Loading...
2002-893-Minutes for Meeting June 03,2002 Recorded 6/7/2002S DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ 1001■893 MARY SUE PENHOLLOW , COUNTY CLERK COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 0607/2002 10:21;54 AM ta_ Board of Commissioners 1130 N.W. Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 • Fax (541) 3BB-4752 www.deschutes.org Tom De Wolf Dennis R. Luke Mike Daly MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MONDAY, JUNE 33, 2002 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building 1130 NW Harriman St., Bend Present were Commissioners Tom De Wolf, Dennis R. Luke and Michael M. Daly. Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; George Read, Steve Jorgensen, Christy Morgan, Catherine Morrow and Paul Blikstad, Community Development; George Kolb, Road Department; and Rick Isham and Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel. Also in attendance were Sue Brewster, Sheriff's Office; Dave Duncan, Bonnie LaMont and Suzanne Donovan, Mental Health Department; Dan Peddycord, Health Department; Tammy Credicott, Property Management; Ted Schassberger, Commissioners' Office; Media Representatives Barney Lerten of bend.com and Mike Cronin of the Bulletin; and two citizens. Chair Tom De Wolf opened the meeting at 10: 00 a. m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. 2. Before the Board was a Discussion of a Presentation of the 7 t Annual "Big Cog" Awards. This will be addressed at the Wednesday, June S Board meeting. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, June 3, 2002 Page 1 of 22 Pages Quality Services Performed with Pride 3. Before the Board was Consideration of Chair Signature of a Memorandum of Understanding between Deschutes County and the Deschutes Basin Coordinating Group regarding Participation in the Basin Planning Process. Jeff Rola of the Deschutes Soil & Water Conservation District explained that this proposed new group is convened, not appointed. It takes in a larger area than the Watershed Council, as it includes a portion of Jefferson, Crook, Wasco and Sherman counties. He said that there would be a steering committee or executive committee put into place to develop the structure and documents. Their work will be somewhat similar to the type of study done on groundwater mitigation, which took two years. Commissioner Luke asked if the subcommittee would be doing the majority of the work, and if someone from the County should be appointed. He suggested that he, Laurie Craghead of Legal Counsel, or someone from Community Development become involved. He added that outside legal counsel might be able to add their expertise in this issue. There would be no County funding required. He added that this basin is very important to all of central Oregon. Jeff Rola said that they need sixteen parties for critical mass. Chair DeWolf asked what happens if someone won't participate. Jeff Rola said that would be unacceptable. It is his expectation that everyone on the list will sign on. The sixteen are needed to start. Presentations are being made to all of the entities during the next couple of weeks. Chair DeWolf stated that he would be comfortable signing it, on the condition that the majority of the counties and cities sign. Laurie Craghead said she gave it a cursory review. It's not binding to the parties in regard to appropriated funds; it states a commitment to support the decisions of the group. She advised that it should not be structured to bind the County to any unappropriated funds. DEWOLF: I move approval, subject to legal review and recommendations. LUKE: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, June 3, 2002 Page 2 of 22 Pages 4. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Chair Signature of an Agreement between Deschutes County and the Oregon Department of Transportation for the MCSAP Intensified Speed Project. Sue Brewster explained that this is the fifth year, and the maximum amount is $5,300, which supplements patrol costs. The contract actually started in October, but the County just received the documents from the state. There are no budget impacts. This was placed on the June 5 Consent Agenda. 5. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Signature of an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Sheriffs Office and the Bend Metro Park and Recreation District for Inmate Work Crew Services. Sue Brewster explained that this is a continuation of an existing contract; increased the amount Bend Metro Park and Recreation is paying for the services. These amounts pay for transportation, equipment and officer time. This was placed on the June 5 Consent Agenda. 6. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Signature of a Three-year Contract between Deschutes County and the City of Bend for Radio Communications. This was placed on the June 5 Consent Agenda. 7. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Signature of a Three-year Contract between Deschutes County and the City of Redmond for Radio Communications. Sue Brewster said the cities reimburse the Motorola costs that Deschutes County pays. This was placed on the June S Consent Agenda. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, June 3, 2002 Page 3 of 22 Pages 8. