1992-21377-Minutes for Meeting June 03,1992 Recorded 6/22/199292-21377
F 0118-0850
MINUTES
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
June 3, 1992 f'
Chairman Maudlin called the meeting to order at 10 a.m. Beard
members in attendance were: Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Nancy
Pope Schlangen. Also present were: Dale Van Valkenburg, Planner;
Rick Isham, County Counsel; Mike Maier, County Administrator; and
Bruce White, Assistant County Counsel.
1. CONSENT AGENDA
Consent agenda items before the Board were: #1, approval of
reduction of dirt fees and waiver of disposal fee for
excavation from the roadbed on the Old County Dump by Broken
Top Limited Partnership; #2, signature of Plat 745 for Alpine
Village II in Mt. High for Jan Ward; #3, signature of Order
92-055 changing the name and identifying this relocated
portion of Rocher Way to (NW) Rocher Way; #4, signature of
Order 92-053 changing the name of NW Frank Avenue to NW Frank
Way; #5, signature of Order 92-054 changing the name of
Mountain Drive to Mountain View Drive; #6, signature of
Development Agreement for site plan SP -92-51 for a new
commercial structure at 61572 American Loop in Bend; #7,
signature of Development Agreement and Final Plat for the Ni-
Lah-Sha Village Subdivision, Phase I, located in the Redmond
Urban Growth Boundary; #8, signature of final plat for Chloe
Estates, a 9 -lot subdivision in an RL Zone, located between
15th Street and Ferguson; #9, signature of Development
Agreement for High Mountain Factory Built Homes and
manufactures home sales lot across from Mt. View Mall for the
Merritts and Bathas; #10, signature of Tax Refund Order 92-
056; #11, continued; and #12, signature of Department of
Corrections Subsidy Supplement.
THROOP: I'll move approval of the consent agenda items 1-10
and 12.
SCHLANGEN: I will second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
2. PUBLIC HEARING ON TERRILL APPEAL
Before the Board was a public hearing on the Hearings
Officer's denial of a minor partition in an EFU zone.
Dale Van Valkenburg said this hearing resulted from an appeal
by the applicant of the Hearings Officer's denial of MP -92-1
PAGE 1 MINUTES: 6-3-92
M XROFILMED
)' ! OW
� CHEC
0118~-CS31
which was an application to create two 20 -acre farm parcels in
the EFU-20 zone. The property was located at 21475 Gift Road
in Bend. The 40 -acre parcel currently had a house and a barn
and 20 acre of COI water rights which had been used to
irrigate the pasture. The mixture of soil types on the
property ranged from 3S to 8S, and there were flat areas which
were sandy and suitable for pasture use. The remainder was
rocky with juniper and brush. As originally submitted, the
partition would have split the irrigation rights so that
parcel #1 on the west (without a current residence) would have
4.7 acres of irrigation and parcel #2, with the house, would
have 15.3 acres of water. The Assessor had indicated that the
parcel with 4.7 acres of irrigation wouldn't be a farm parcel
and would be better suited to non-farm status. Staff
recommended denial of the application based upon Section
17.28.0203 of Title 17, Subdivision Ordinance, which required
that each parcel be suited for the intended use. The
applicants had indicated that these were to be farm parcels
however, the evidence didn't show that Parcel 1 with 4.7 acres
of water would be suitable for farm use. Smith v. Clackamas
County said that the County could not create a farm parcel and
a non-farm parcel out of one parcel which was considered to be
generally suitable for farm use. Therefore, staff recommended
denial. At the hearing before the Hearings Officer, the
applicant indicated that two more acres of irrigation water
was being acquired for a total of 22 acres which would then be
split evenly between the parcels. The Hearings Officer denied
the application anyway, finding that the parcels were not
currently employed in farm use. Staff was concerned that the
reallocation of the water rights might not be the best use of
the irrigation rights on these properties. Staff was also
concerned that if the partition were approved, it would be
difficult to approve a dwelling on parcel #1 in the future.
They may be suitable for farm use, but it would be difficult
to find there was a need for a dwelling. He was still
recommending denial based on the suitability for the intended
use, since there was nothing in the record to indicate that
these parcels would be suitable for commercial agriculture.
Commissioner Schlangen asked what the make up of the
surrounding parcels was. Dale Van Valkenburg said there was
not a lot of farm use in the area. It was fairly parcelized
into 40- and 20 -acre parcels. It was not flat, irrigated farm
land.
Commissioner Schlangen asked if this parcel had been used in
farm production during the last five years? Dale Van
Valkenburg said it had been on farm deferral, but hadn't been
used for pasture this last year. He said the land did not
look suitable for any type of crops.
