1991-09164-Minutes for Meeting March 13,1991 Recorded 4/2/19910100 0082
MINUTES A-)1-R 1. X11
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS i t?
March 13, 1991
Chairman Maudlin called the meeting to order at 10:05 a.m. Board
members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Nancy Pope
Schlangen. Also present were Rick Isham County Counsel; George
Read, Planning Director; Larry Rice, Public Works Director; Jim
Raisanen, Planner; Kevin Harrison, Planner.
1. CONSENT AGENDA
Consent agenda items before the Board were: #1, award of
contract for the Inn of the Seventh Mountain Sewage Pump
Station to Hap Taylor and Sons; #2, signature of Acceptance
of Warranty Deeds from Redmond School District and Ralph and
Judy McWilliams for Right of Way Acquisition on 43rd Street
in Terrebonne; #3, signature of Revised Lease for the
Education Service District; #4, approval of out-of-state
travel for Building Services staff for security hardware and
equipment training; #5, signature of Declaration of Dedication
and Acceptance of Back Alley and Nighthawk Road; #6, signature
of Acceptance of Dedication for Bend River Mall Avenue as
public right-of-way and County maintained road; #7, signature
of Memorandum of Lease for Sequoia Communications, Inc.
(RICE); #8, appointment of Bob Forkner and Philip Peer to
Special Road District #1; #9, signature of Order 91-042
changing the name of 32nd Avenue to 32nd Street; and #10,
signature of MP-90-13 a minor partition of three lots in an
RL Zone off Arnold Market Road for the Kirkpatricks.
SCHLANGEN: I move approval of the consent agenda.
THROOP: I'll second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
2. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE 91-014 ALLOWING LANDFILLS AS
CONDITIONAL USE IN EFU-320 ZONE
Before the Board was a public hearing on Ordinance 91-014
which would amend Ordinance No. PL-15, the Deschutes County
Zoning Ordinance, to allow landfills as a conditional use in
the EFU-320 zone.
Chairman Maudlin opened the public. There being no one who
wished to testify, the public hearing was closed.
PAGE 1 MINUTES 3/13/91
C 106 0,683
3.
THROOP: I'll move first and second reading by title only of
Ordinance 91-014.
SCHLANGEN: Second.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
Chairman Maudlin performed the first and second readings of
Ordinance 91-014.
SCHLANGEN: I move approval of Ordinance 91-014 amending
the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance.
THROOP: Second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
DECISION ON ORDER 91-036 DESIGNATING SKYVIEW TERRACE A
SUBDIVISION WHERE DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS WOULD BE PROHIBITED
Before the Board was a decision on a public hearing held on
Order 91-036 which would establish the Skyview Terrace
Subdivision as an area wherein the discharge of firearms would
be prohibited in accordance with Chapter No. 9.08 of the
Deschutes County Code.
Chairman Maudlin said there were 22 signers on the petition
and 4 people spoke in opposition. He said the Order would
only preclude the discharge of firearms inside the
subdivision. It did not preclude residents from shooting in
the area across the canal where the dissenters indicated they
had traditionally used firearms.
THROOP: I will move approval of Order 91-036.
SCHLANGEN: Second.
Commissioner Throop said it was obvious that the petitioners
met the test of the statute, and didn't see any reason not to
go forward.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
PAGE 2 MINUTES 3/13/91
G-106 0684
4. PUBLIC HEARING: APPEAL OF DENIAL OF FARM PARTITION
Before the Board was a public hearing on an appeal of the
hearings officer's denial of a farm partition of a 40-acre
parcel into two 20-acre parcels in an EFU-20 zone.
Jim Raisanen gave the staff report indicating that the appeal
was concerning a request for a farm partition into two 20-acre
parcels in a EFU-20 zone. He said that one half of the site
(proposed Parcel 2) was completely covered with irrigated
agriculture, and the other half had a barn and a dwelling with
some irrigated land and some natural land. The applicant was
proposing to put a dwelling on Parcel 2 which would be taking
existing farm land out of production, which was one of the
reasons the hearings officer denied the partition. He said
the soil type was Tumalo sandy loam which was a Class 4S soil
classification, and in Deschutes County, that was considered
good soil. Another finding of the hearings officer was that
the applicant had not given any information on how many
developed parcels there were in a three-mile radius of the
property. Policy one of the Rural Development Section stated
that all future rural development should be stringently
reviewed for public need before approval. As a guideline for
review, if a study of the existing lots within three miles of
the proposed development indicated approximately 50% or more
of those lots have not had structures constructed, then the
developers shall submit adequate testimony justifying the
additional lots in that area. The developer had shown within
a mile or two radius what the development was but not within
the three mile radius required by Policy 1. Staff was
concerned that the area might not actually need anymore
parcels. He said it was Parcel #3 of a minor partition which
was done in 1989, and it had the effect of a subdivision.
