1992-01341-Minutes for Meeting December 18,1991 Recorded 1/7/199292-01341
MINUTES
0108 0821
92 JAIi -7 AM 8: 11DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
December 18, 1991
C L#11t :dLtidlin called the meeting to order at 10 a.m. Board
members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop, and Nancy -Pope
Schlangen. Also present were: Rick Isham, County Counsel; Bruce
White, Assistant Legal Counsel; Brad Chalfant, Property Manager;
Tom Blust, County Engineer; Larry Rice, Public Works Director;
George Read, Planning Director; and Mike Hall, Planner/Historical
Society.
1. CONSENT AGENDA
Consent agenda items before the Board were: #1, authorization
for Public Works Director to sign DEQ Grant Application for
Bend Recycling Team; #2, signature of Order 91-142 accepting
Engineer's report relating to improvement of public roads
known as 73rd Street LID and setting a public hearing for
January 22, 1991; #3, signature of letter to OSU confirming
Deschutes County's intent to enter into a contract for a
farmland study and analysis; #4, signature of letter
appointing Karen Swirsky to replace Justin Liversidge on the
Deschutes County Bicycle Advisory Committee; #5, signature of
tax refund Order 91-144; #6, signature of TP -91-757 for
Avonlea Estates, a 34 -lot subdivision in an RS zone on 27th
Street; #7, signature of Order 91-140 amending Section
18.116.050 of the Deschutes County Code to correct an
editorial error; and #8, signature of Order 91-145 declaring
the proposed improvement of the proposed extension of Sunrise
Blvd to be a project (ORS 368.031).
SCHLANGEN: Move approval of the consent agenda.
THROOP: I'll second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
2. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDER 91-128 VACATINGPORTION OF TUMALO
RESERVOIR MARKET ROAD
Before the Board was a public hearing on Order 91-128 which
would vacate a portion of Tumalo Reservoir Market Road. A
petition requesting a vacation was filed with the Board on
November 6, 1991, and the Board declared its intent to vacate
said road by Resolution 91-092 on November 6, 1991.
Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing. There being no
one who wished to testify, the public hearing was closed.
PAGE 1 MINUTES: 12/18/91 12Y 1,CHED
i 7 lAiCn F;LM[D
_IC 0(1
0108 0822
MAUDLIN: Ask for a motion for Order 91-128.
SCHLANGEN: So moved.
THROOP: Second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
3. PUBLIC HEARING: EXCHANGE OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR ROAD
EASEMENT ACROSS COUNTY LAND
Chairman Maudlin said this had been taken care of and
therefore there was no need for a public hearing. He said he
had talked with the parties involved, and they were happy with
the settlement being proposed by the County. A license would
be granted for them to use the existing road during the
interim. Brad Chalfant said the terms of the agreement were:
the County would give a 30 feet easement along the south
property line. In exchange, the County would received 2-1/2
acres north of Johnson Road and a Conservation Easement from.
the rim rock to the river along the Hemstreet' s property line.
A public hearing on this exchange would have to be re -noticed
since this agreement was a substantial change from what had
been noticed for today's public hearing. The Hemstreets would
be given a license for a one-year period to use the existing
road way, then the existing road would be closed off by the
County. The site distance had been reviewed by County Public
Works, and the proposed access along the south property line
would be an improvement, so they had no objection.
4. SETTING MEETING DATE FOR PROPOSED LID
The Public Works Department requested that the proposed LID
( Squaw Creek Canyon LID) not be approved since the majority of
the petitions came from the developer (Squaw Creek Canyon
Estates, Inc.) and might not reflect the desires of the
individual property owners. They suggested that a meeting of
the concerned property owners be set for their input. The
meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, January 15, 1991, at
11 a.m.
5. LAND EXCHANGE WITH BETTY JO RHODEN
Before the Board was the decision on whether to exchange
county land for private land owned by Betty Jo Rhoden (County
land --40 acres on Byram and 120 acres on Ten Bar for Rhoden
land --80 acres northwest of Ward & Gosney). A public hearing
on the issue was held on November 20, 1991.
