Loading...
2007-1220-Minutes for Meeting June 08,1982 Recorded 6/20/2007DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK 1iY Y COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 06/20/2007 1;54:54 AM IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII 111111111I I 2007-12 0 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 DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS JUNE 8, 1982 - REGULAR. MEETING Chairman Shepard called the meeting to order at 10:00 A.M. Commissioner Paulson and Commissioner Young were also in attendance. Amendments to Before the Board was a list of amendments to the agenda. the Agenda Chairman Shepard noted that "Consideration of Veterans Services" should be added to the list of amendments. Hearing no objections, the addition of the amendments to the agenda were accepted. Opening of Doug Maul, Facilities Coordinator, read aloud the bids Bids for received for the Sheriff's Substation in LaPine. He Sheriff's noted that those submitting bids were: R.C. Crum & Substation in Associates; George Hanson; C.E. Klock & Sons; Lloyd LaPine MacFarlane; Gary C. Peterson; Terpening & Sons; and Trident Construction. All of the bidders had submitted bid bonds in the amount of 10% of the bid as required. A listing outlining the bid amounts (including the base bid and adjustments for ten alternates) is attached. Chairman Shepard said that the Board will refer these bids to the architect (Marshal Richer, AIA) and Mr. Maul and a decision would be made within 21 days from this date. Continuation Chairman Shepard stated that he had received requests of Burton Site from the attorneys representing both sides that the Plan Appeal hearing be continued until Wednesday, June 9 at 10:00 A. M. MOTION: PAULSON moved to continue the Burton Site Plan appeal until tomorrow, June 9, at 10:00 A.M. YOUNG: Second. VOTE: SHEPARD: AYE. PAULSON: AYE. YOUNG: AYE. Discussion Neil Hudson, Director of Public Works, came before regarding the Board. He explained that in February of this year further im- it had been the Board's decision to cinder this road provement on to facilitate the passage of logging trucks, noting Spencer-Wells that there is 111 million board feet of timber in the Road area. He said that this road has been graveled and it had been intended that the Forest Service would add six inches of rock to the road surface. He said that they are willing to do this, but they would rather put on a oil mat surface on top of the cinders. He said that he concurs with this and noted that the cost would be approximately $250,000. He stated that of this cost, the Forest Service would provide $141,000 in materials and the County would provide $52,000 worth of materials and would perform the construction. He explained that because of their budget limitations, they cannot let a bid for this work, and so will be unable to participate in the construction. He also noted that this road is 7 miles long. There was some further discussion. Page 1 of 10 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners .June 8, 1932 - Regular Meeting MOTION: YOUNG moved to accept the Director of Public Works' recommendation and proceed with further improvements of Spencer-Wells Road. PAULSON: Second. Commissoner Young noted that it has.not been the policy of the Forest Service to deduct these amounts from Forest Receipt monies given to the County. VOTE: SHEPARD: AYE. PAULSON: AYE. YOUNG: AYE. Discussion Jay Day came before the Board on behalf of Marvin regarding Russell to request a zone change of Mr. Russell's Zoning property from Industrial zoning to Commercial zoning. He indicated that this property is surrounded by commercially zoned property and that Mr. Russell had not.been fully aware of the law regarding zoning when the Comprehensive Plan had been developed and .Mr. Russell had requested that his property be designated as industrial property because of the operation of his furniture manufacturing business on the property. He indicated that Mr. Russell is now interested in developing the property as.a shopping mall, a museum, small park and "forest arts center" (furniture man- ufacturing). He said that Mr. Russell is primarily interested in doing this for the betterment of LaPine and that it would be a show of good faith to the citizens of LaPine for the Board to take this legislative zone change action on Mr. Russell's behalf, and urged them to do so. There was some further discussion, in which Commissioner Shepard pointed out that this is premised on the thought that this was zoned industrial because the Planning staff involved in the Plan's pre- paration did not have enough time to fully consider their decision to designate this property as industrial property. He said that he felt that it would not be appropriate for the Board to proceed