Chairman Maudlin asked what part the Planning Department would
play in determining the development of the surrounding three-
mile area? Jim Raisenan said that the burden of proof was on
the applicant.
Chairman Maudlin said that on the map provided by the Planning
Department there were 57 developed parcels and 29 vacant
parcels or 66% within an area of approximately one-half to one
mile surrounding the parcel. He asked why they only did it
for this small area? Jim Raisanen said it was to get a
general idea of the area. In the three mile radius beyond
that there were a lot more parcels, and this was only about
half of the amount of work that would be required to do the
three mile radius. He said he used Assessor record and did
not do a site visit to determine which parcels had dwellings
on them.
PAGE 3 MINUTES 3/13/91
6I 06 0685
Chairman Maudlin asked if the map that had been submitted by
the applicant fairly represented the breakup of the properties
in the area? Jim Raisanen said yes.
Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing for testimony.
Bob Lovlien, attorney for Mr. and Mrs. Wyman, said they had
asked for his help after the hearings officer's decision. He
review the tapes and the transcript and didn't feel that Mr.
Wyman conveyed to the hearings officer what he really wanted
to do and why he was attempting to do it. He said the land
was only productive if there was water allocated to it. Mr.
Wyman owed 60 acres of land, parcels 2 and 3 of an old
partition. Parcel 3 was the 40 acres which he was asking to
be partitioned. There was less than 15 acres of water
allocated to Parcel 2. Mr. Wyman wanted to reallocate the
water on the total 60 acres by taking the building site from
Parcel 2 and moving it north adjacent to White Rock Loop Road,
so that a wheel line could be put in the southerly portion on
the parcel and irrigate across the current building site.
There was a letter from the irrigation company acknowledging
that his plan "made sense." He would then transfer additional
water from Parcel 3 up to Parcel 2 so that parcel two would
have somewhere between 16 and 17 acres of water rights with
a wheel line. He said the pond was the source of the
irrigation water. The wheel line would be on the southerly
3/4 of Parcel 2. Then they wanted to break up the lower
Parcel 3 where the existing buildings were set up as a horse
facility. He said livestock was the only thing that could
make any money there. Growing hay would produce maybe 40-50
tons off either 20 acre parcel which would earn $5,000 a years
before expenses. They wanted to keep the horse operation on
20 acres so they could sell or lease it with the existing
mobile home. They would carve out a third building site on
the other 20 acres and transfer those water right to the
Parcel 2 which would be serviced by the wheel line. Therefore
the plan would not take land out of production since the same
net acres of land would be in production as he currently had,
but it would be allocated slightly differently. If this were
approved, it would have to be conditions upon the removal of
the water rights from one parcel to the other. He said there
was no way that a 60-acre parcel of ground in this area was
going to make anyone a living, so there needed to be some
subsidation to keep it in agricultural use.
Commissioner Throop pointed out that there were numerous llama
and horse farms that were full-time agricultural operations
in the same area which were not subsidized and were making a
go of it on parcels that size.