PAGE 2 MINUTES: 12/18/91
0108 0823
Brad Chalfant said a modification had been made to the
exchange to provide for a 60 -foot strip of County -owed land to
connect the portion of the County parcel which would be left
on the west side to the portion of the parcel on the east
side. The property that Ms. Rhoden would receive in exchange
for the loss of this 60 -foot strip would be through an
expansion of the parcel on the west and east sides to bring it
up to the agreed upon 40 acres. He recommended the Board move
forward with the exchange on this basis. He asked that the
Board authorize signature of Order 91-125 once the legal
description had been completed. He also asked the Board to
authorize him to sign and file the partition application for
this exchange.
Commissioner Throop felt this proposal was a "win/win"
situation since this exchange would allow the completion of
700 -acre acquisition necessary for Bend Metro Park and
Recreation District to have another Shevlin Park. This would
also allow access to the remaining 240 -acres being retained by
the County across the 60 -foot strip being retained on the
north side of the 40 -acre parcel being traded. He hoped that
Deschutes County would hold onto the remainder of this parcel
for park development for future generations.
THROOP: I'll move authorization to file partition and
authorization of signature on Order 91-125.
SCHLANGEN: Second.
Chairman Maudlin said he was not in favor of the trade because
of the dollars involved. He said the taxes were due on the
Rhoden 80 -acres which would not be paid because of the
exchange and Deschutes County was bearing the costs of the
partitioning. Brad Chalfant pointed out that the Bend Metro
Parks and Recreation District had paid the costs of all of the
survey work involved.
Commissioner Throop pointed out that the Bend Metro Parks and
Recreation District did not have any funds available for the
purchase of property and had historically received property
through donations.
Commissioner Schlangen said she felt the County might be
trading too much land for the Rhoden property, but was in
favor of the exchange so that the Eastgate park project could
go forward.
Brad Chalfant said he had used a certified appraiser from the
Assessor's office to do a review of the properties. The
appraiser indicated that the values of the properties were
comparable based on assessed values. Assessed values might be
lower that the market values, however since the properties
PAGE 3 MINUTES: 12/18/91
0108 0824
were comparable based on assessed values, they should be
comparable based on market values also.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: NO
6. ORDINANCE 91-048 DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS
Before the Board was signature of Ordinance 91-048 amending
Chapter 9.08 concerning the discharge of firearms. The
amendment would allow for the inclusion of property outside of
subdivisions in the restricted area if the property was
contiguous to a subdivision or other lots which were
contiguous to a subdivision which was in a restricted district
or was petitioning to be within a restricted district. The
property outside of a subdivision would not be eligible for
inclusion in the proposed restricted area unless the owner of
such lot signed a petition requesting such designation.
Bruce White said he had added one section, since the Board had
reviewed the draft, which outlined how ownership of the
property would be determined.
SCHLANGEN: I move first and second reading by title only.
THROOP: Second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
Chairman Maudlin performed the first and second readings of
Ordinance 91-048.
THROOP: Move adoption.
SCHLANGEN: Second.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
7. WEEKLY WARRANT VOUCHERS
Before the Board was approval of the weekly bills in the
amount of $535,250.23.
THROOP: Move approval subject to review.
SCHLANGEN: Second.
PAGE 4 MINUTES: 12/18/91
0108 0825
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
8. RESOLUTION 91-103 CONCERNING GRANT AGREEMENT FOR HISTORIC
PRESERVATION PLANNING
Before the Board was signature of Resolution 91-103
authorizing the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners to
execute a grant agreement with the State of Oregon pertaining
to historic preservation planning.
THROOP: I'll move chair signature.
SCHLANGEN: Second.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
Chairman Maudlin suspended the meeting of the Deschutes County
Board of Commissioners and convened the meeting as the Governing
Body of the Deschutes County 911 County Service District.
