Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-09-16 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, SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Dennis R. Luke and Alan Unger. Also present was Erik Kropp, Deputy County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; George Kolb, Road Department; Tom Anderson, Peter Gutowsky, George Read, Nick Lelack, Anthony Raguine, Dan Haldeman, Will Groves and Todd Cleveland, Community Development Department; Timm Schimke, Solid Waste Department; and approximately twenty other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 1:35 p.m. 1. Consideration of Notice of Intent to Award Contract for Knott Landfill Cell 5 Construction Area A Closure Engineering Services. Timm Schimke gave an overview of the project. He said that three responses were received, which were reviewed by the selection committee. The winning bidder was selected as the first choice by all of the committee members. The winner came in at $380,364, next was $330,000, but the winner had a thorough and complete scope of work; the others proposed alternative tasks that they did not price. LUKE: Move signature of the intent to award contract letter. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 2. Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2009-060, Annexation of a County-owned Lot to the Existing Deschutes River Recreation Homesites No Shooting District. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 16, 2009 Page 1 of 9 Pages Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 16, 2009 Page 2 of 9 Pages Tom Anderson explained the issue. The order was not prepared at the last meeting and it is ready for approval at this time. Commissioner Unger noted that the reason for approving this is that La Pine State Park is moving forward to make its property a no shooting zone, and it makes sense that the County does not have an island allowing shooting within the area. LUKE: Move signature of Order No. 2009-060. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 3. Consideration of First and Second Readings, and Adoption by Emergency, of Ordinance No. 2009-022, Providing for a Variance from Ordinance No. 2008-019 for Replacement of Dwellings for Low-Income Property Owners Due to Catastrophic Events. Mr. Anderson said that a few changes were suggested at the Board meeting of September 9. The property owner was to follow due diligence concerning finance issues. The septic review done by Community Development staff was done because it is required under certain situations. This triggered the potential need for an ATT upgrade. (He distributed a document at this time.) Some additional suggestions were made and it was determined that this only comes into play if the septic system itself has been damaged. Commissioner Baney noted that the septic review is actually a Department of Environmental Quality rule, and not instituted by the County. Mr. Anderson said the language allows some flexibility but would not allow a system that truly needs replacement, such as an old steel tank, to remain. Dan Haldeman said that people have a right to be able to prove that even their old steel tank works. Mr. Anderson said there are existing programs to assist these people, and may be others that can help these individuals. LUKE: Move first and second readings by title only. UNGER: Second. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 16, 2009 Page 3 of 9 Pages VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Chair Baney conducted the first and second readings of the Ordinance at this time, by title only. LUKE: Move adoption of Ordinance No. 2009-022, by emergency. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. 4. Discussion of Harper Bridge Boat Ramp and County Code. Commissioner Baney reminded the citizens in attendance that the Board is just beginning to discuss this issue and it is not a hearing, so comments would not be taken at this time. (Some written comments have already been received.) Mr. Anderson said the reason this came up is that the Harper Bridge boat launch, located just south of Sunriver and near Crosswater, has been subject to discussion. The original land use approval for Crosswater destination resort has been reviewed, but there is still a question regarding the status of the boat launch. Commissioner Luke said that he thinks people put in the river on the north side of the launch. He asked if it was ever permitted. Mr. Anderson said there is a conservation easement and the land on the north side of the road, where the walkway is, is mostly in the road right of way. The area on the south side is Crosswater property. (He referred to an oversized aerial photograph of the area.) People typically launch canoes or kayaks. Some of the land is owned by the Sunriver Homeowners’ Association. Nick Lelack stated that in regard to the land use approval, Crosswater was required to include public access to the river. The key is, the condition of approval in the decision was not very specific on how the land would be dedicated or how much would be dedicated. Nor did it require a launch be built. No one seems to be sure who originally built it, as it has been there for a long time. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 16, 2009 Page 4 of 9 Pages He met with others about how to handle this situation, which can be hazardous as it is, especially for children. There is a significant wetland involved and it would be very difficult to extend or expand the launch or the parking area. Commissioner Luke noted that the problem is the parking, and people getting out along the road. He understands there are no complaints about the launch, just the parking situation. Commissioner Baney said that some local residents are concerned about the use, and wonder if this is what the County had in mind when Crosswater was approved. Commissioner Unger said that people have expectations that they can use the river, and Sunriver recognizes the impacts and a solution is needed to address concerns. It appears that there are very few places where people can enter the river. Commissioner Luke asked if staff feels that Crosswater has met its obligations; Mr. Anderson stated that they have. Commissioner Baney asked what other options might be. Commissioner Luke said that he does not think the County should be in the business of creating boat launches. He is concerned about the parking, though, which would benefit from working with Sunriver and Crosswater. Chair Baney said that she does not know hw a land use approval was not done without considering parking implications. It should have been clear at the time. Mr. Anderson stated that in 1992 the County wanted to recognize what was already there and not allow Crosswater to use that space for something else. There does not seem to be enough area at this location to make parking safe. A representative of Sunriver spoke and handed a document regarding a possible boat launch. He said that future needs should be included, and a land lease was discussed, but it never happened. This discussion included parking and access. George Kolb said that he met with Fish & Wildlife representatives and the Sheriff’s Office previously regarding access. They feel that one ingress/egress into a parking area is better than having parking along the road. Chair Baney stated that the various entities and owners, as well as local citizens, Sunriver Anglers, the Paddle Trail Alliance members and others, should get together and work on a plan for this. Commissioner Luke stated that there might be some funding in the parks fund for a portion of this, or for maintenance. Mr. Kolb stated that the Road Department is not in the business of paving parking lots, and that was one of the issues. Another concern is who patrols it, picks up the garbage, and so on. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 16, 2009 Page 5 of 9 Pages Chair Baney indicated that she wants to be sensitive to the workload of Community Development. Commissioner Luke said that is assuming the County takes the lead, which he feels is not appropriate. They should be a participant but not directing a solution to the issue. Mr. Anderson stated that he appreciates this. His Department and staff from the Road Department can convene the first meeting and the lead can be handed over to others to work out the details. Commissioner Luke cited safety, the ramp, launch area and parking as the major issues. Citizen Steve Runner said that most of the adjacent land owned by his group is considered wetlands. They have plans for a launch as well, which might solve part of the problem. Citizens were asked to contact Mr. Lelack if they are interested in taking part in the upcoming meetings. Citizen Rick Upham said there could be another boat launch within Sunriver, and discussions are ongoing. 5. Discussion of Whether to Hear an Appeal – Dowell/Kuhn. Will Groves explained the item. This is a complicated issue with a long history. There is a long-standing dispute between the neighbors. Mr. Groves said that the property, located on Sisemore Road, was owned by Mr. Barton, who wanted to subdivide the land. The winter deer range was beginning to be considered at that time. A couple of partitions were submitted and in 1980, one was approved as two development lots and one open space lot. The development lots were sold off. The Kuhns developed theirs and the Dowells in 1992 applied for a landscape management approval. Fish & Wildlife had requested a setback of no more than 400 feet, and the measurement of the setback was in question. The location of the building was referred to numerous times in the application documents, and some are contradictory. The landscape management application was approved in 1992 for the dwelling. An extension was allowed in 1993 and a permit was pulled in 1994. The Dowells constructed during 1995 and 1996, and completed a portion in 1997. It is more than 400 feet from Sisemore feet from the road, measured from one direction. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 16, 2009 Page 6 of 9 Pages Ms. Craghead added that there is a notation on the paperwork that the dwelling may be more than 400 feet from Sisemore Road. Commissioner Luke stated that if there is a footing approval, the setback is supposed to be determined at that time. The County and City are supposed to inspect the footings and the setbacks. Ms. Craghead stated that there is a question as to whether the setback was required at all at that time. Through 2002, there were a number of issues regarding the side yard setbacks. The Kuhns and Dowells ended up with a private right of action in Circuit Court. It was decided that it was not proven that the Dowells were in violation of the setbacks. In 2007, the Dowells applied to remodel the interior. In the F-2 zone, a lawfully established dwelling is required – a roof, walls, flooring, etc. In this case, there was a question about a land use compatibility study. The record showed permits and a land use permit. The Kuhns appealed this. The Hearings Officer concluded that this was not a land use issue so a decision was not necessary. On appeal to LUBA, it was felt that the Hearings Officer was in error and it was remanded back. The Hearings Officer listened to these arguments, and found that the dwelling was not lawfully established based on the 1992 site plan review and the maximum 400 feet required distance from the road, although it is not yet clear how this would be measured. The remodel permit was not allowed. Both parties have appealed this decision. The Dowells want the dwelling to be declared lawful. The Kuhns feel the Hearings Officer was correct. Both make lengthy arguments. Mr. Groves said the Board needs to decide whether to hear this. Ms. Craghead said there are two appeals; one from each party. If the Board does not hear it, Ms. Craghead added that there is a question of the homeowners’ agreement that was a condition prior to sale. There are two homeowners and one will not sign. There is a letter in 1994 in which one party says that the already recorded documents should be sufficient. The other does not agree. The County cannot force them to sign a homeowners’ agreement. Since the property had already been sold, there was nothing that needed to be done. The question is, if the Board choose to hear one, will it hear the other, and would it be limited de novo or full de novo. She does not feel there is a reason to have it full de novo, but could include information submitted to the trial court. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, September 16, 2009 Page 8 of 9 Pages 7. Other Items. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Document No. 2009- 510, Amending an Improvement Agreement regarding Overnight Accommodations at Tetherow Destination Resort. Laurie Craghead said that there is a change relating to the reference to the bond instead of an ILOC (irrevocable letter of credit). She is working with the applicant on some minor wording changes. LUKE: Approve document as amended, and accepting the ILOC language to replace that of the bond, in its substantially correct form, subject to legal review. UNGER: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. _________________________________________ Upon an inquiry from Commissioner Luke about the upcoming destination resort hearing, Nick Lelack said that 1,000 Friends of Oregon feels the language is too broad regarding the legal lot of record issue, especially when it comes to federally owned land. The impacts are not known. some counties have interpreted contiguous lots differently than other jurisdictions. Commissioner Luke stated that this was a hearings officer’s decision here but it can be brought up in other areas as part of a case. Ideally, it will be legislated at some point. The League of Oregon Cities should be concerned as well as they all get lands from the BLM. This is an area of statewide concern and needs to be addressed quickly, with clarity. It does not help the City of La Pine to get land for a park from the BLM and not be able to do anything with it. Commissioner Unger pointed out that the destination resort law was written many years ago to stimulate development of the resorts, and things have changed a lot since then. The Board can attend via video conference call on September 30. Staff can draft some talking points but cannot talk about policy. This could be discussed at the Board work session on September 28. The hearing on destination resorts will be on November 19, per Mr. Gutowsky. There will be a dedicated phone line at Community Development as well as recorded information.