Bob Lovlien agreed that it would take livestock to make it
viable. He said most livestock operations were on parcels
PAGE 4 MINUTES 3/13/91
006 0686
closer to 20 acres in size than 60 acres. He felt the
partition would help keep the parcels in production. He said
that the staff report had attempted to interpret that the
partition request was a scam or an attempt to avoid being a
subdivision. Mr. Wyman was not the person who originally
partitioned this property. He said the rural development
policy #1 had only been applied to subdivisions not
partitions. They did a physical inventory of the houses on
parcels in their immediate vicinity, and it showed that the
majority of the properties within a mile of their property
were 10 acres or smaller. If it were considered as a
partition there were only two criteria which were applicable
to approval. In ORS 215.263 if you met the minimum lot size,
it allowed a partition in an agricultural zone if it conformed
to the Comprehensive Plan. He said that in the Comprehensive
Plan, the EFU lands were identified as "being marginal farm
land--undeveloped" which was defined as "this land will
support agricultural production only if subsidized to some
extent. The lands are suitable for hay and pasture and more
particularly the raising of livestock, particularly if access
to public grazing land is available." This property was
identified with an EFU-20 zone as being marginal farmland--
undeveloped and recognized that there had to be some
subsidation. Land would not be taken out of production since
the building site would be placed on land that would not be
in production when the water was moved to the other parcel.
He did not feel it would reduce the agricultural productivity
of the land, but should increase the productivity over time,
since 20 acre parcels seemed to be managed more effectively
and more intensively than larger 60 acre parcels. The
surrounding area had already been significantly divided up.
This land would stay in agricultural production because of the
water rights. With the wheel line, Mr. Wyman would be able
to get more production than he had in the past.
Bob Lovlien expressed concern that farm partitions had become
a big issue, and he felt the way the rules were being
interpreted by staff had been changing over time. He felt
that if the Commission was going to be taking a different view
about farm parcelizations, it should be adopted into some
Comprehensive Plan policies or zoning ordinance policies so
there was more certainty. He felt it could be demonstrated
that the Wyman's were being treated differently than other
similarly situated applicants over the past tens years in
which the ordinance had been in place.
Commissioner Schlangen asked if there was currently a home on
the northern parcel. Bob Lovlien said there was currently no
home on that parcel.
Commissioner Schlangen asked if there would be a home placed
on this parcel. Bob Lovlien said there eventually would be
PAGE 5 MINUTES 3/13/91
0106 0687
a home there, but the identified home site would be moved up
close to the road so that the wheel line could move in an
east/west direction.
Chairman Maudlin said there was a site identified on Parcel 3
drawn with a red line on the map, and asked if it was legal
and if it had been approved? Bob Lovlien said that if the
partition were approved, it would be conditioned upon finding
a site that would be suitable.
Commissioner Schlangen asked if the pond would stay. Bob
Lovlien said the pond would stay, and it would be the source
of irrigation water for all three parcels. They would have
an irrigation agreement between the three parties.
Commissioner Schlangen asked if in the picture there were
already two homes. Bob Lovlien said there was a mobile home
and a shed.
Chairman Maudlin asked how big the building site would be.
Bob Lovlien said they figured out one acre for a house and the
outbuildings necessary for livestock.
Chairman Maudlin asked if another road would be created to
get to parcel 2. Bob Lovlien said the reason for locating it
where it was shown in red was so the existing driveway, well,
and utility hookups could be shared.
Ed Wyman, 20250 Marsh Road in Bend, said the reason he picked
the building site was that the same driveway could be used.
Commissioner Throop asked George Read, Planning Director, to
respond to Bob Lovlien's comments regarding the "goal posts"
changing without being specified in the Comprehensive Plan or
ordinances.
George Read said the County had a policy from 1979 to 1987
that recognized farm dwellings as an outright use, and
therefore, did not take a very hard look at the Comprehensive
Plan policies or criteria when partitions or dwelling units
were requested in Exclusive Farm Use Zones. In about 1987,
the County realized that was probably illegal and changed the
policy and adopted an ordinance. Since that time the County
had been trying to determined what the policies were intended
to say, and how they related to the statutes which was
extremely difficult. In Deschutes County they were generally
able to site housing on areas which were not productive farm
land because there were rock outcroppings or unfarmable areas
on almost every parcel. Deschutes County had led the state,
or been second in the state, in the number of farm dwellings
and nonfarm dwellings and, therefore, was being watched very
carefully. Every finding and decision made was sent to the
PAGE 6 MINUTES 3/13/91
01 0 6 0688
State for their review. 1000 Friends of Oregon asked that an
enforcement order be placed on Deschutes County for all farm
and non-farm dwellings until the comprehensive plan and EFU-
20 zones were reevaluated to justify the minimum lot sizes.
Therefore the staff wanted to make sure their findings were
supported by adequate documentation and facts.
Commissioner Throop said the observation Bob Lovlien made was
a valid one, and the County did have to make some changes.