9. RESOLUTION 91-102 TRANSFERRING APPROPRIATIONS
Before the Board was signature of Resolution 91-102
transferring appropriations in the amount of $10,000 within
the various funds of the Deschutes County 911 County Service
District budget.
THROOP: I'll move signature of the Resolution.
SCHLANGEN: Second.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
Chairman Maudlin adjourned the meeting of the Deschutes County 911
County Service District and reconvened as the Deschutes County
Board of Commissioners.
11. DRUG FREE BALLOT MEASURE
Rick Isham reported that the Committee would like to have the
Resolution supporting the ballot measure language approved in
all of the Central Oregon Counties on the second week of
January, 1992. He said a couple of the Jefferson County Board
members had expressed concern that it might send a message in
support of mandatory drug testing, which was clearly not set
forth in the Resolution.
PAGE 5 MINUTES: 12/18/91
0108 0826
Commissioner Schlangen wanted to know who would pay the costs
of putting this issue on the ballot. Commissioner Throop also
was concerned that the costs of putting the issue on the
ballot would be thousands of dollars. The Board was very much
in favor of the concept but was concerned with the costs
because there were not funds available in the County budget.
Rick Isham said he would check with the County Clerk to
determine whether there would be additional costs associated
with placing this issues on the ballot in March, 1992, and if
so how much.
12. DECISION ON FENNELL APPEAL ON MP -91-27
Before the Board was a decision on the Fennell appeal of the
Hearings Officer's denial of MP -91-27 which would have divided
a 60 -acre parcel into three lots in an EFU-20 zone.
Commissioner Schlangen said that some of the criteria in
making these decisions was flawed, and she hoped the farm
study would help. She would have preferred having one farm
parcel with the irrigated pasture, and two nonfarm parcels
without irrigation, however she understood that this was no
longer an option due to court cases.
SCHLANGEN: She felt it was important to preserve the
agricultural lands, so she couldn't agree to
splitting the property with only 7-1/2 acres
of water each. She did not feel that the
partition met the burden under the
Comprehensive Plan standards and criteria.
THROOP: Commissioner Throop said he agreed with
Commissioner Schlangen and the Hearings Officer.
The Hearings Officer felt that the applicant had to
establish that the proposed parcels would provide
lands which would enable farm use activity to
occur. The proposed partition did not allow him to
make such a finding and therefore denied the
partition. Commissioner Throop said he could find
nothing flawed in the Hearings Officer's analysis
and decision. He supported the Hearings Officers
denial of the partition.
Chairman Maudlin said there was no finding that the partition
would upset any farming that was already in the area. There
had already been a partition to the east of this property. By
dividing this 60 -acre parcel into three 20 -acre parcels, the
Assessors Office would be able to determine that these parcels
could no longer be on farm deferral, because they had less
than 10 acres of irrigation. He was in favor of the partition
for this reason, and because other parcels in the area had
already been partitioned.
PAGE 6 MINUTES: 12/18/91
0108 082'7
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: NO
13. CENTRAL OREGON ENVIRONMENTAL CENTER
The Central Oregon Environmental Center invited the Board
members to their new facility, and the Board agreed to visit
on Tuesday, January 14, 1992, at 4 p.m.
14. PUBLIC HEARING ON INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES
Before the Board was a public hearing on Ordinance 91-051 a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment adopting the inventory of
Historic Sites and the attendant economic, social,
environmental and energy analyses (ESEE). Mike Hall said the
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan listed about 140 sites in
1979 which the County has considered protected since that
time. In 1981 Goal 5 became state law and required more in-
depth analysis and development of a program. Between 1983 and
1985, the Landmarks Commission reviewed a number of sites and
those within the County which were determined significant were
taken through the Goal 5 analysis and became part of the
periodic review. In 1990 the Landmarks Commission reviewed
another 42 sites within the County, and three of those have
been recommended for inclusion in the periodic review. 41 of
the 57 sites being considered for the inventory of historic
sites had been listed on the Comprehensive Plan since 1979.