with a legislative zone change based on that, because it was his recollection that the Russells had specifically requested repeatedly that their property be zoned for industrial use. Based on that, he suggested that they proceed with a zone change by the procedures set forth in the Plan. Commissioner Young disagreed, saying that it was his feeling that they should proceed with with this zone change in the most expedient and inexpensive way possible, which would be through a legislative zone change initiated by the Board. Commissioner Paulson said that he did not feel it appropriate for the Board to initiate a legislative zone change. Commissioner Young asked that there be further information presented to the Board on this matter. Page 2 of 10 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners June 8, 1982 - Regular Meeting Lease Between Ralph Delamarter, County Librarian, was present Deschutes Co. to answer any questions, but said that he had no and Bend-La- further comments. Pine School MOTION: PAULSON moved to approve the lease. District for YOUNG: Second. Library VOTE: SHEPARD: AYE. PAULSON: AYE. YOUNG: AYE. Resolution to Chairman Shepard read aloud Resolution 82-027 in U.S. Forest regard to mining activities. Service re- MOTION: PAULSON moved to approve the resolution. garding Mining SHEPARD: Second. Activities Commissioner Young stated opposition to the resolution because it placed another restriction on people's activities. He said that the Comprehensive Plan en- courages the utilization of natural resources. He felt that the language of the ordinance was too broad, however that restrictions should be placed on mining activities in the watershed area. There was some further discussion. Commissioners Paulson and Shepard said that they felt that one of Central Oregon's greatest resources was in preserving it's natural state which attracted tourists to the.area, noting that mining is very destructive to an area. VOTE: SHEPARD: AYE. PAULSON: AYE. YOUNG: NO. Contract be- Rick Isham, County Counsel, explained that this had tween Otis been presented to the county about three weeks ago, Elevator and and at that time it was noted that this did not provide Deschutes Co. for the cylinders and plungers in the elevator. He found that the cost of guaranteeing maintenance on these would be prohibitive, and that they very rarely fail, and in this area should have a life expectancy of approximately 60 years. They found that there is no other elevator maintenance company that will cover these in their maintenance contracts. MOTION: YOUNG moved to approve the contract. PAULSON: Second. VOTE: SHEPARD: AYE. PAULSON: AYE. YOUNG: AYE. Ordinance #82- This ordinance amends the Redmond Urban Area Zoning 023 Ordinance, providing for a zone change from M-1 zoning to M-2 zoning (light industrial to heavy industrial). Mr. Isham explained that this was the Jaqua near the Redmond Industrial Park. MOTION: YOUNG moved to have the readings by title only. PAULSON: Second VOTE: SHEPARD: AYE. PAULSON: AYE. YOUNG: AYE. property first and second Chairman Shepard gave the first and second readings of the ordinance. Page 3 of 10 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners June 8, 1982 - Regular Meeting, MOTION: YOUNG moved to adopt the ordinance. PAULSON: Second. VOTE: SHEPARD: AYE. PAULSON: AYE. YOUNG: AYE. Ordinance #82- Before the the Board was an ordinance amending the 025 Bend Urban Growth Boundary Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Isham explained that this was an extension of the Highway Commercial zone on Hwy. 97. MOTION: YOUNG moved that the first and second readings be by title only. PAULSON: Second. VOTE: SHEPARD: AYE. PAULSON: AYE. YOUNG: AYE. Chairman Shepard gave the first and second readings of the ordinance by title only. MOTION: PAULSON moved to adopt Ordinance #82-025. YOUNG: Second. VOTE: SHEPARD: AYE. PAULSON: AYE. YOUNG: AYE. Ordinance Before the Board was Ordinance #82-024, amending #82-024 the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, rezoning certain property from EFU to MUA-10. This is in the Cloverdale area. MOTION: PAULSON moved to have the first and second readings by title only. YOUNG: Second. VOTE: SHEPARD: AYE. YOUNG: AYE. PAULSON: AYE. Chairman Shepard gave the first and second readings of Ordinance #82-024 by title only. MOTION: PAULSON moved to approve the ordinance. YOUNG: Second. VOTE: SHEPARD: AYE. PAULSON: AYE. YOUNG: AYE. Request for Before the Board was a request for refund in the amount Refund of $135 payable to CMC Construction, a refund of a septic tank feasibility fee. The Board approved the request. Discussion re- Chairman Shepard explained that the tennants in the garding rent- Tetherow house have requested that they be allowed er's request to deduct the cost of paint and