George Read said the County would be reevaluating its policies
during the periodic review. They had been waiting for the
secondary lands program to be completed so the two could be
linked.
Chairman Maudlin closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Throop said he supported the hearings officer's
decision. He felt that if the County allowed every parcel to
be broken down to the minimum size allowed in the zone, it
would clearly thwart state law and the comprehensive land use
plan and implementing ordinances. He did not feel that this
application met the criteria since there were no nonfarmable
portions on the parcels in question, and there would be
potentially productive land lost to a housing site. These
parcels contained some of the best soil in Deschutes County.
State law required that in an exclusive farm use zone, the
County look at not only the ambitions or desires of the
present land owner but the characteristics of the land. The
characteristics of this land were such that this parcel would
be best managed in a larger block. Allowing the land to be
broken into its smallest elements would be an irreversible
decision.
Commissioner Schlangen said she also supported the hearings
officer's decision. She felt that every bit of this good soil
should be retained for agriculture. She did not see a need
for any more parcels in that area to be developed.
Chairman Maudlin didn't think the law prohibited partitioning
this parcel. He felt that if the County had wanted this
property to remain a 40 acre parcel, it should have been zoned
EFU-40. He felt the parcels would be taken better care of and
have more productive operations if people were living on them.
He pointed out that a good deal of the surrounding property
had already be broken down into smaller parcels.
THROOP: I'll move that this Board sustain the hearings
officer decision.
SCHLANGEN: Second.
PAGE 7 MINUTES 3/13/91
6 106 0689
Under discussion Commissioner Throop said it would not be
practical to break down every single parcel to the smallest
parcel allowed by the zoning. There were parcels that had no
potential for production which were available, and other
parcels were entirely productive land. The minimum lot size
in the zone set the floor, but there were also criteria in the
Comprehensive Plan which allowed for individual decision
making in an exclusive farm use zone on individual parcels.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: NO
5. ORDINANCE 91-012 MANUFACTURED HOUSING IN THE REDMOND URBAN
AREA
Before the Board was consideration of Ordinance 91-012
amending Ordinance No. 80-201, the Redmond Urban Area Zoning
Ordinance, as amended, to revise the requirements for
manufactured housing, to allow a night watchman's residence
in the C-1 and C-4 zones, and to provide for a sunset clause
on Section 5 for June 30, 1992. There had been a public
hearing on this ordinance the previous week when there had
been first and second readings of the ordinance.
SCHLANGEN: I move signature of amended Ordinance 91-012.
THROOP: I'll second.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
6. HABITAT FOR HUMANITY WAIVER
Before the Board was a request from Habitat for Humanity to
waive the Community Development fees associated with moving
a house. The estimates from the Community Development
department were from $1,206.75 to a high of $1,645.00.
Commissioner Schlangen said that what Habitat was doing for
the community was very important. She was supportive of
waiving any or all fees possible. She declared that she was
on the Board of Habitat for Humanity.
Commissioner Throop said that what Habitat was doing was
extremely important in providing low and moderate income
housing stock for the community. However the Community
Development Department budget was very tight, and they would
have difficulty absorbing any reduction in their fee income.
He asked Les Alford from Habitat what kind of relationship
they had with the City of Bend on similar kinds of projects?
PAGE 8 MINUTES 3/13/91
j ~ 090
Les Alford, Habitat for Humanity, said that they had never
received any abatement of fees for any of their projects
within the City. In the project they were doing on Franklin
Street, they had over $60,000 tied up in the cost of the
property, sewer work, and street work. They had to buy the
property from the City at full market value. All the fees
and permits were paid at full cost. He said that 10-11% of
the cost of a Habitat house was paid back to the City of Bend
in fees and permits.
Commissioner Throop was surprised by this.
Chairman Maudlin asked if they had requested fee waivers from
the City.
Les Alford said they had discussed it with the City and were
told the City would not look favorably upon those requests
and, therefore, they had not formally requested waivers.
Commissioner Throop said that the parcel on Franklin Street,
which Habitat was currently working on had been owned by the
County. The County deeded it over to the City but retained
a reversionary clause in case the City decided to use it for
a purpose the County deemed inappropriate. He then asked Mr.
Alford if the City then sold the land to Habitat for market
value.