The Landmarks Commission used a weighted scoring system which
considered the contributive potential, rarity of type and/or
style of architecture, identification, symbolic value, and
chronology. The Goal 5 process required that it be determined
if the site was significant, if there were conflicting uses,
and, if so, find ways to resolve the conflicting uses. There
were three ways to resolve any conflicts: 3A protect the
site --all conflicting uses prohibited; 3B allow conflicting
uses fully (i.e. demolition, exterior alteration); 3C limit
the conflicting use. He said most of the sites were "3C."
The Landmarks Commission basically balances the County's need
for historic preservation with the County's need for economic,
social, environmental, and energy (ESEE) needs.
George Read said all privately held sites which didn't have
specific deed restrictions protecting them were designated 3C
sites.
Mike Hall stated there were only two sites which were fully
protected 3A: the Allen Ranch Cemetery and the Lava Island
Rock Shelter. The Historic Preservation Ordinance required
that there be a review of any exterior alterations to
buildings, demolitions or condemnations, and signs of any site
in the inventory. It did not prevent property owners from
PAGE 7 MINUTES: 12/18/91
making changes in their building, painting the building,
changing the interior, didn't affect tax assessments, didn't
require any change in signage, or improvements or restoration
of the property, any purchase or placement of any historical
marker or sign, didn't restrict any type or ordinary
maintenance, and didn't require the property owner to allow
any member of the public to come on their property. The
Historic Preservation Ordinance encouraged historic
preservation but didn't demand it. Violation of the ordinance
was a class A infraction punishable by a maximum fine of $500.
Decisions of the Landmarks Commission could be appealed to the
Board of Commissioners and ultimately to the Land Use Board of
Appeals (LUBA). He felt the Landmarks Commission was one of
the most qualified in Oregon. It was a certified local
government which included a member of the Governor's Advisory
Committee on historic preservation, two architects who had won
regional and national awards for historic preservation
architecture, a member who was an advisor for the Columbia
River Gorge Commission on Historic Preservation, two federal
agency cultural resource managers, a local attorney who worked
on land use and governmental law, and a 12 -year member of the
Bend Planning Commission. The Landmarks Commission provided
free information on restoration and rehabilitation, nomination
of properties to the National Register, and available tax
incentives, grants and low interest loans.
Mike Hall said the purpose of this hearing was to receive
comments on the ESEE analysis on the sites which had been
determined "significant."
Bruce White said this hearing should be focused on the
inventory information and the ESEEs which were included in a
handout given to the Commission and the people attending. He
suggested continuing the hearing after receiving testimony so
that the final ordinance could be prepared. He said the 1B
sites were those for which there was not sufficient
information, and which would have to be dealt with at some
later date. The Board had the option of deferring these sites
until the next periodic review or at some sooner date. In
order to change the Comprehensive Plan as part of the periodic
review, the County would need to add an addendum to the
resource element of the plan discussing what had been done
since 1979, repealing the inventory list in the 1979 document,
and adding one which would reflect what had been done since
then. Ordinance 88-008 set forth the process for
recommendations from the Historic Landmarks Commission to the
Board of Commissioners.
Chairman Maudlin opened the hearing for public testimony.
Sue Coudare, Manager of Tumalo Irrigation District, 64697 Cook
Avenue, Bend, testified concerning three listed sites. The
PAGE 8 MINUTES: 12/18/91
0108 0829
only one she was concerned with was the Tumalo Creek -
Diversion Dam and Headgate of Feed Canal. There were other
state laws which might make it necessary for Tumalo Irrigation
to demolish or make major modifications to this site. The
Department of Fish and Wildlife would be providing
specifications for new fish screens which they were required
to install. They didn't have any problem with the other two
sites being included on the inventory.