storm doors from their for deduction rental fee. MOTION: PAULSON moved that they require these improvements to be made by the leasees. SHEPARD: Second. Chairman Shepard said that he had originally been in favor of Commissioner Paulson's motion but after further thought was no longer convinced that that would be Page 4 of 10 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners June 8, 1982 - Regular Meeting most appropriate. Commissioner Paulson said that he fel.tthat in view of the low rent ($50 monthly) the tennants should pay for these materials. Commissioner Young said this house was the first built in Deschutes County and that it is a historic landmark, and every effort should be made by the County to preserve it, noting that before he had become Commissioner, the tennants lived in the house rent-free in exhchange for care-taking. VOTE: SHEPARD: NO. PAULSON: AYE. YOUNG: NO. The motion failed. MOTION: YOUNG moved that the County provide the paint and doors for the Tetherow House. SHEPARD: Second. VOTE: SHEPARD: AYE. PAULSON: AYE. YOUNG: AYE. Res. #82- This was an Order implementing the Juvenile Services 235, JSC Comprehensive Plan for Deschutes County. MOTION: PAULSON moved to approve the order. YOUNG: Second. VOTE: SHEPARD: AYE. PAULSON: AYE. YOUNG: AYE. Consider- The Board was in receipt of a letter from Glenda Pancake, ation of Veterans Service Officer for Crook County, who had pro- Veterans posed working in Deschutes County part-time and a financing Services proposition. Other funds in the amount of $10,000 were available with Deschutes County providing $3,500. The Board had consulted with Russ Chase, former Deschutes Co. Veterans'Service Officer in regard to this. There was some further discussion. Based on the fact that the voters and the Budget Committee had turned down requests for funds to operate this service, the Board took no action. At this time Chairman Shepard recessed the meeting until 1:30 P.M. for the Thompson Way of Necessity hearing. Thompson Chairman Shepard and Commissioner Paulson were present at Way of this hearing, Commissioner Young was absent. Necessity This was a hearing for statutory way of necessity for Dwayne L. and Deborah L. Thompson. Chairman Shepard called for testimony from the Thompsons first followed by testimony from the Stringfields, with a short rebuttal period to follow. An unidentified gentleman came forward on behalf of the Thompsons. lie explained that they are requesting a way of necessity through the Stringfield property. He gave the ownership history of the two parcels involved. He had a map indicating the access route to the Thompson property that had been used in the past. This was an aerial photograph taken in 1976. He said that the proposed Deschutes County Board of Commissioners June 8, 1982 - Regular Meeting way of necessity follows this route (illustrated on the photo). He noted that this road would not be visible from the Stringfield house. Mr. Thompson indicated on the photo the location he intends to construct a house. There was some discussion on the proposed route as well as alternate routes. He also presented cost comparison figures for the various proposed routes. It was noted that the Thompson property was zoned EFU-40 and that he does not intend to sell any portion of it, and the house to be built on the property would be his full-time residence. He also presented to the Board a letter from Steve Scott, local real estate broker. It was also noted that they do not intend to improve the proposed access road beyond that of a dirt surfaced road. The gentleman representing the Thompsons said that the least expensive and best way for the Thompsons to gain access would be via the BLM road and then the existing road to their property. He also requested that the Petition, the Answer and the Report be considered as evidence in this case. [The gentleman representing the Thompsons was Neil Bryant, a Bend attorney.] Next, Paul Speck, representing the Respondants, Tom and Pick Stringfield, came forward. He remarked that the Board is being asked to take property owned by the Stringfields by condemnation for the purposes of building a road. He then stated that the State legislation dictates that a way of necessity cannot be granted without there being another roadway conveniently available to it and that the conven- ience of the petitioner was not to have any bearing, but that a way of necessity was to be granted only when absolutely necessary. He stated that this type of proceeding denies his client a right to a jury trial to cover damages. He said that one question the Board must consider is "is the easement in question necessary". He said that the easement is not necessary because the Thompsons have an offer from Robert Couch to give them an easement to their property for the