Loading...
2007-931-Minutes for Meeting March 26,1980 Recorded 6/20/2007COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS U 2007.931 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL „1111,, 06/20/2007 09:38:00 AM 2007-931 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page { If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244: Re-recorded to correct [give reason] previously recorded in Book or as Fee Number and Page BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MARCH 26, 1980 - DAILY MINUTES Chairman Young called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. with all three Commissioners present. Commissioner Young wished to introduce the students who were in the room for Student Government Day. The first item on the agenda was a statement from Chairman Young regarding the Bill Pack Personnel Report. Chairman Young had a statement typed up which he read from for the benefit of the audience and the tape. Chairman Young stated that he felt that this report was very detrimental to the county. He felt that the report defaced certain county operations which was unnecessary. At the end of his statement, he made a formal motion. MOTION: CHAIRMAN YOUNG moved to relegate this Pack report to the trash can. COMMISSIONER SHEPARD: Second for discussion. Commissioner Shepard stated that Mr. Pack gave the Board two presentations, both of which Chairman Young did not attend, once because of illness. Commissioner Shepard felt that in both of those presentations, Mr. Pack had attempted to explain to the commission the purpose of this study and what it was supposed to do. Commissioner Paulson stated that he felt that while he did not agree with everything in the report, he felt that it was an unbiased report and gave constructive recommendations as to what the county can do to rectify salary and classification situations. Commissioner Shepard felt that it was important to have such an analysis at times by an outsider who has an objective view on the layout of the situation and that way all problems will be brought to light and hopefully improved upon. VOTE COMMISSIONER SHEPARD: No. COMMISSIONER PAULSON: No. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Aye. The next item on the agenda was a discussion with Pat Gisler regarding Fred Meyer Road. Mr. Gisler had hand-outs for the commissioners and for county counsel. Mr. Gisler stated that he was here today to discuss the expense for the pavement of Fred Meyer Road. This road abutts Brookside Subdivision at one end and was approved and at the time of that approval, one of the requirements was to pave Fred Meyer Road although it was not within the subdivision and no right-of-way from the subdivision was given to Fred Meyer Road. Mr. Gisler had a map that he referred to to show the commissioners the area where he was talking about. Mr. Gisler read from a section of the subdivision requirements to be able to obtain approval. In these requirements it states that if there was a primary access road, then the developer will not be required to pave the other access road but the county shall. Mr. Gisler was requesting that the County reimburse him for paving that road as it was not supposed to be a requirement as he already had a primary access into that subdivision. Commissioner Paulson pointed out that the road that Mr. Gisler had paved was the primary road that everyone used to get into the subdivision but Mr. Gisler's point was that there was an existing access prior to his paving this road. Mr. Gisler stated that if there are outside roads to the subdivision, the require- ment is that they need not be paved. Chairman Young stated that Mr. Gisler should bring his bill (when he receives it) to the commission along with a formal request and at that time the commission would consider the atter further. Commissioner Paul- son asked county counsel what her comment was and Jill stated that she would like to talk to the road department before the matter went any further. The next item on the agenda was a report from Brent Lake of the LCDC regarding the County Comp Plan, Redmond and Sisters Comp Plans. First, Brent gave his report on the Deschutes County Plan. He stated that the plan had accomodated 11 of the 14 statewide goals. The first goal that the LCDC was concerned about was the Agricul- ture goal where the county had specified EFU 20-40 acre lots and the LCDC wanted 1 some clarification as to why those sizes were chosen and why those certain areas. (Justification was needed.) Brent stated that he was sorry to say that at this time he could not recommend acknowledgement and compliance to the commission because of the three goals not addressed sufficiently. Therefore, a 120 days continuance to make the revision and make their plan better for recommendation for acknowledgement by the LCDC. Brent stated that he had talked to the county Planning Director about all of these changes and John feels that they can be made with relatively minor work. The second item that Brent addressed was the multi-use agriculture zone is designated as an agricultural zone and the LCDC really feels that it is a mult-use rural zone and should be addressed more as rural residential 10-acre zone than as a agricultural zone but it can be worked out if the county feels differently. There is no problem with the designation but with the size that the county picked to zone it as. Brent said that there were acouple of places in the EFU zoning where it conflicts with. ORS 215.123 which is the chapter on EFU zones and they have set out recommendations: that the LCDC feels needs to be addressed. The Forestry goal was talked about next and he stated that there are some permitted uses within the F-2 and F-3 zone that may not actually protect commercial forest activities in those areas and needs to be modified or additional information given. The Oregon State Board of Forestry has objected to the comp plan because there is a statement that the Board of Forestry has to provide a letter to anyone who wishes to do any cutting in the area to insure that they are compatible with the Oregon Forest Practice Act. The Board of Forestry has objected because they are not in the business of evaluating land use planning and they feel that they have people in the field that make