Commissioner Throop said this site was designated a 2A, no
conflicting uses. Mike Hall said this analysis was done in
1985-86 and it was obvious that there was some conflicting
uses. Bruce White said that like surface mining, the Board
could allow both uses to proceed under 3C. They could make an
exception to the ordinance for any restoration or alterations
which were made necessary by Oregon Statute. Mike Hall said
the Landmarks Commission was very progressive and sensitive to
development issues. Chairman Maudlin felt there was no reason
to have it on the inventory if it was going to be totally
destroyed.
Bob Lovlien, attorney for Bend-LaPine School District,
testified concerning the Young School Site. He said the
School Board had not met and so he was requesting more time
before a decision on this site was made. Chairman Maudlin
said the Board would allow written testimony for at least 30
days following this public hearing.
Bill McCormack, HC 67 Box 360, Prineville, submitted the
attached petition in opposition to the Brothers School being
designated an historic site.
Janet Crookshank, Deschutes ESD, testified concerning the
Brothers School Board, which was a lay Board. They have had
trouble meeting standards and part of the trouble was the
school building was not adequate for their needs. They were
faced with some major renovations and possibly the replacement
of the school. She wondered about the historic significance
of the school, since it was not the original Brothers School.
The school may have to become part of a new, bigger school
district. The school only had a part-time clerk and had no
legal counsel, so meeting government regulations was difficult
for them.
Perry C. Herford, 64900 Hunnell Road, Bend, read the attached
testimony regarding the pioneer cemeteries in the County.
Commissioner Throop pointed out that due to a recent state
law, non -taxing special districts could not be formed. There
had to be a demonstrated source of revenue in advance of the
formation of the district, and therefore, it would probably
take a tax base to form the district. He felt the formation
of this kind of a district was a good suggestion.
PAGE 9 MINUTES: 12/18/91
0108 0830
Bruce White said the Allen Ranch was designated as a 3A site
to be protected fully, and therefore would not be subject to
the weighing involved with the historic preservation
ordinance. If it needed to be considered, the ordinance would
need to be changed to recognize that.
Perry Herford said there was a deed easement on the Allen
Ranch to protect it as a cemetery forever.
Malcolm Boslar, 19725 Volare Lane, Bend, said he had the deed
easement for the Allen Ranch Cemetery. He said someone in
Sunriver said that they wouldn't allow the cemetery to be
located in the golf course.
Dan Young, representing Sunriver Properties (the owner of the
Allen Ranch cemetery property), said they had no objection to
the site being listed as an historic place. The plans for the
development of two golf courses and other associated
residential amenities would in no way affect the site. Since
they purchased the site, they had removed the grazing animals
and public access from the site which had been responsible for
the degradation of the site. The site would be vastly
improved during the upcoming development. He said the site
was being preserved for the family and not for public access.
George Read suggested that the Board determine their time
schedule for this process so that people who wanted to leave
after they testified could do so. The Board determined that
they would hold a meeting at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, March 18,
1992, to make their decision on the inventory of historic
sites. The record would be held open for written testimony
through January 22, 1992, at 5 p.m. A work session was
scheduled for Monday, March 16, 1992, at 3 p.m.
Elmer Pond, 69550 Camp Polk Road, Sisters, testified
concerning the Camp Polk post site. He said there was a
partial barn in this area --the old Hindeman Barn near the Camp
Polk cemetery. The roof blew off the old barn, and they
contacted the historical society to see what could be done.
He wanted to use the barn, but wasn't allowed to do so. After
the roof had been off for nine months, "we took it down" and
were fined. He wanted to know what the Camp Polk Historical
site was, where it was, and what it meant. Mike Hall said he
would send him the information he needed. He said they tried
to get a zone change on the site from agriculture to forestry,
but some people who came to the meeting said the zoning could
not be changed because it was an historical site.
Mike Hall said a relative of Mr. Pond took the Hindeman Barn
down recently and was fined for not getting a demolition
permit. Since that time, he changed the site from a 3C to 2A.