PAGE 2 MINUTES: 6-3-92
0118-0832
Chairman Maudlin asked if the 40 -acre parcel had been used for
a commercial use? Dale Van Valkenburg said he didn't know
whether it would have met the commercial test. Chairman
Maudlin asked him to define a commercial operation. Dale Van
Valkenburg said it was not defined. Chairman Maudlin said
there were plenty of places to put a dwelling on the 20 -acre
parcel without detracting from the irrigated soil. Dale Van
Valkenburg said that was true since there was plenty of
nonproductive areas for a dwelling.
Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing and asked for
testimony.
Mick Tye, Sun Country Engineering, representing George Sherman
Terrill, submitted a letter from Mr. Terrill into the record.
He said the water had been used on the property originally to
flood irrigate. They had purchased another two acres of water
from COI which had been approved by the state. The property
was pasture, but there had been no livestock on it this last
year, because they were in the process of selling the
property. Mr. Terrill was now in the process of irrigating
the property and fixing the fences, so they could put
livestock on the property.
Commissioner Throop asked how this partition furthered the
farm use of the property. Mick Tye said if the partition was
approved, they would change to conventional sprinklers which
would better utilize the land since the soils could be used
for any grain crops. Commissioner Throop asked why it
required two parcels to do that rather than one; and why it
could be done better in two 20 -acre formats rather than one
40 -acre parcel. Mick Tye said from his own experience, he
felt smaller land owners had more time to spend time on
intensive farming than the larger parcel owners. For example,
the large land owners usually fertilized only once a year,
while he fertilized twice. He felt they would gain another
15-20% in production if there were two 20 -acre parcels instead
of one 40 -acre parcel. Commissioner Throop asked if he felt
land could be farmed better if it were in smaller parcels than
larger parcels. Mick Tye said he thought so. Commissioner
Throop said that was different than what he typically heard.
He mentioned that the owner of the parcel without a dwelling
would probably have a difficult time getting a dwelling
approved, and asked if that would be a concern for Mr.
Terrill. Mick Tye said they understood they would have to
prove farm use on the parcel, and there was an ideal dwelling
site on the property which would not take any property out of
farm use. Commissioner Throop said the difficulty would be
meeting the criteria necessary to get a dwelling. He asked if
Mr. Terrill wanted to sell the second parcel at farm values or
at rural residential values? Mick Tye said he was looking at
rural residential values.
PAGE 3 MINUTES: 6-3-92
0118-0833
Chairman Maudlin pointed out that most farms in Deschutes
County had to be subsidized by nonfarm income. He felt 20 -
acre parcels were better treated that 40- or 80 -acre parcels
in areas where there were rocks, trees, and some soil.
Mick Tye said this property would not be good farm land
property compared to land in Alfalfa, however it was ideal
property for cattle because there were areas with cover from
the winter weather and an area to feed the cattle which was
not on the pasture.
Chairman Maudlin mentioned that in the Hearings Officer's
decision, he said the existing farm use was limited by the
soil type, the amount of irrigation water, and the amount of
productive acreage. That would not change if there were two
20 -acre parcels instead of one 40 -acre parcel. He felt nobody
could have made a living off the 40 -acre parcel nor would they
be able to on two 20 -acre parcels. Commissioner Throop
pointed out that the intended use was rural residential not
farm use.
Mick Tye said the westerly parcel could be irrigated more.
They just increased the amount of irrigation on each parcel to
11 acres so that it would be over half irrigated.
Commissioner Schlangen said the Board was supposed to make
sure that the division of land was appropriate for the
continuation of commercial agriculture. Was that better on
20 -acres or 40 -acres? Do we consider whether the parcel could
get a dwelling before the partition?
Chairman Maudlin asked if this decision would result in the
same type of remand as the Fennel case?
Rick Isham said Commissioner Schlangen was correct in that
there was a different provision now which Bruce White had just
written a memo on. The new provision referred to the
"continuation of the existing agricultural enterprises in the
area," which was the standard he felt Commissioner Schlangen
was alluding to. This new criteria was not applied in the
Fennell case since it was decided before the farm use
amendments in September. This provision was reflective of
what was being done in the farm study, i.e. in order to set
minimum lot sizes, you would go out and inventory the nature
of the existing farm units in the area to get a median. He
felt a definition of "agricultural enterprises" would be
determined by taking a look at the surrounding or similar
agricultural enterprises in the area, perhaps first
eliminating the farm units which could only be characterized
as "hobby farms" which was what was done in the farm study.
PAGE 4 MINUTES: 6-3-92
0
4.
0118-0834
Rick Isham said he had not previously been aware of this
provision which should have been applied in this case. Dale
Van Valkenburg said he had not applied this provision in
considering this application. Since this was a de novo
hearing and this issue might be a significant factor in the
Board's decision, he felt it was appropriate to continue the
hearing and allow time for both the staff and the applicant to
address this issue.
It was suggested that this public hearing be continued until
10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 10, 1992.
SCHLANGEN: I will so move.
THROOP: Second.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: NO
FENNELL LUBA REMAND
Before the Board was approval of the way to proceed on the
LUBA remand of the denial of the partition for Horace C.