sum of $10,000. At this time he submitted the docu- ment labeled 'Exhibit A' to the record, which was the Couch easement offer good through August 3, 1982. He stated that from a legal standpoint, there should be no need to proceed further as the Thompsons were in receipt of an offer to provide easement. He stated that the next question that the Board must consider is "if there aren't any available easements, then what is the best route to the Thompson property". He said that the statute seeks the nearest practical route and the most reasonable route. He stated that the route proposed by the Thompsons did not meet this criteria. He said that the next question the Board must address is "if that route happens to be the one which the petitioners are asking for then where should it go? should it go down the center of the property or the most northern part of the property". He stated that the statute says that if approved, it should go where it will cause the least damage to the respondent's property. He stated that if the Board determines that a road should go across the respondent's property they must also determine Page 6 of 10 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners June 8, 1982 - Regular Meeting the width of the road, the surface type and damages to the respondent. He said that the damages are important because they should include not only the value of the property that the road lies on, but the devaluation to the entire parcel as well. He then stated that if the Thompsons seek a permit to have access to the BLM road they will be required to complete an environmental assessment as part of the permit application procedure. To do this, they must go through the Department of Wildlife, and since this road lies within the winter deer range, they could be denied the permit. He also said that if a person purchases property with the knowledge that it lacks access they can be denied a way of necessity. He said that there is heresay to the effect that they were aware of the access problem. At this time Mr. Speck submitted Exhibit to the record. Next, Tom Stringfield, co-owner with his brother of the respondent property, came forward. He explained that he is a civil engineer and has worked with road building projects in a professional capacity. He explained that they purchased their property from Bob Couch in 1972 and at that time were faced with the question of how they would obtain access, which they resolved before pur- chasing the property. He said that in April of 1975 they received a call from Ellen Lutz, a local real estate broker, who explained that.access to the parcel which the Thompsons later bought was a problem, and requested an easement offer, which the Stringf ields denied. He said that in April of 1979 they received a letter from the Thompsons requesting an access through the Stringfield property which the Stringfields again denied. He said that in August they were approached by an attorney who demanded that they grant this easement. He said that later they contacted Bob Couch t-o see if he would provide an easement and he agreed to do so. He said that in April through June they went through some cost estimates and found some basic things were left out which would have increased the total cost. He said that in July they received a letter threatening a law suit and since that time the petition has been filed. He said that after re- viewing the County Engineer's report he found some problems. He said that the report was based on maps, aerial photos and assessor's records, but the engineer did not actually visit the site. He said that they had done their own study and at this time submitted to the record Exhibit C, a topographical map. On this map were indicated six different alternate routes. He had prepared slides of these routes which he showed for the Board to view. He submitted the slides (41 slides) as Exhibit D and the explanation of the slides as Exhibit E. They had also prepared a cost study reflecting construction costs and property costs submitted as Exhibit F. Page 7 of 10 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners June 8, 1982 - Regular Meeting At this time Mr. Bryant requested that his aerial photo/map.and three letters be submitted to the record as Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4. Next, Morrie Clark, Century West Engineering, came forward. He said that they had considered a basic all-weather road 12 feet in width with compacted cinders and a right-of-way cleared to 15 to 18 feet in width in preparing a cost study. He had provided estimates for three of the routes shown on the map labeled. Exhibit A. He said that the approximate cost for route A on the map would be $7,000+; route B approximately $6,400; route C approximately $3,450; and route D had not been done