Les Alford said yes, they paid the appraised value. Going
back to the current request for fee waivers, he said that the
house they wanted to move was given to them and needed to be
moved quickly. It was not particularly suitable for Habitat
low-income housing, but was suitable for Habitat volunteers
or construction supervisors. It was a small, two bedroom,
1-1/2 bathroom house. They didn't have money in the budget
to pay for this project, but if they could move their
construction supervisor into this house, they would no longer
have to pay his housing expense of $550 a month.
Chairman Maudlin suggested that the Board waive 25% of the
fees associated with moving the house.
Commissioner Throop asked how often Habitat would have an
opportunity like this? Les Alford said this was the first
time Habitat had had this kind of opportunity, but with the
Bend Parkway coming through, it could conceivably happen
again.
Commissioner Throop said he would like to waive 50% of the
costs on this project, however, it could not be considered a
precedent for any future requests.
PAGE 9 MINUTES 3/13/91
THROOP: I'll move 50%.
G106 0691
SCHLANGEN: Second.
Chairman Maudlin asked
Building Department to <
keep the costs as low as
VOTE: THROOP:
SCHLANGEN:
MAUDLIN:
the Planning Department and the
:ombine as many fees as possible to
possible.
YES
YES
YES
7. WEEKLY WARRANT VOUCHERS
Before the Board was approval of weekly bills in the amount
of $781,249.86.
SCHLANGEN: Move approval upon review.
THROOP: I'll second.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
8. HAYDEN VILLAGE PHASE II SUBDIVISION PLAT
Before the Board was signature of the Hayden Village Phase II
Subdivision Plat in Redmond.
SCHLANGEN: I move signature.
THROOP: Second the motion.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
9. CLOSING DOCUMENTS FOR LAPINE INDUSTRIAL PARK PROPERTY
Before the Board was signature of the closing documents for
the sale of the LaPine Industrial Park Property to Tom Hicks.
SCHLANGEN: Move signature.
THROOP: Second.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
PAGE 10 MINUTES 3/13/91
'-I'
10. RESOLUTION 91-017 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS FOR BOOTH-KELLY
LUMBER COMPANY
Before the Board was signature of Resolution 91-017 requesting
the Economic Development Commission and the State of Oregon
to assist Booth-Kelly Lumber Company in the financing of
further development of their manufacturing facilities and the
purchase of additional equipment through the issuance of
Industrial Development Bonds.
THROOP: Move approval.
SCHLANGEN: Second.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
11. STATE HIGHWAY DIVISION PLAN
Dale Allen, State Highway Division Regional Engineer and Bob
Bryant from Bend; and Bob Royer, Tom Thex and Ed Lee, Planners
from the Salem office, came before the Board to discuss plans
for the Baker Road crossing of Highway 97 and to give the
Board an overview of the Oregon Transportation Plan.
Bob Bryant showed the Board a map of their plans for Baker
Road improvements to be done in 1993. Their design concept
would take Baker Road over the top of Highway 97 with a 40 mph
design speed and correcting the vertical curve which existed
on Highway 97 over the canal crossing. The latest revision
of the project had a jug handle instead of the north bound off
ramp which would cost less than a normal ramp. They were also
looking at an alternative where Baker Road would go under
Highway 97.
Larry Rice said there were about 5,000 lots in the area which
used Baker Road as the only way out and that represented a
potential 15,000 trips a day. In the last three years,
traffic had gone from 3,500 trips a day to over 6,000.
Bob Bryant said the current estimate for the project was $1.7
million. Dale Allen said they would not ask the County to
exceed their budgeted amount of $500,000 for this project.
Bob Royer went through the attached Oregon Transportation Plan
with the Commissioners.
12. WAIVER OF FEES FOR NATURAL RESOURCE CENTER
Before the Board was a request from the Natural Resource
Center to waive the dumping fees for material left after
PAGE 11 MINUTES 3/13/91
U-19-06 UGS3
removal of the house at the Pilot Butte Motel. The Board
agreed as long as all of the wood waste would go to the
composting machine and not the landfill.
13. OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL REQUEST FROM CLERK
Before the Board was a request for out-of-state travel from
the County Clerk to attend the International Association of
Clerks, Recorders, Election Officials and Treasurers (IACREOT)
Conference in Florida in July.
