Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-01-20 Work Session Minutes Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2010 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Alan Unger and Tammy Baney. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Paul Blikstad, Kevin Harrison, Teri Payne, George Read, Will Groves, Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack and Peter Gutowsky, Community Development; Tom Blust, Road Department; Laurie Craghead and Steve Griffin, County Counsel; a representative of KOHD TV; and approximately twenty other citizens. Chair Luke opened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. 1. Update and Discussion of Highway 97 World War II Veterans Memorial Highway Designation. Dick Tobiason and Robert Maxwell came before the Board, and Mr. Tobiason said that after a couple of years of work, a law has been adopted that supports the designation. (He gave a PowerPoint presentation at this time.) All Representatives and Senators on the east side of the mountains supported the Bill, which was meant to designate Highway 97 as the memorial highway. There are 150,000 Oregonians who were veterans in World War II. At the Governor’s request, the Bill will now honor all Oregon WWII veterans, not just those from central and eastern Oregon. The veterans and the Oregon Department of Transportation are working on placement of the signs. The veterans will need to cover the cost of installing the signs and future maintenance. The options are aluminum signs, at $190, plus an additional fee to stabilize them. The high-density overlay signs would cost about $275. The best possible signs are aluminum with vinyl text, at $576 per sign. They are forming a nonprofit so people can donate and receive a tax deduction. ODOT will not charge them a permit fee. There will be seven signs in Deschutes County. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 1 of 7 Pages Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 2 of 7 Pages He asked if there is a way for the County to support them in this regard. Commissioner Baney suggested that Mr. Tobiason see how their fundraising efforts progress and perhaps the County can help once that is known. 2. Comprehensive Plan Update. Terri Payne gave an update on the work to date. (A “next steps” document was distributed.) As much information will be gathered as possible for the Planning Commission’s next meeting on January 28. Nick Lelack added that they were in a holding pattern for a while when information was being gathered. The checklist will help define the goals and how to get there. No decisions will be made until they all have a chance to review the material. Ms. Payne said the matrix and details would be available on line. Peter Gutowsky said that a memo was provided to the Board that provided more details. Some items had broad support but there are questions about action items. They are looking to the Planning Commission to provide guidance. The public input has been almost overwhelming, so attempts are being made to categorize and consolidate, and look for common concerns. Commissioner Unger asked if any State input is being sought. Mr. Lelack said they don’t want to review draft documents, just the final, so no formal comments have been shared at this time. Commissioner Baney wants the Board to be informed if anything significant changes. 3. Discussion of Commercial Uses on EFU Land. Nick Lelack said it really deals with non-farm uses on EFU land. The farm use zone was created in 1961 by the legislature. There has not yet been a land use application. There might be an appeal on the ball fields, which would go to a Hearings Officer. A soccer facility is a clear recreational use, but he has no idea if it will be approved. It is eligible, however. The governed uses were noted. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 3 of 7 Pages Laurie Craghead said that it is an obvious recreational use, but parameters need to be established as what is to be a private park. They may be cases out there showing this. Main considerations are lighting, noise, and traffic. It is basically a commercial use within a park. Commissioner Unger asked what the difference is between commercial and recreational. Ms. Craghead said the parameters are not yet known. The trap club and similar uses have already been approved. Mr. Lelack stated that they have contacted other counties to find out how this kind of situation might have been handled there. Commissioner Unger asked about home occupations and whether the State has guidelines in place. Ms. Craghead stated that DLCD admitted they did not think it was clear. Some areas have wineries that fit into this situation. Commissioner Luke noted that the Department of Agriculture and DLCD have raised questions; he asked if there is any legislation on this. Ms. Craghead said that they are not sure if it is appropriate to decide where and how event venues should be allowed. This is generally associated with wineries. Mr. Gutowsky said that for the most part it relates to significant events. Multnomah County does not have a plan for this type of thing under a mass gathering ordinance. Ms. Craghead said there is debate about the provisions regarding fewer than 3,000 people, and whether the time frame allowed is appropriate. The interpretations are not established. Mr. Blikstad said that the only history is the 1999 case. Under the private parks part of the Code, it is essentially the same as almost 20 years ago. Commissioner Unger noted that the home occupation rules do not really seem to fit when figuring out events. Mr. Blikstad replied that County Counsel is looking at those in Clackamas and Hood River. State law seems to indicate it has to be substantially indoors, which excludes most wedding events. Ms. Craghead explained that in regard to an accessory building, they could not build one for the purpose of a home occupation. The permit is supposed to be for other than this. Mr. Blikstad said that some are putting in vineyards. They have commercial standards in place. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 4 of 7 Pages Commissioner Unger stated that he is not sure how to get to the next steps. There does not seem to be any clear way. This encourages more permanent structures on the property. Commissioner Baney said that the major criticisms have been the number of days and overuse of the land for venues. Commissioner Luke asked when something has to be done or when more time must be spent on the application. Mr. Lelack replied that it is not in the plan to draft an ordinance at this time. However, it is time to figure out guidelines. The Planning Commission has the same concerns. A new proposal will not do a bit of good. Mr. Kanner stated that they would have to not only submit a land use application, but also have to show it is an allowable use on EFU land. Essentially, they are proposing an activity that is has the same impacts of a commercial event, plus permanent structures such as light poles. He suggested that they work this through the pipeline themselves and then see how that might apply to existing code. The Board may ultimately have to decide just how broad this will be. Commissioner Luke noted that there might be some State decisions before it gets to the Board. Mr. Lelack stated that Oregon Rush has not submitted an application. This would be on a quasi-judicial schedule. They hope to have a Hearings Officer’s decision within 60 to 90 days of that. They will continue to ask staff in other places as to what they do and how they do it. 4. Discussion of Appeals of the Hearings Officer’s Decision Reversing the Planning Division’s Decision to Issue a Land Use Compatibility Statement and Building Permit for the Remodel of an Existing Dwelling (Dowell/Kuhn). Chair Luke said that this is a work session item and testimony is not allowed. Will Groves gave a brief overview of the item. The appeals will be heard limited de novo. The questions are: Is the County bound by the case? Is the residence lawfully established? Is it lawful because of the lack of a homeowners' agreement? Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 5 of 7 Pages Commissioner Luke asked if a survey was done, and is it part of the record. Mr. Groves stated that there are questions about how to measure the dwelling from the road, but a survey was done. Staff compared a composite using other maps in the record, and there are different ways to measure the distances. Originally, there was to be more frontage on Sisemore Road. Both dwellings fall beyond the original plat line. They were originally to be no more than 300 feet from the road. It depends on from where on the road it is measured. The Board can uphold the decision, or reverse or amend it. (He referred to a matrix at this time.) For each one, there is a lengthy legal argument with some history, and a summary of relevant documents. Commissioner Luke asked if the home is illegal, whether a permit can be issued. The question is, would this apply to all permits or a major remodel, or additions? If there was a problem with electrical, then what? Ms. Craghead said she is not sure; but LUBA case findings indicate our own Code says you cannot build unless the structure is lawfully established. Commissioner Baney asked if this might make it impossible to sell the home. Ms. Craghead said that it could. Mr. Groves stated that certain conditions have to be met. This question is not before the Board. It has to do with the homeowners’ agreement being in place, so neither home is in conformance at this time. The Hearings Officer found that it was required prior to sale, but this is no longer an issue as the horse is already out of the barn, prior to the first sale. Commissioner Luke asked how CC&Rs are to be enforced. The County cannot force someone to give up property rights. Ms. Craghead said that by finding this requirement, it requires them to work harder on the agreement. Commissioner Unger indicated he would like to add more clarity for future litigation. Mr. Groves said to assume this would be appealed to LUBA. They will give deference to the County if there is a reasonable interpretation and unless it is clearly wrong. The remand from LUBA questioned whether the Kuhns even Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, January 20, 2010 Page 6 of 7 Pages had a right to file an appeal. Karen Green’s decision has not been reviewed by anyone yet. Ms. Craghead stated that there is a remand on the issue of letting this be handled like a land use decision. The process treated it as such. Mr. Groves said there are three issues. Development actions are intended to be simple and not a land use action. Because this was complicated, it elevated it to land use. The Director then indicated it should follow this process. It is assumed that Code requires it be lawfully established. Commissioner Luke said that the Board could not base a decision on anything that is not in the record. Commissioner Unger noted that he made a site visit, but that is in the record. Ms. Craghead asked if he submitted a narrative; Commissioner Unger replied that he just declared the visit, without written observations. 5. Update of Commissioners’ Meetings and Schedules. Richard Whitman, the Director of DLCD, is meeting with staff and two Commissioners on Friday, January 22. 6. Other Items. Dave Kanner said that there was a request from KBND for an interview from 8:20 to 9:00 a.m. on each second Wednesday. He suggested a point person be designated; someone who will be available for this on an ongoing basis unless otherwise decided. The Commissioners felt that Mr. Kanner should be the designee and he can decide if someone else should handle the interview on a specific date. ____________________________________ Commissioner Baney spoke about the integration program, which is now being called Links for Help, which was named after a former volunteer with a last name of Link. The County and mental health directors would have one representative. It will be a seven person board, one from each county’s board, and a mental health director plus Jim Diegel from the hospital, Dr. Goldberg from the State, and one person representing the FQHC’s, and Health Matters, a nonprofit working on health insurance issues. ____________________________________