When the Landmarks Commission evaluated this site in 1984, it
PAGE 10 MINUTES: 12/18/91
0108 0831
received one of the highest scores of all the sites. With the
barn gone, it might need to be changed to a 2A.
Erik Bloomfeldt, representing Long Hollow Ranch (original
headquarters for the Black Butte Ranch), Rt. 1, Box 254,
Terrebonne, had some questions. He asked if this designation
included the entire property or specific building sites? Mike
Hall said the document listed the headquarters house, the
ranch, commissary, equipment shed, barn and bunk house built
after 1904. Mr. Bloomfeldt asked which level of designation
these building had been given, and Mr. Hall responded a 3C.
Mr. Bloomfeldt had questions regarding financing to restore
buildings to their original state. Mr. Hall said he would
provide him with the necessary information.
Phil Tennis, representing Pacific Power and Light Company, 920
SW 6th Avenue, Portland, testified that he had recently been
handed the responsibility for the small hydro projects at
Cline Falls which were on the proposed list of historic sites.
He asked what the designation 3C meant. Mike Hall said it
meant that the Landmarks Commission would attempt to limit the
conflicting use. Therefore alterations would be reviewed by
the Landmarks Commission. Phil Tennis said he had problems
similar to the Tumalo Irrigation District. Mike Hall said he
had spoken with Jerry Rope several days ago who didn't seem to
have many concerns. Phil Tennis asked if he could speak with
Mr. Hall after the public hearing.
Hubert Bierly, 26690 Horsell Road, Bend, Chairman of the
Committee which oversaw the use and care of the Alfalfa
Community Hall (old Alfalfa Grange), said it appeared that
ownership had never been transferred from the grange. He
didn't know if he could speak with any authority until proper
ownership had been determined, since the grange had not
existed for 30 years. Chairman Maudlin asked if Mr. Bierly
knew who owned it and Mr. Bierly said it had been assumed that
the community owned the building. He said the Committee was
not in favor of their Community Hall being designated as an
historical site. Commissioner Throop said there was no "owner
consent" provision and the site either met the criteria or it
didn't. So he suggested that Mr. Bierly argue what kind of
designation they should have. Mike Hall said all of these
sites had been through the evaluation and were determined
significant. He said the Court of Appeal did uphold the Land
Conservation and Development Commission versus Yamhill County
case indicating that "owner consent" was not a criteria for
historic designation. Chairman Maudlin said if someone from
the community wanted to argue the Landmarks Commission
analysis, this was the time and place to do so. George Read
said this was a fairly new site, and four or five people from
the Alfalfa Grange had participated at the Historic Landmarks
Commission public hearing in June of 1990. Mike Hall said the
PAGE 11 MINUTES: 12/18/91
0108 0832
Landmarks Commission felt the testimony was significant enough
to recommend the site to the Board of Commissioners for
historic designation. Hubert Bierly said there wasn't any
Alfalfa Grange in 1990, so he didn't know who would have
testified. Mike Hall said he would check and see who had
testified at the previous hearing. Hubert Bierly said the
committee would like to go on record as opposing designation
as an historic site. Commissioner Throop suggested that he
get the analysis on this site and review it because it would
take more than the committee being against it to remove the
site from the list. Mike Hall said that in the economic part
of the analysis, he included that public testimony indicated
that the building might be subject to demolition or alteration
for fire protection facilities. Hubert Bierly said he was
positive there would be no alterations made to the building.
Chairman Maudlin said the public hearing would be held open
until 5 p.m. on January 22, 1992, for written testimony. A
work session was set up for Monday, March 16, 1992, at 3 p.m.
The Board would be making their decision on this inventory on
Wedpesday, March 18, 1992, at 11 a.m.
DES
Ifil
Tord T
�f
a
Nancy
S COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner
V Schlangen, Commis
Adlin, Chairman
BOCC:alb
PAGE 12 MINUTES: 12/18/91