these determinations and a letter from the Board is unnecessary. Brent feels that this is a minor point which. can be rectified easily. Goal 5 which deals with.historical, scenic and natural resources is a similar problem with the County's plan and Sisters, and Redmond. The problem is in regard to protection of historic sites; all three jurisdictions were counting on the adoption of the Historic Ordinance by this time, which it has not been, and so that area was not covered in the plans. Brent stated that some policy will have to be included in the plan to cover this goal, or the county should adopt that ordinance before acknowledgement can be made. All three plans have pretty much ignored the trans-America bikeway that goes through Sisters and Redmond and further on to Prineville. It needs to further recognized in the plan, as to policies. The most major issue is the surface mining issue and the protection of surface mining resources in the county. Brent stated that the report will go into great detail about all aspects of that and Brent reminded the commission that the committee is looking at the information submitted November 1, 1979 and not all the subsequent work that has been done. Brent said that the inventory information in that plan needs to be updated and the information is available to update this and it also needs to be some clear non-discretionary standards when there is going to be a change from a SMR zone to a SM zone and there are some recommendations in the report for consideration. Commissioner Shepard asked Brent if the LCDC had any trouble with the designation of SMR and SM zones. Brent said no; it is strictly a county decision. Brent then answered questions from the audience. Betty Ahern from La Pine asked when the.La Pine area would be considered. Brent said that he had done some checking on this and it would be soon. There is a meeting on April 10, 1980 at 8:30 a.m. to discuss the problems that the different areas will be having and he encourages everyone to attend. Brent stated that the Redmond plan had five goals that had not been complied with- Going back to the County plan, Jill asked what the status of the exceptions statement was. Brent said that the state- ment will be accepted as is. Brent said that Redmond was also being given a 120 days continuance to revise their plan. Goal 2-there is no revision policy within the plan to insure how the plan will be revised and updated as necessary; Goal 5-historical and bikeways issues, Brent stated that there are no resource information as to why they picked the policies they did and this must be met; Brent stated that water quality was the same thing,good policies but no resources; Goals 10 and 14 there are some problems with the amount of area picked for housing needs and justifying those needs; they have set out over 3,000 acres of industrial lands and it needs 2 justification as to why that much land is needed; the same applies to commercial zoning. The residential land, especially the R-3 land, they will have to provide additional justification as to why they have picked the amount that they did. Brent went over the Sisters plan. There are problems with seven goals but they are mainly minor problems and Brent has already talked to Lorin Morgan about them and Lorin is working on them already. Goal 2-Forest Reserve zone is identified on the map in the SW corner which is public owned land but there is no discussion of it in the plan and no discussion of it in the zoning ordinance. Brent said that a Forest Reserve zone has to be identified and the commission told what it is and how it is to be handled. Goal 4-there is no identification on commercial forest lands-there is a statement in the plan regarding them but no mapping. Goal 5-the historical issue and the bikeway issue same as Redmond and the county. Goal 6-there is no discussion of noise control. With housing, there isn't a housing needs analysis because they did not know if Sisters will ever have a sewer system. The commission recommends doing a housing needs study with the understanding that there will never be a sewer system within Sisters. They state in their plan that 'they have a pro- blem with water supply (inadequate). Brent stated that the distribution system was what was causing the problem. But that is being worked on. Brent stated that there needs to be further discussion on the land needed for residential availability both in the forest reserve zone and there seems to be an excess using very large lot sizes. Also, it is hoped that Sisters would put some kind of redivision policy in their plan if they are going to go to large lot sizes if they are going to use septic tanks (14,000 sq ft. lots). As there were no questions from anyone, that ended the report. Commissioner Shepard had a matter that he wished to get formally on the record as the Board took action. It pertained to the appointing of Bruce Hamovitz to the Animal Control Board because of a resignation. MOTION: COMMISSIONER PAULSON moved that Mr. Bruce Hamovitz should be appointed to the Animal Control Board. COMMISSIONER SHEPARD: Second. Commissioner Shepard stated that a letter had been written to Mr. Hamovitz regarding this appointment and it had been signed by all three commissioners. VOTE COMMISSIONER PAULSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEPARD: Aye. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Aye. There was a major partition for signature, MJP 79-52. It was looked over briefly and as there were no problems or questions a motion was made. MOTION: COMMISSIONER PAULSON moved to approve MJP 79-52. COMMISSIONER SHEPARD: Second. VOTE COMMISSIONER PAULSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEPARD: Aye. CHAIRMAN YOUNG: Aye. Commissioner Shepard had another matter to bring up regarding the policies dis- cussed earlier this morning with Pat Gisler. Commissioner Shepard feels that the county should review their policies and become familiar with them and he stated that the city has a reimbursement policy that he felt was worth looking into. Commissioner Paulson had some comments to this effect. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS a/0 , e~__ , "/0001~00*,,!~, AL ERT A. UNG, C rman CLAY C. SHIPARD, Commiss' ner c Alp ROBERT C. PAULSON, 17., Co sioner