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Signature of an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Oregon Department of Transportation and Deschutes County, Authorizing the Deschutes County Sheriffs Office to Inspect Commercial Motor Vehicles and Drivers for Compliance with Oregon Revised Statutes and Hazardous Materials Law. This will be addressed at the Wednesday, June S Board meeting. 9. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Ordinance No. 2002-021, Amending Chapter 2.54, the Deschutes County Corrections Supervisory Board to Conform to New Policies and Procedures as Adopted by the SAB. Rick Isham indicated that this was voted on by the Board about a month ago, and this document formally adopts it. Commissioner Luke said he would like to see a change in the board membership; he feels the person should be a non - paid law enforcement person. Mike Maier stated that this has been changed primarily to reflect what has been happening and not what was in the procedures. Commissioner Luke indicated that he feels there should be people involved who have the time to dedicate to this. Sue Brewster said that this has become very huge, as the state is turning over more of these types of responsibilities to the County all the time. This establishes clarifications of who should serve on the committee. This will be addressed at the Wednesday, June S Board meeting. 10. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Signature of a License Agreement with "Volunteers in Medicine Clinic of the Cascade" to Provide Space for this Project. Dan Peddycord introduced Christine Winters, who is the project coordinator for the group. He said they are already using the space to get the project up and running; and the plan is for it to be run through September. Ms. Winters explained that the group would be constructing its own building soon. This was placed on the June S Consent Agenda. lVililu«b u, -Duaru of k-ommissioners' Work Session Monday, June 3, 2002 Page 4 of 22 Pages 1 1. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Letters Appointing Charles L. Frazier, Richard E. Osburn and Rene' Cardenas to the Deschutes County Mental Health Advisory Board, through December 31, 2005. Bonnie LaMont explained that they are losing one member, but hope to appoint three. Membership has been down for some time. It can range between eleven and fifteen people, and this brings it up to 12 persons. This was placed on the June S Consent Agenda. 12. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Letters Reappointing Stan Owen and Alan Burke to the Local Alcohol and Drug Planning Committee, through March 31, 2005. This was placed on the June S Consent Agenda. 13. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Signature of a Personal Services Contract between Deschutes County and CORIL (Central Oregon Resources for Independent Living) to Provide Mental Health Services to Residents of Emma's Place. Dave Duncan explained that this is a continuation of an existing contract that has been in place since Emma's Place came into existence. There is no change in dollars. This was placed on the June S Consent Agenda. 14. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Signature of an Intergovernmental Agreement between Deschutes County and BestCare, to Provide DUI Treatment Services. Dave Duncan said this is a continuation, with the same terms. This was placed on the June S Consent Agenda. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, June 3, 2002 Page 5 of 22 Pages 15. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Signature of an Intergovernmental Agreement between Deschutes County and Serenity Lane, to Provide DUI Treatment Services. Dave Duncan said this is a continuation, with the same terms. This was placed on the June 5 Consent Agenda. 16. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Signature of an Intergovernmental Agreement between Deschutes County and Pfeifer and Associates, to Provide DUI Treatment Services. This was placed on the June 5 Consent Agenda. 17. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Approval of Letters of Intent to Continue a Partnership Deschutes County has with the Bend -La Pine School District and the Redmond School District to Provide Mental Health Services at FAN (Family Access Network) Sites. Suzanne Donovan said that now that Jefferson County is involved, this raises the number of people served; it may bring in enough money to save the two positions that are threatened. There is a fundraiser scheduled for September. The Safe School grant is the one in the most jeopardy at this time. This was placed on the June 5 Consent Agenda. 18. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Signature Accepting a Deed of Dedication of a Portion of Imperial Avenue (in Whispering Pines Subdivision) from Robert Holley. George Kolb said the Board discussed this some time ago. When forming the Gift Road Local Improvement District, the County found that a certain County - owned property did not have legal frontage. He worked with the owners of two adjacent properties in this regard; one wasn't interested, but they were able to obtain these 30 feet of property from Robert Holley. This was placed on the June 5 Consent Agenda. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, June 3, 2002 Page 6 of 22 Pages 19. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Signature of an Acceptance of a Bureau of Land Management Right -of -Way Grant for Mountainview Road. George Kolb stated that the Board reviewed this about a month ago, and it is now time to process the acceptance from BLM. This was placed on the June S Consent Agenda. 