Loading...
2002-61-Minutes for Meeting January 28,2002 Recorded 1/30/2002DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS + J� E S C MARY SUE PENHOLLOW , COUNTY CLERK yJ r}2002-61 OO2-6+ COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 01/30/2002 12:24;49 PM Board of Commissionerg 1130 N.W. Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 • Fax (541) 388-4752 www.deschutes.org Tom De Wolf Dennis R. Luke MINUTES OF WORK SESSION Mike Daly DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, JANUARY 28, 2002 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building Present were Commissioners Tom De Wolf, Dennis R. Luke and Michael M. Daly. Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Sue Brewster, Sheriffs Office; Tom Blust and Dennis Morris, Road Department; Timm Schimke, Solid Waste; George Read, Tom Anderson, Paul Blikstad and Kevin Harrison, Community Development; Rick Isham, Legal Counsel; Tammy Credicott, Property Management; Media Representatives Jeff Mullen of KBND Radio and Barney Lerten of bendnet. com; and four citizens. Chair Tom De Wolf opened the meeting at 10: 02 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. 2. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of an Intergovernmental Agreement Providing for the Transfer of Remaining 1145 Funds to Jefferson County Parole and Probation. Sue Brewster indicated that as of December 1, 2001, Jefferson County Parole and Probation work was transferred to Jefferson County. This agreement completes the transfer of the remaining 1145 dollars. LUKE: I move approval of this intergovernmental agreement. DALY: Second. Minutes of Work Session Page 1 of 9 Pages Monday, January 28, 2002 Quality Services Performed with Pride VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 3. Before the Board was Consideration of Board Approval of a Waiver for Three Equipment Purchases. Tom Blust indicated that this is on the agenda because Legal Counsel felt it should be addressed since it is for specialized equipment. (A brief discussion then occurred regarding bid bonds and performance bonding requirements. Legal Counsel Rick Isham said that this waiver was okay; but if it had been a capital improvement, it wouldn't be a good idea.) LUKE: Move approval of the waiver. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 4. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2002- 008, Adopting the Knott Landfill Development Analysis Report, and Directing the Implementation of the Development Option to Maximize the Life of Knott Landfill. Timm Schimke explained that this is the result of nine months work, and by Board approval makes the document part of the timeline. He indicated that the time frame and life estimates are estimated, based on the best available information. (The Board stated their approval of the excellent job of community relations and management efforts involved in this project.) LUKE: Move signature. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Work Session Page 2 of 9 Pages Monday, January 28, 2002 5. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Contract between Deschutes County and DataStor, LLC for Services Related to the CDD Scanning Project. Tom Anderson stated that this is a renewal of the May 2000 contract; the price structure is the same, but new language required by the state has been included. He explained that DataStor has completed about 80% of the project at this point. Some of the work now being done and some of the future work will be done in house, if possible. Commissioner Luke pointed out that Legal Counsel might want to use this service in the future, as might the District Attorney's office. LUKE: Move signature. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 6. Before the Board was a Discussion of a Board Decision Whether to Hear an Appeal of the County Hearings Officer's Decision of CU-01-83/SP-01-52 (Regarding Commercial Activity in Conjunction with a Farm Use - Applicant: Gary Brian). Paul Blikstad gave a brief overview of the issue, and referred to an oversized map of the property and area surrounding the property. LUKE: Did the application come about because of a code enforcement action? BLIKSTAD: Yes. The applicant's name is Gary Brian, and he's sitting to my right; represented by Tia Lewis, who is sitting to his right. LUKE: The reason I asked my question is that evidently the activity was taking place, there was a complaint or some reason that Code Enforcement went out. So after Code Enforcement went out, an application was made to make legal what was already there. Minutes of Work Session Page 3 of 9 Pages Monday, January 28, 2002 BLIKSTAD: That's correct. Just given the nature of the use, and what transpired, we sent this to a hearing. Actually, we got several letters in opposition, and that prompted referring it to a hearing. The Hearings Officer actually denied the applications, and found in her decision that what the applicant was doing didn't constitute a farm use on the property. She felt it was primarily a landscaping business, so the conditional use permit to conduct an activity in conjunction with the farm use, in her opinion didn't fit because there was no farm use under her findings. The Hearings Officer did anticipate an appeal to the Board, so based on that initial issue of there not being a farm use on the property, she felt she would deny the applications. She went beyond that in her findings, just anticipating this appeal. On pages 7 and 8 of her decision, she felt that the proposed use was not compatible with the area. So we received a four-page notice of appeal requesting a de novo review by the Board. In that notice of appeal there were eleven errors listed in her decision. It was the applicant's opinion that, and I'll quote this, "Additionally, the appeal presents significant issues of public policy and has county -wide implications for Deschutes County, as the decision is one which interprets state statutes governing agricultural lands, statewide case law concerning agricultural land and County ordinances based on state statute affecting agricultural land in Deschutes County. Review of this decision by the Board of County Commissioners is necessary is necessary to establish a reasonable interpretation of the state statutes, case law and County ordinances governing agricultural land in Deschutes County." So the Board has to make a decision as to whether it will hear this. Under section 22.32.027 of the County procedures ordinance, the scope of the review, one other criterion for deciding whether the Board will hear is this whether substantial rights of the parties would be significantly prejudiced without de novo review. I think the issue before you today is, would the applicant's substantial rights be significantly prejudiced if you did not hear this. Apparently, he felt that he did not get enough of a hearing before the County Hearings Officer. LUKE: Where are landscaping businesses allowed in our zoning? Minutes of Work Session Page 4 of 