: 11/7/90 105 1437 vegetation (vegetation peculiar to growth in a river area). He said in one case the riparian area extended nearly to the house. (b) He found there was one animal of possible concern which was the great grey owl which inhabited the area and was considered by the State of Oregon as a sensitive species. (c) He said the entire river area was within the state scenic water way, and needed to be left as natural as possible. Often the area used by the homeowner went beyond the construction area of the house, so the influence of the house extended beyond the footings. He said Mr. Simpson, who owned lot 12, had modified the riparian vegetation off from his lot by cutting willows and trees down to gain a river view. Commissioner Prante asked Mr. Danley if it would have changed his report if he had received the plans for the deck extensions and had understood that the extensions would be the maximum encroachment into the set back? He said yes, his report could have been more detailed, but it would have depended on which lot was being discussed. He said the riparian area was much more extensive in Lot 12 and much less extensive in Lots 11 and 13. His letter dealt with the project as a whole. These lots were the closest lots to the river, riparian area, and scenic river corridor. Commissioner Prante asked, given the existence of the dwellings and decks, how he would evaluate the additional impact of the extension? Mr. Danley said the extensions on Lots 11 and 13 wouldn't create any additional impact, but Lot 12 would impact a tiny bit of riparian area. Commissioner Throop asked Mr. Francis how far Lot 12 already extended into the 50 foot set back, and he said he did not know. Win Francis said lots 11 and 13 were asking to extend into the set back 10 feet, and lot 12 was asking to extend into the set back an additional 8-10 feet. Win Frances said that Mr. Simpson had paid a fine and had planted three times the number of trees requested for his past offense. Mike Levin said their concern was not just these one or two decks. He said most of the river lot had been built upon, and the remainder of the construction would be additions. Since a majority of the lots along the river had specific set backs, they were concerned that this would just open the gates for more requests for exceptions to the set back. He suggested that the encroachment of the set back on Lot 12 be investigated to determine whether a variance had been granted. He said that Mr. Simpson was in the lumber industry and had some concerns about fire danger which was why he had taken out some vegetation. Commissioner Maudlin asked how many lots in Sunriver had already encroached on their set backs. Mike Levin said there were none that he knew of. PAGE 5 MINUTES: 11/7/90 105 - 1438 4. Dave Jaqua said his following comments were in noway intended to take away from the position expressed by the SROA but were merely expressions of possible ways to resolve the issue if the Board chose to allow some kind of adjustment. He asked that (1) it be limited to the specific number of feet necessary to accomplish the purpose, (2) it be limited to a specific purpose, and (3) it not constitute permission to encroach at the ground level on lot 12. Win Francis said this situation was unique in that a variance was not used, but that this process would probably not be used again for this purpose. He suggested that if the Board agreed to allow the expansion into the set back, that the two outside lots get a 10 foot right to build decks only, and that the middle lot get 10 feet from the building for decks only. Chair Throop closed the public hearing and announced that a decision would be made at their next meeting on Wednesday, November 14, 1990, at 10 a.m. SALE AGREEMENT AND RECEIPT OF ERNEST MONEY WITH FOURSQUARE CHURCH OF GOD Before the Board was signature of the Sale Agreement and Receipt of Ernest Money for purchase of Foursquare Church of God. Mike Maier gave the Board his understanding of who was doing what and when regarding the purchase of the Foursquare Church of God property on 14th Street. He had a concern that some of the tenants had moved in before the asbestos had been removed. There needed to be a master tenant to sign a lease under the County's conditions before the closing on the property, and that a lease needed to be signed with the tenants before they occupied the buildings. He would add this $15,000 to the bills and that it would have to be taken out of contingency. MAUDLIN: I would move that we agree to chair signature of sale agreement and receipt of ernest money with the Foursquare Church of God and include this (Mike Maier's recommendation) as a condition, non- negotiable. PRANTE: I have a second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES PAGE 6 MINUTES: 11/7/90 105 - 14:39 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDER 90-144 ANNEXING CHINA HAT TERRITORY TO DESCHUTES COUNTY RFPD #2 Before the Board was a public hearing on final order 90-144 annexing China Hat territory into the Deschutes County RFPD #2. Chair Throop opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to testify, the public hearing was closed. PRANTE: Move signature. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 6. PROPOSED PREP CONTRACT FOR COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS Dennis Maloney said they started out as the Juvenile Department which was primarily involved in counseling, then took on the Juvenile Detention Program, and then the Community Corrections Program and shared some working responsibility with the jail operations. He felt the program changes had allowed them to significantly impact the system. However, they had never examined the effect of these changes on the administrative support service infrastructure, and how it would mesh with these programs. Commissioner Prante had told him that the County had had success with the PREP organization which could look at the program structure and make recommendations on what administrative support structure would best fit with the organization. Commissioner Maudlin felt the problems were already being solved and should be allowed to be solved without having someone from the outside come in and tell them how to do it. He was concerned that he was the liaison to Adult Corrections but had never been contacted about the problem or the study. He also wanted to know why one of the parts of the proposed study was to "integrate the jail more fully into the Corrections Department staffing structure." He felt there should be a separation of these departments and not have one person supervising the clerical staff from all three departments. Commissioner Prante said that the Board was dealing with the head of the entire Community Corrections Department, not the heads of the individuals departments, and he felt that these recent changes created the need for some outside perspective, the Board should consider his wishes. PAGE 7 MINUTES: 11/7/90 105 • 1440 Dennis Maloney said when the PREP representative met with them, he went over the historical development of the department. During the discussion, he mentioned that they had never acknowledged the value of the jail staff in terms effecting people's behavior. He had never intended for PREP to incorporate that into the proposal. Commissioner Throop pointed out that Dennis Maloney was in an unusual position in that he had to deal with two liaisons from the Board of Commissioners--Commissioner Prante for Health and Human Services on the Juvenile side and Commissioner Maudlin for Public Safety Division on the Corrections and Jail side. He suggested that Dennis Maloney meet with these two commissioners to get an agreement on the scope of the study. 7. WEEKLY WARRANT VOUCHERS Before the Board were weekly bills in the amount of $196,391.74. PRANTE: Move approval upon review. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 8. COEDC FUNDING Commissioner Prante expressed her concern that the COEDC director was working part time for COEDC while continuing a side business. The County was providing 25% of COEDC's budget. It was very difficult to monitor, justify, and account for the public dollars spent while the director was continuing a private business for profit. Commissioner Throop felt it was a valid issue, and that there was discomfort in the community about it also. Rick Isham said that he and Commissioner Prante had gone through the COEDC submittal for last year's fund, and the information was very soft concerning how things were paid for, and this raised their level of concern. He said there were big pieces of money which were related to conventions, etc., and it wasn't clear what the purpose of the convention was, what the travel was related to, etc., and it was, therefore, difficult to manage from a public funds aspect. Rick Isham was asked to write a letter to the COEDC Board of Directors stating their project would not be approved or funded if there was an intermix of public and private activity. PAGE 8 MINUTES: 11/7/90 105- " 1441 9. EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE WITH BI INCORPORATED Before the Board was chair signature of Equipment Schedule #3 to the Equipment Lease with BI Incorporated and of the Receipt and Acceptance Certificate. Dennis Maloney said this agreement increased the number of electronic monitoring devises used due to increased demand. They had collected $5,000 last month on the fees for this equipment use, and were applying for a grant to purchase the equipment. MAUDLIN: Move signature of Equipment Lease. PRANTE: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 10. MENTAL HEALTH SUBCONTRACT WITH RESIDENTIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Before the Board was signature of the Mental Health Services Subcontract with the Residential Assistance Program to provide vocational transportation for one supported employment client. PRANTE: Move signature. MAUDLIN: Second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 11. ACCEPTANCE OF WARRANTY DEED AND ACCESS AND CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT Before the Board was acceptance of Warranty Deed and Access and Construction Easement on Ward Road. PRANTE: Move signature. MAUDLIN: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES 12. TAX REFUND ORDER 90-158 Before the Board was signature of Tax Refund Order 90-158. MAUDLIN: Move signature. PAGE 9 MINUTES: 11/7/90 105 -1 1442 PRANTE: Second. VOTE: PRANTE: YES THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ,e4 I 6~~ , Lois Bristow Prante, Commissioner Tom T roop Chair Dick Maudlin, Commissioner BOCC:alb PAGE 10 MINUTES: 11/7/90