because its firm cost was $10,000. He explained that they did not analyze route E becuase it went through the Couch property, and said that route F would be about the same as route B. There was some further discussion on the cost and construction specifications. Next, R.J. Frank, 700 N. Hayden Island Drive, Portland, came forward. He explained that he has been a real estate appraiser since 1948, and briefly listed his credentials, noting that he is familiar with the Central Oregon area and appraisals of this type. He noted that when property rights are taken away, property valuation decreases. He also noted that there are potentially two homesites on the Thompson property. He briefly explained the report he had prepared. He stated that according, to his study the offer by Mr. Couch for $10,000 is the cheapest and most reasonable. He also noted that the Board should con- sider the benefit to the Thompson property, saying that their property without access would have an approximate value of $45,000 to $48,000, but with access its value is approximately $60,000, a difference of $12,000 to $15,000. He stated that if the property is partitioned, there is an even greater benefit to the Thompsons. Next, Phil Collins, Couch Market Road, Bend, came forward. He stated that the would like to go on record as opposing any access road originating on Couch Market Road because it would encroach on the winter deer range, remarking that the access off of Couch Market went through one of the most used migratory routes in the deer range.. He said that he is not opposed to the Stringfield access from Couch Market because they use the road only about once every month, which does not impact the deer. He stated that a road used daily would adversely impact the deer. Next, Tom Throop, 18001 Couch Market Road, came forward. He stated that during his first term in legislature he was involved in sponsoring a measure for the Way of Necessity statute. He stated that this was passed to provide access where no other access was available. He said that it became clear that they were establishing a condemnation procedure. He said that this is only germaine if there is no existing Page 8 of 10 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners June 8, 1982 - Regular Meeting or enforceable access or if access is not available through any other measure. He said that he had purchased his property a couple of years ago and that their access road is steep, but that it has not been a problem. Being no further testimony from the respondent, Chairman Shepard called for rebuttal comments. Mr. Bryant stated that he did not think that it was un- constitutional for the respondent not to have a jury to hear this matter. He stated that the BLM rights cannot be affected by the Board of Commissioners. He also stated that he felt that the estimate for the route pro- posed by the Thompsons was rather large due to the fact that the road was already in existence. He added that he did not understand how the respondents could be so damaged by the road when it's already there. He stated that right now there is no legal easement to the Thompson property. He stated that when the Thompsons bought the property they did not know there was no access. Mr. Speck asked Mr. Bryant who the Thompsons real estate broker had been. Mr. Bryant responded that it was Ellen Lutz of Ramsey/Plank Realty. Mr. Speck said that he had contacted Ms. Lutz and received information that the Thompsons.were aware of access problems, but that he had contacted her a second time and was told that all the documents relating to this had been lost and Ms. Lutz did not recall any details of the sale. He said that this is not a auestion of convenience for the Thompsons and that Mr. Couch's offer is the cheapest alternative for the Thompsons. He stated that the Board could avoid the condemnation of the Stringfield property, that the Thompsons have an offer and all they must do is accept. Tom Stringfield suggested conditions be placed on the route should the Board grant the way of necessity. He requested that it be conditioned that the route be fenced and gated on both sides so that they have access from one portion of their property to the other and that the road be surfaced in such a way that it is an all-weather road and that it be maintained with respect to the daily use that it will receive. Mr. Speck asked that his clients cost bill be submitted and if it is not acceptable to Mr. Bryant that the Board hold a hearing on it. Mr. Bryant agreed. Being no further testimony, Chairman Shepard closed the hearing. Page 9 of 10 •Deschutes County Board of Commissioners June 8, 1982 - Regular Meeting Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS y r Ro ert.C. Paul on, Jr., Commissioner Albert Young, mission /ss Page 10 of 10