9 Pages Monday, January 28, 2002 BLIKSTAD: You could possibly do it as a home occupation, although what the Hearings Officer has found in the past, as well as the Board of County Commissioners, is that usually home occupations on individual properties have to be conducted within a building. This doesn't qualify for a home occupation since a lot of it is conducted outside of a building. LUKE: Are plants and trees grown there, or stored, there? BLIKSTAD: The only thing that I am aware of being grown there are bearded irises, on about a half -acre of his property, basically flower beds; and there is a grass field on the back portion of the ten acres. There was testimony at the hearing that the applicant didn't do anything with that, but the applicant contested that in the notice of appeal. I'm not sure, because I'm not out there observing. LUKE: Are customers coming there and buying material on site? BLIKSTAD: Not to my knowledge. LUKE: So material is stored there, and then taken out to use at the job site. DEWOLF: What is your recommendation, Paul? BLIKSTAD: I don't have one for you in this instance. I don't feel strongly enough either way on this to make a recommendation, in all honesty. DEWOLF: If a decision is made this morning, it's up to you two (referring to Commissioners Luke and Daly). I've been gone all week and am completely unfamiliar with this. (Chair DeWolf and Commissioner Daly then indicated that they are not prepared to make a decision at this point without further time for review.) LUKE: How would you feel about a week from Wednesday on a decision? Are we still within the time frame then? Minutes of Work Session Page 5 of 9 Pages Monday, January 28, 2002 BLIKSTAD: I think the applicant is willing to waive whatever time is necessary, I believe. LUKE: We can do this in Sunriver on February 6. We're not taking testimony anyway. We're just making a decision on whether to hear it. So we're still within the 150 days if we choose not to; the applicant still has his appeal rights. TIA LEWIS: We're willing to give you guys time. DALY: I want put on the record that I received a letter from Representative Ben Westlund on this issue. I just saw it this morning, and it raised some concerns. LUKE: I received that letter, too; and also one from Nancy Schlangen. These will become a part of the record. DEWOLF: I'm not sure what to do about getting letters like that outside of a hearing. That's another issue we've got to deal with. LUKE: Nancy's was just, "you ought to hear this." Ben's listed some stuff. It will be made part of the record. BLIKSTAD: I'm comfortable if you guys want to wait a week. TIA LEWIS: What was the date again? DEWOLF: Wednesday, February 6, down in Sunriver. You don't need to come to it. TIA LEWIS: I was wondering if you would let me say something about the code violation and the impact on the appeal. Would you give me that liberty? LUKE: I just wonder where it came from. Minutes of Work Session Page 6 of 9 Pages Monday, January 28, 2002 DEWOLF: I'm uncomfortable with this, because I don't know where we stand legally on this type of situation. My understanding is that we have to base our decision on whether to hear this on the record. So, if you've got information that you've already submitted into the record on that, then we'll be reading that. Otherwise I don't think we can accept that. Thank you. BLIKSTAD: I don't think you can, either. This meeting will be held in the Homestead Building at Sunriver on Wednesday, February 6, 2002, at 10 a.m. (due to two hearings being held there on that date). 7. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2002-011, Approving the Garland Annexation into the Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District #2. Commissioner Luke indicated that they want to be annexed, and the District wants them. Tom Fay, Manager of Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District No. 2, confirmed this, and indicated that there was no opposition to this annexation. LUKE: Move signature. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Recording Secretary's note: After today's Board meeting concluded, Laurie Craghead of Legal Counsel indicated that she meant the above item to be indicated as a public hearing to be conducted on Wednesday, January 30, 2002; and that the Order could not be official approved by the Board until after that hearing. The item was therefore placed on the agenda for the Wednesday, January 30 Board meeting. Minutes of Work Session Page 7 of 9 Pages Monday, January 28, 2002 8. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Utility Easement to Run Across County Land (off Fryrear Road and near Deschutes Junction). Tammy Credicott gave a brief overview of the property affected by the easement. LUKE: Move signature of the easement, as presented by the maps. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Letter Appointing Doug Myers to the Panoramic Access Special Road District Board. LUKE: Move signature. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 10. ADDITION TO THE AGENDA Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of a Board -initiated Text Amendment to Sections 18.61.030 of Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code (File No. TA -02-2, Ordinance No. 2002-015) Relating to Height Restrictions in the La Pine Business and Industrial Park. Steve Miller reviewed the changes for the Board, which in essence brings the height limitation in the La Pine Business Park and Industrial District. Midstate Electric came before the Board and expressed some concern about the height limitations in these areas, and asked if you would initiate a text amendment to our code, except for one portion of that. He further explained that the Planning Commission asked that, "the maximum building height for any structure shall be (scratch) 25, to 30 feet on any lot adjacent to a residential district, and 45 feet on any lot adjacent to a residential district", and they suggested, "that is separated from a residential district by a street or road". Minutes of Work Session Page 8 of 9 Pages Monday, January 28, 2002 LUKE: Does this actually just bring it up to what we have in the rest of the County? DEWOLF: The 30 foot part does. MILLER: The 30 feet does. The 45 feet was already there as well; it just was, if you were across the street from a residential district, you couldn't go to 45 feet. I've already done notice, and the hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, January 30. I would be surprised if there is any public input on this. This would be with an emergency clause. There will be a public hearing on this issue on the Wednesday, January 30, 2002 agenda. Being no further items brought before the Board, Chair Tom De Wolf adjourned the meeting at 10:35 a.m. DATED this 28th Day of January 2002 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Minutes of Work Session Monday, January 28, 2002 Tom DeWolf, Chair ennis R. Luke, Commissioner ichael M. Daly, Oommissioner Page 9 of 9 Pages