20. Before the Board was a Discussion of a Public Hearing and Discussion of the Adoption of Ordinance No. 2002-017, Regarding Private Property Compensation Procedures. George Read said that a Supreme Court decision is expected within a couple of weeks. This will be addressed at the Wednesday, June S Board meeting. 21. Before the Board was a Discussion of a Decision whether to Hear an Appeal of the County Hearings Officer's Decision on DR -02-2 (Dowell Property), a Declaratory Ruling on the Side Yard Setback Standard in the Forest Use Zone. PAUL BLIKSTAD: We received an appeal submitted by Jeffrey and Pat Dowell, of the Hearings Officer's denial of their request for a declaratory ruling to determine what side yard setback standards should apply to their parcel in the forest use zone. I believe the Board is aware that we had a prior declaratory ruling application, No. DR -015, which had a Hearings Officer's decision, and it wasn't quite clear in that decision what it meant, we felt. They appealed it. We actually had scheduled a hearing before the Board, but because a transcript didn't get in, it had to be cancelled. So the applicant reapplied for the declaratory ruling. What we have now is a Hearings Officer's decision that said that she thinks the original Hearings Officer's decision decided this already, and she didn't feel she had authority to change that decision. DEWOLF: But that decision, as I recall, at least from our perspective, wasn't clear. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, June 3, 2002 Page 7 of 22 Pages BLIKSTAD: It wasn't from mine, either, exactly what it meant. In my opinion, it didn't help the applicant any. If he wanted to add on to the existing home, he would have had -- without the declaratory ruling, he would have had to, at a minimum, be required to apply for a landscape management review, and we wouldn't have known what standard to apply. DEWOLF: Because it wasn't clear in her ruling. BLIKSTAD: Yes. It's either 100 feet, or it's something else. And if it's 100 feet, then he's got an unbuildable lot. DEWOLF: Because it's a 200 -foot wide lot. BLIKSTAD: Yes. As I stated in my memo to you, this one presents a difficult situation to the Board. You had decided to hear the appeal but could not hear it because of a failure to submit the transcript. I know you can't take it under consideration, but Laurie received a letter from the opponent's attorney on this one, and I believe she has some comments. LUKE: Can I ask you a question? Let's say that I own that lot, and I come in to Community Development and submit a plot plan. And on that plot plan it shows, for example, a 50 -foot side yard setback. Would you turn it down? And if you did turn it down, what would you use for a basis to tell me what my setback should be? BLIKSTAD: The zoning ordinance. LUKE: The zoning ordinance says what? BLIKSTAD: One hundred feet. w inutes or noara of Uommissioners' Work Session Monday, June 3, 2002 Page 8 of 22 Pages LUKE: On a 200 -foot lot. BLIKSTAD: Well, it says 100 feet from zoned forest land, and he has zoned forest land south and north. LUKE: So it's right in the center of the lot. BLIKSTAD: Yes, with no building, because it's 200 feet wide. You can see that this one is problematic for us. We've got a conditional use from 1980 that didn't tell us anything. LUKE: I went through the file, and it's very unclear, which is not very fair to the property owner who believes the lots were created to build houses on. That's why the whole thing was set up, with a large common area and the wildlife areas. DEWOLF: What do you say, Laurie? CRAGHEAD: Although you cannot consider it in making your decision on whether to hear this, I think you will need to set up kind of a mini -hearing at the beginning, if you decide to hear this, to discuss jurisdictional issues. Because they have been raised. DEWOLF: What do you mean by that? CRAGHEAD: On whether the notice of appeal was properly done, and followed our Code provisions. And, therefore, whether you even have jurisdiction to hear it. Just like the last time. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, June 3, 2002 Page 9 of 22 Pages LUKE: Who has jurisdiction to hear it if we don't? CRAGHEAD: It may be that there is no one who has jurisdiction to hear it, because of the fact the proper process was not followed, and the deadline has passed. DALY: You couldn't start from scratch and start all over again? Or is this a dead deal forever? CRAGHEAD: It would be a dead deal. They'd have to reapply for something else, and I'm not sure what that would be. DEWOLF: Obviously there is something you feel you can't communicate with us at this point. CRAGHEAD: I worry about the problem of ex parte contact and the fact that in deciding whether to hear an appeal, you are only allowed to consider staff reports and record below. You aren't allowed to take in any outside arguments or information. My advice is based on outside information that has come to me in a letter from an attorney who has challenging the jurisdiction, based on lack of the proper procedure. DEWOLF: So we can't get enough information to make a good decision. We can only use the information that's here to make a decision. There's not enough here to make a good decision, for me anyway. What do we do? Legally we don't want to create a situation that throws this back in court on technicalities. Right now I feel like if we agree to hear it, there's the potential that it's a bad decision, but I don't know why. And, if we choose not to hear it, potentially that's a really bad decision, but I don't know why. That's how I feel here this morning. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, June 3, 2002 Page 10 of 22 Pages CRAGHEAD: There might be some of the same issues that came up last time on the jurisdiction issue of the form itself not being properly filed or filled out. There was not a signature of the applicant on it, or by their attorneys as their legal representative. LUKE: This is the current application we're talking about? CRAGHEAD: The current notice of appeal. It's a matter of following the letter of the code in terms as it says, "to be on a form approved by Deschutes County Planning", and there's a specific form to be signed. BLIKSTAD: The form is there. It just doesn't say, Bob Lovlien, attorney for applicant. It says it on the thing that Tom has, but it doesn't say it on the actual application form. CRAGHEAD: So it's a matter of the way you want to interpret that as being sufficient to comply with Code. LUKE: Bob Lovlien, from my experience with this, has been the attorney for them all the way through. DALY: Is that the only issue? CRAGHEAD: There's also the issues of them asking for a de novo review, and Code requires them to present their reasons why they want a de novo review, and they don't other than a cursory statement. It's whether you feel that's sufficient. DALY: Well, now I'm thoroughly confused. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, June 3, 2002 Page 11 of 22 Pages DEWOLF: I'm not as confused as I am frustrated. There's no real way that I can see to get to the merits of this case, because we're being blocked by technicalities. Is that accurate? CRAGHEAD: You would need to make a decision on the technicalities before you proceed to the merits of the case, if you decide to hear it. That's part of the problem with having the Code provisions only allowing you to consider staff reports and the record below when deciding whether to hear an appeal. You're not allowed to take in any outside testimony on it. DEWOLF: Which is fair. We get the Hearings Officer's decision, plus our staff report, plus the notice of appeal. CRAGHEAD: But then, according to the Code, you then don't take in the extra arguments that someone is making an argument on jurisdiction. Then, if you decide to hear it, they would have to argue that at the time of the hearing, if you had it de novo. But they could also challenge that you didn't have the jurisdiction. By not allowing it, they'd still challenge the jurisdiction. LUKE: But if you had it de novo, they could make the argument on the record. CRAGHEAD: Yes. LUKE: Then we would have to make a ruling on that challenge. CRAGHEAD: Yes. That would be included as part of it. LUKE: You could go ahead with the challenge to start with, if you decided to hear it. If there is a challenge. Make a decision on that challenge. Because if you decide that you don't have jurisdiction, then (unintelligible). ,viinues of tsoara of Uommissioners' Work Session Monday, June 3, 2002 Page 12 of 22 Pages DEWOLF: So you got a letter from an attorney? CRAGHEAD: Yes. Liz Fancher. DEWOLF: I guess we have a couple of days to think about it. (To Paul Blikstad and Laurie Craghead) I may want to talk with the two of you at some point in the next two days, to try to get a little more clarity. CRAGHEAD: Basically, it's similar issues to what you had on the last appeal. DEWOLF: It's similar issues if you can get -- CRAGHEAD: The same jurisdictional issues that were brought up on the last appeal. But I don't know that we presented those to you, given the fact that of no ex parte contact. DEWOLF: I don't remember that, actually. Not my favorite part of this job, I'll tell you. This will be addressed at the Wednesday, June S Board meeting. 22. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Approval of the Findings of the La Pine Airport Feasibility Study and of the Next Steps in the Process of the Development of a New General Aviation Airport in the La Pine Community. This will be addressed at the Wednesday, June S Board meeting. 1-111utch ui nuara 01 k;ommissioners' Work Session Monday, June 3, 2002 Page 13 of 22 Pages 23. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of the Second Readings and Adoption of Ordinance No. 2002-001 and Ordinance No. 2002-002, Revisions to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance for the Rural Service Centers of Alfalfa, Brothers, Hampton and Millican (to Comply with State Rule regarding Unincorporated Communities). DEWOLF: I need to start this morning, and I'll do the same thing Wednesday, with the fact that I made a mistake last time. After we had the long discussion, and I was not comfortable with the way we were going, it was, "how do we vote, yes, yes, yes." I just want to make it clear that I should have voted no. CHRISTY MORGAN: In your packet, I made the revisions to the one paragraph that was discussed at the last meeting, which is the paragraph that addresses the designation of two additional acres as future commercial property. It would be north