THROOP: I move to okay the request.
SCHLANGEN: Second.
VOTE: THROOP: YES
SCHLANGEN: YES
MAUDLIN: YES
DESC E COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
T m Throop,V Commissioner
.i`
Nancy Po Sa an e , Commis ion r
Di Mau lin, Chairman
BOCC:alb
PAGE 12 MINUTES 3/13/91
1
0 106 0694
l
Agenda For
Highway Plan Consensus Meetings
February 1991
• Plan Status Where are we now?
- History of activities since last summer
- Blueprint
- How the Highway Plan relates to the Oregon
Transportation Plan
• Policy Issues
- AOH
- Access Management
- Truck Load Restrictions
- Level of Importance
- New Non-AOH Statewide category
• Strategies
- Balancing urban mobility with intercity travel
- Rural
- Preservation/reconstruction emphasis
- New reconstruction category
- Urban
- Modernization emphasis
• Schedule for completion
REL:Revised 2/19/91
6 106 0695
OREGON TRANSPORTATION PLAN
RAIL PLAN I
AERONAUTICS PLAN
I PIPELINE PLAN I
BICYCLE PLAN
PLAN STRATEG/ES
Preservation Strategy
OTC Acknowledged 7/90
Maintenance Strategy
OTC Acknowledged 7/90
Bridge Strategy
OTC Acknowledged 7/90
Modernization Strategy
OTC Acknowledged 7/90
Research Strategy
OTC Acknowledged 7/90
Urban Arterial Strategy
OTC Acknowledged 11/90
AOH Compression Strat. OTC Acknowledged 11/90
PLAN REFINEMENT
ADM Corridor Plans Complete 12 by 1/93
Major Arterial Corr. Plans As Required
Other Corridor Plans As Required
TRANSIT PLAN
WATERWAYS PLAN
PORTS PLAN
HIGHWAY PLAN I
PLAN POUC/ES
LOI System Policy
Revisit Issues 12/90
OTC Approval by 5/91
Access Management Policy
Draft complete 11/90
OTC Approval by 5/91
LOI Tier Policies:
Interstate Hwy Policy
Develop by 12/91
Statewide Hwy Policy
Develop by 3/92
AOH Policy
Draft Complete 12/90
OTC Approval by 5/91
US-101 Policy
Develop by 12/92
Regional Hwy Policy
Develop by 6/92
District Hwy Policy
Develop by 9/92
Interchange Policies:
New Intch. (Controlled Acc)
OTC Approval 7/88
Exist. intch. (Controlled Acc)
Develop by 7/91
New Intch. (Non-Controlled)
Develop by 7/91
Exist. Intch. (Non-Controlled)
Develop by 7/91
Truck Load Restriction Policy
Draft complete 11/90
OTC Approval by 5/91
Aesthetics Policy
Develop by 9/91
REL:Revised 2/19/91
PLAN POLICY ABSTRACTS ,106
LOI System Policy-This policy designates and describes OSHD's Level
of Importance (LOI) system. By using the LOI system, and assigning
more stringent levels of service and design standards to higher
classifications, OSHD is able to approach highway modernization in
a systematic manner. This system is used only to develop
modernization needs and programs, and does not affect preservation,
operations, or maintenance activities. These classifications are
reviewed during each major Plan update.
Access Management Policy-This policy is system wide, and describes
OSHD access control measures and access management categories
throughout the state highway system. This policy is long-range in
nature, and emphasizes access control measures in areas of emerging
development rather than the retrofitting of access control measures
in built-up areas. The process will be done through the Corridor
Plan process defined in the Highway Plan.
LOI Tier Policies (Interstate, Statewide, AOH, US 101, Regional and
District)-These policies deal with the total management of each
level of importance. The policies define OSHD goals and objectives
for each level, and long range planning strategies, access
management strategies, and project development strategies to
achieve these goals. Again, the major focus of these policies is
in emerging development areas rather than in built-up areas.