Fennell regarding MP 91-27.
Rick Isham said that after discussion on this item at the
Monday work session, he felt it was the Board's consensus to
request that the Hearings Officer hold the evidentiary hearing
and recommend a decision to the Board on the issue. He said
he would coordinate getting this set up with the Hearings
Officer.
MAUDLIN: I would entertain a motion to send this back for a
recommendation by the Hearings Officer.
SCHLANGEN: So moved.
THROOP: Second.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
APPOINTMENT TO BOARD OF RATIO REVIEW
Before the Board was approval of the appointment of Bill Reed
Jr. to the Board of Ratio Review as the representative from a
School District.
THROOP: I'll move appointment of Bill Reed Jr.
PAGE 5 MINUTES: 6-3-92
MAUDLIN: Second. 0118-0835
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
5. OPTION SUBMITTED TO SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
Sheriff Darrell Davidson said that due to the recent defeat of
the County tax base, he had presented an option to the
Sheriff's Association to go to a 36 -hour workweek and to go
out for a levy in September. If the levy passed, they would
return to a 40 -hour week. The Sheriff's Association had
rejected that option. He said he was very disappointed that
this option was rejected and didn't feel they fully understood
the ramifications and had received bad advise from their
counsel. The Association had wanted to tie this option to
regular negotiations, which he felt were two separate issues.
Mike Maier and the Commissioners expressed their
disappointment that the option was not approved. Commissioner
Throop said this would mean there would be no County measure
in 1992 for the 1992-93 fiscal year, and the budget would have
to be balanced with existing revenue which would result in a
half million dollar cut in the Sheriff's budget. Sheriff
Davidson said he would have to bring a proposal to the Board
by the end of the next week outlining how these cuts would be
made in his budget. Mike Maier said the reason he wanted the
decision to be made as quickly as possible was so any staff
which might have to be laid off could be given as much notice
as possible.
5. ORDER 92-050 APPOINTING DIRECTORS TO THE STARWOOD SANITARY
DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Before the Board was signature of Order 92-050 appointing
Frank J. Debrick and Stephen C. Vanier to serve as Directors
of the Starwood Sanitary District effective immediately. The
district was formed by Order of the County Commission on
September 22, 1982. The District now had no duly elected
Directors and could not function. The appointed Directors
would serve until such time as they were succeeded by elected
Directors, and they were asked to hold an election as soon as
legally position.
SCHLANGEN: I move signature of Order appointing directors
for Starwood Sanitary District.
THROOP: Second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
PAGE 6 MINUTES: 6-3-92
PAGE 7 MINUTES: 6-3-92
0118-0836
6.
WEEKLY WARRANT VOUCHERS
Before the
Board was approval of Accounts Payable Vouchers in
the amount
of $79,439.92.
THROOP:
Move approval subject to review.
SCHLANGEN:
Second.
VOTE:
THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
7.
MJP-91-14
ON BARR ROAD
Before the Board was signature of MJP-91-14 creating three
farm parcels off Barr Road in an EFU-20 zone and associated
Declarations
of Dedication.
THROOP:
I'll move signature.
SCHLANGEN:
Second.
VOTE:
THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
8.
LIQUOR LICENSE FOR GREENSIDE GRILL
Before the
Board was Chair signature of a Liquor License for
Greenside
Grill on Century Drive.
THROOP:
I'll move Chair signature.
Schlangen:
Second.
VOTE:
THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
9.
CLOSE OUT
OF CONSEP MEMBRANES LOAN
Before the
Board was acknowledgement of receipt of Final Close
Out of the
OEDD Block Grant Loan to Consep Membranes.
THROOP:
I'll move acknowledgement of receipt.
SCHLANGEN:
Second.
VOTE:
THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
PAGE 7 MINUTES: 6-3-92
0118-083'7
10. INTENT TO TRANSFER ROSIE BAREIS CENTER
Before the Board was signature of a letter to Gary Nelson,
Chairman of the Children and Youth Services Commission,
confirming the County's intent to transfer the Rosie Bareis
Center to the Deschutes County Childrens Foundation after the
principal and interest of the debt incurred by the County to
acquire the property was fully paid and the title reconveyed
to the County.
MAUDLIN: I would entertain a motion for signature of the
letter.
SCHLANGEN: So moved.
THROOP: Second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
11. REAPPOINTMENT OF KEITH CYRUS TO FARM REVIEW BOARD
Before the Board was reappointment of Keith Cyrus to the Farm
Review Board.
THROOP: I'll move reappointment of Keith.
SCHLANGEN: Second.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
DATED this � day of 1992, by the Board of
Commissioners of Deschutes Coufity, Ore on.
ss
ATTE T: Nancy Pop Sc langen, Commis Toner
i
Recording Sec etary u in, irman
PAGE 8 MINUTES: 6-3-92