of Willard Road. Really, the only thing that has happened from last time to this time is a clarification of the paragraph, per Commissioner Daly's request. He would like to discuss another option. (She referred to an oversized aerial photograph of the area in question.) DALY: I drove out to look at the properties yesterday. It makes sense to me to keep the commercial property all on one side of the road. It's a pretty congested area, and it's easy to get off the highway on one side. Into the other piece it's really not easy. It's a lot lower grade, and a totally different situation. It makes sense to me that the property adjacent to the existing commercial be brought in instead of the property across the road. That way you've got it all consolidated in one area, and it's easy to develop. The purpose of having this new designation is to provide services to the community out there so everybody doesn't have run to Bend to buy a spark plug for their lawnmower or something. Hopefully a small farm supply business would benefit the community greatly. Right now, you don't even have room to turn around in the little store. To me, it makes sense that while we're doing this, to do it right, and provide enough commercial property so if someone does want to provide some additional services for that community, to save on vehicular traffic going back to town or to Prineville, that's what we're here for. To me, that makes sense. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, June 3, 2002 Page 14 of 22 Pages DEWOLF: I appreciate you coming to that conclusion, because I think it's correct. But I would make an argument on the other side, and that is you can make it less dangerous on the old school property by just not allowing access directly from the main road, and make access only available off the side street that doesn't carry the traffic. If you're turning left out of that side street to have access to that property, you reduce the potential for accidents there. The other thing I would say is that, if in fact the decision is to add an additional two acres somewhere on this side, the south side of the highway, it would make more sense to be further away from that intersection, just for traffic safety reasons. And not have an access close to the intersection. That would make more sense to me. But I'm not convinced that we need to add the extra two acres. I am not convinced that any time in the next ten years you're going to have anyone wanting to add more commercial uses out in that area. And we'd have another periodic review in that time, and if the Commission at that time wants to designate some areas commercial, they could do so. From what I'm hearing from this community, they really don't want more commercial added. So, why are we doing it? The reason we held the meeting out there was to get input from the community. And the input from the community was not to add any more commercial. It was not a 90% to 10% vote, but we voted with the people who were there. They said not to add any more. DALY: Well, I wasn't at the meeting, but since all that happened and more of the people in the community have become aware of what's going on, I think you have it now 50150. You've got half the people wanting one thing, and the other half wanting something else. Now we've got hundreds of letters from both sides of the issue. It's too bad the community is so divided over this. By the same token, I guess that's why they hired us, to help with these decisions. To me, it just makes sense to keep it all on one side of the road with easier access. To me, if we're going to add something to provide services to the community, to keep them from having to run to Prineville or Bend for a quart of milk, that's the reason for doing this. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, June 3, 2002 Page 15 of 22 Pages DALY: There are rumors there is going to be a nightclub or strip joint, but need dictates what is going to happen there. People aren't going to build something if the service isn't desired. They are going to try to provide a basic service for that community; it's a rural, farming community, and those are the services that will happen as long as there is enough land available to do so. If it were my choice I'd take the property next to the store property and add it. It wouldn't make sense in rezoning that land where the community land is. DEWOLF: The sense in doing that is that it is owned by all the users, and they would all get notification automatically by their own board in any notification that we do. That's the reason it might make sense to use that property. LUKE: Christy, you do not have two votes to add that paragraph. So you might as well take it out. I disagree with Commissioner Daly about it being on the other side of the road, so you don't have two votes. DEWOLF: If we do the second reading without it, that means we won't be designating any additional commercial. That's what you would do? LUKE: That's correct. I believe it should be at the school property. I spent a lot of time on this, and that's where I think it should be. DEWOLF: I would go along with taking it out, because I would just as soon add the additional commercial. This would leave the two acres with a one -acre minimum where the store is. DALY: That was my first choice. I really think we ought to add additional commercial acreage there, but I hate to see it going in across the road. But if it's a choice of not having it, then I'll go along with Dennis, if he's not going to budge. I think it ought to be on one side of the road myself. Makes more sense to me. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, June 3, 2002 Page 16 of 22 Pages DEWOLF: Well, if that's what you think, then be firm in your convictions and leave it that way. Ten years from now, let the community decide where it wants to have it. We're making a decision that a community doesn't want. We're making a decision based on what the single property owner wants, and what agreed to in Alfalfa was to do what the community wants. LUKE: Since this was a legislative matter and not a land use action, I have spoken with quite a few people out there who didn't come to the meeting. They've found other ways to talk with me. I don't believe that the community consensus is that they don't want additional commercial. I believe there are quite a few members of the community who, for one reason or another, believe that way, sometimes with the proper information and sometimes without the correct information. I don't believe the whole community feels that way. CATHERINE MORROW: I just want to clarify what I understood the way the votes would shake out. Are we to remove any reference to designating additional commercial acreage in the comprehensive plan? DALY: We're not through talking about it yet. I can understand what you are trying to get at, since you've had to change this so many times. I might ask you, Dennis, what's wrong with the property to the east of the store being commercial? LUKE: The school has never been EFU ground. It's always been a school site. Traffic in and out of there happened for years, with parents and school buses pulling in and out, a lot more traffic than there is now, before the school moved to Redmond. It makes sense to have that there. You aren't going to tear that asphalt out and put farm ground in there. They could still farm if they had water on the other side of the road. To have it go to the water users, every one of the water users would have to sign something to be able to sell that piece of ground. I haven't read their by-laws, but I assume that would be a huge process. And, in effect, would be no process at all, from my standpoint. iviinutes of board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, June 3, 2002 Page 17 of 22 Pages LUKE: Those people have requested this, and it makes a lot of sense, I have received letters on it, I've talked with a lot of people personally on it, and that is the site that the community talked about. There was discussion on this site at the meeting, and there was actually a vote. That vote wasn't overwhelmingly one way or the other. There were a lot of misunderstandings out there. I remember Andy Andrews demanded to know why we were talking about it. One of the groups out there actually brought it up; it didn't come from the County. Instead it actually came from the citizens out there. It was a good meeting and everyone did a great job, but it was tough to get everybody thinking about the same issues. I think it should go there. After all the time I've spent on this, if they are going to do it, I think that's the piece I think it should go on. DALY: I really believe we need to supply additional commercial land for the future for additional services. DEWOLF: That's one thing that I don't necessary agree with. The fact is, most of the people out there do come into town on a regular basis and do most of their shopping. You heard the guy who owns the store say, these are not my customers. These are not the people who come into my store. These are people that want it all to stay the same out there. Well, if in fact we are doing our job in protecting a rural environment, then we should not be zoning more property commercial out there. We should be leaving it the way it is to retain its rural, farming character. The way to do that is to take that paragraph out and leave this thing alone. And if in ten years the community and the Board come to a different conclusion based on what's happened over that decade, let them deal with it then. LUKE: His customers aren't necessarily the people who have all the green property around there. All you have to do is to go back towards Bend just a little ways, and there are houses all over out there. His customers do come from that area. This does not make this a commercial piece of property. All this does is designate it on the comprehensive plan. They still have to go through a process. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, June 3, 2002 Page 18 of 22 Pages LUKE: If we take this paragraph out, they will have to come in for a plan change also, which is a longer, most costly procedure. It just makes some sense to do it now - and the City of Bend did that when they revised their comp plan - they designated some property where they would like to see various types of uses, but they didn't change the zoning. I think it makes sense to do this. DEWOLF: People do drive fast out there. And that's where I share you concern about having commercial on opposite sides of the road. DALY: To me, if there was additional property close to the store, it makes sense to me that the old store should go away and the new store or whatever should be built farther back, with more area for access and parking. Right now, it's a dangerous situation. There's a lot of traffic there. If by zoning a little bit more property closer to the store, designating or whatever, they could think about getting rid of the dangerous situation and provide something that isn't dangerous. DEWOLF: It's up to you. I just wanted to reemphasize what Commissioner Luke said. That is, if you don't designate it at this point, it does not preclude someone from coming in at the time they want to do something, and having this whole debate with the community at that time, on an actual proposal. DALY: But you're talking about a comp plan change. LUKE: A comp plan change will also have a plan put together of what use is going to go on there. MORROW: But they'd have to get a zone change, with its own criteria. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, June 3, 2002 Page 19 of 22 Pages DALY: I understand that there is a good process if we designate the land in the comp plan as future commercial, there's still a process to get that zone change done. After visiting the site, and visualizing what is there and what could be there, it just made more sense to me to have it all on one side. DEWOLF: Nobody has any plans right now. So be a man of strong conviction and just say it DALY: What do you mean? There are people on both sides of this issue. Hundreds of people want it. I think it would be more appropriate on the other side of the road, but I'm certainly not to the point of eliminating it. DEWOLF: It's your choice. Either it is the school property or it's no property. That's the choice. LUKE: We have ordinances that we've read for the first time, that Tom made a mistake and voted yes on. These ordinances designate the property across the way. On a second reading we can take out that additional, if you're concerned about it being across the street. I've gone too much of this to make a change now. I like the ordinances the way they are. DEWOLF: The way that Dennis will vote is the way the ordinances are. The way I will vote is no additional commercial designation in the comp plan. That's why it's up to you, Mike. DALY: I think more commercial is needed. I'll let Catherine know sometime tomorrow what I want to do. This will be addressed at the Wednesday, June S Board meeting. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, June 3, 2002 Page 20 of 22 Pages 24. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Ordinance No. 2002-024, Repealing Old Personnel Rules and Adopting Revised Deschutes County Personnel Rules, Effective July 1, 2002. Rick Isham explained that there are some issues in these rules that that relate to the use of credit cards and the use of equipment. Elected officials can decline to be bound by those rules, which is not typical. Chair DeWolf asked if there is a process identified for elected officials in this regard; Mr. Isham said there should be a written process, and he will work on it. Mike Maier asked if it exempts elected officials' employees. Mr. Isham replied that there is one department, the Sheriff's Office, where that could be an issue. The Sheriff may assume that this applies to all of the employees appointed by the Sheriff. This has been addressed with the District Attorney but has not yet been discussed with the Sheriff. A first reading of this Ordinance is scheduled for June 5. There is a Board of Commissioners meeting with Department Heads scheduled for June 10, and Mr. Isham will distribute the information to them at that time. A final reading is scheduled for June 26, with the Ordinance to become effect on July 1, 2002. 25. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2002-042, Amending Resolution No. 2002-036, Declaring the Intent of Deschutes County to Transfer Real Property (Changing Publication and Hearing Dates). Tammy Credicott said this action was approved by the Board about a month ago, but it became necessary to change the notification and publication dates. This was placed on the June 5 Consent Agenda. 26. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Signature of a Letter Appointing Debbie Huebner to the Vandevert Acres Special Road District, through June 1, 2005. This was placed on the June 5 Consent Agenda. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, June 3, 2002 Page 21 of 22 Pages 27. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Letters Reappointing Individuals to the Board of Fall River Estates Special Road District (Richard Martin to July 1, 2003 and Bill Bauer to July 1, 2005). This was placed on the June 5 Consent Agenda. 28. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Signature of a Letter Appointing Kristine West to the Four Rivers Vector Control District, through June 30, 2006. This was placed on the June 5 Consent Agenda. 29. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Chair Signature of an Oregon Liquor Control License Application for Sushimoto's Asian Bistro, Sunriver. This was placed on the June 5 Consent Agenda. 30. Before the Board was Additions to the Agenda. None were offered. Being no further items brought before the Board, Chair Tom De Wolf adjourned the meeting at 11:35 a.m. DATED this 3rd Day of June 2002 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Tom De olf, Chair ennis R. Luke, Commissioner ichael . Daly Commissioner Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, June 3, 2002 Page 22 of 22 Pages