Interchange Policies-There will be three new Interchange Policies,
building on the 1988 "OSHD Policy for New Interchanges on Full
Access Controlled Highways". When completed, there will be four
parts, as follows, to the Interchange Policies:
1. New Interchanges on Full Access Controlled Highways
2. Modifications to Existing Interchanges on Full Access
Controlled Highways
3. New Interchanges on Partial Access Controlled Highways
4. Modifications to Existing Interchanges on Partial Access
Controlled Highways
Truck Load Restriction Policy-This policy documents the intention
of OSHD to increase highway mileage able to legally handle 80,000
pound GVW trucks by year 2010 from 90 percent of system mileage to
96 percent. The policy designates specific highways which OSHD
does not plan to improve because they are scenic bypasses, low
volume highways, etc.
Aesthetics Policy-This policy reaffirms the OSHD's commitment to
highway aesthetics. This policy says that OSHD will develop
standards to ensure that Oregon's highways complement Oregon's
scenery and therefore will help to spur economic development.
Areas covered by these prospective standards include signing,
junkyard fencing, scenic byways, visual resource management,
landscaping, and brush and vegetation removal along highways.
_ PORTLAND
\ 30
WESTE -1 MT. HOOD: `
B K
TUDY
REA 26
RISE
COR DO
W
V /
6/15/90
WESTERN BYPASS - A TRANSPORTATION NEED HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED
IN THIS AREA. A SPECIFIC TRANSPORTATION MODE HAS NOT BEEN
DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
OC_[_FCC nRg:[_nnl ulruwA VQ
01-06 OGS8
Statewide (Non-AOH) Criteria 1
Route Length: 50 Miles
AADT: 500+
Func. Class: Principal Arterial
Not paralleled by Interstate or Statewide within 25 miles.
Serves population centers of 5000+ at ends or along route.
Connect at each end to either an Interstate or Statewide route OR
a major recreational area.
OR
Route is a part of the STRAH N ET network of highways. (O - N t)o-kv-LJ
Highway Plan Strategies I
• Statewide
- 100% AOH modernization completion
accelerated by a 10 year bonding program
- $10 Million/year modernization on US-101
- 90% Fair-or-better pavement condition by 2010
- 73% Capacity modernization level on Interstates
* Urban
- 90% Modernization level on 'other' statewide,
regional, & district highways through a bonding
program by 2010
- Demand management program
5~~
STFC *
* V
STFCv
COREt'~,
fi
STFC *
STFC *
STFC *
- Support for off-system solutions to local STFC
problems that benefit the state system (within constraints)
• Rural
- Focus on reconstruction and preservation
overlays with rural areas receiving 91 % of these
dollars
• Subject to funding constraints
Core strategies are basic and will not be affected by funding reductions
CORE t
REL:Revised 2/19/91
6106 0'700
N~
Highway Plan
Needs
Modernization
Reg 1
Reg 2
Reg 1
Reg 5
Reg 4
Reg 3
Preservation
Improvements due to Reconst. due to
traffic congestion sub-standard geometrlcs
($4,231 M) or pavement conditions
($1,113M)
Reg 4
Reg 2
Preservation
Overlay
($1,535M)
Reg 1
Improvements Reconstruction Due To
Due To Traffic Sub=standard Geometrics Preservation
Congestion lOr Pavement Condition Overlay
Reg
Class
1 or 2 %
Class
3
Pres
Reconst
Total %
Pres
Overlay %
Reg
Total
1
1,873,893 44%
118,076
83,982
202,058 18%
171,701 11%
2,247,652 33%v
2
791,925 19%
7,142
123,300
130,442 12%
309,312 20%
1,231,679
3
1,107,653 26%
229,345
109,415
338,760 30%
396,843 26%
1,8430256 € 7°k
4
327,856 8%
23,692
147,377
171,069 15%
293,525 19%
792,450 y°k
5
129,255 3%
79,514
191,581
271,095 24%
363,184 24%
763,534 yl°o
TOT
4,230,582 100%
457,769
655,655
1,113,424 100%
1,534,565 100%
6,878,571 100°lv
6 106 0701
Highway Plan
Plan of Action
* Draft Development
0 Consensus Participant and
Administration Review
Draft Modification
OTC Review Period
OTC Approves Draft
Distribution/Review Period
Now - March 15
March 18-29
April 1-3
April 4-16
April 16
May
• Public Hearings June 1-10
• Rpt. Hearing Results to OTC June 18
OTC Approves Printing/Distribution
• Distribute Final Plan July
REL:Revised 2/25/91