Loading...
1997-47132-Minutes for Meeting October 08,1997 Recorded 12/18/19979'7-4'7132 MINUTES OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONHMEE 18 Ah 8:40 Pt IRI IC HEARING - OCTOBER 8. 1997 MAI R1' SvE i E'Nr10LLO'r► COUNTY CLERK I. CALL TO ORDER: Nancy Pope Schlangen called the meeting to order. Commissioners present were Nancy Pope Schlangen, Chair, Linda Swearingen, Commissioner, and Bob Nipper, Commissioner. Legal Counsel staff was represented by Bruce White. Planning staff members present were Wayne Sorensen, Associate Planner for City of Redmond, Andy Osborn, Redmond Public Works, Dick Johnson, Deschutes County, Peter Russell, ODOT, Randy Davis, Redmond Fire District, Rod Sauer, Applicant, Tim Brown, Engineer for applicant, Bob Lovlien, Attorney for applicant, and Racheal LeMay, temporary Recording Secretary. II. PUBLIC HEARING - SUN RIDGE DEVELOPMENT Commissioner Schlangen opened the hearing by reading statement of appeal from the Deschutes County Hearing Officer's findings and recommendations on Sun Ridge Development, SP97-11 D and CU97-08D. The applicant requests approval of a 235 unit manufactured home park located on a 36.80 acre parcel in the residential R4 zone. The order of presentation for this hearing was noted as: Staff presentation and report, applicant presentation, opponents presentations, and rebuttal. Commissioner Schlangen then directed questions to the other members of the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners for any pre -hearing contacts. Commissioner, Bob Nipper stated that he had one phone call with Counselor, Bob Green on the morning of October 8, 1997. The nature of the phone call was that Counselor, Bob Green wished to add his opinion on what decisions should be made. It was noted that Counselor, Bob Green was against the proposed development. At that time, Counselor, Bob Green took to the podium and addressed the issue. He stated the reason that he made the phone call to Commissioner, Bob Nipper, was because the Counsel was not being informed of the hearings and to address the traffic problems imposed by the development. Wayne Sorenson, Associate Planner for the City of Redmond - then presented his staff report. The applicable criteria was noted accordingly: -Title 20 of the Deschutes County Code, which is the Redmond urban area zoning ordinance. -Chapter 20.24 which is the general residential R4 zone where the manufactured park is located -Chapter 20.116, referring to conditional uses -Sub-section 20.116-010 which is the authorization to grant or deny a conditional use -Section 20.116-040 (j) referring to manufactured home parks -Chapter 20.118 which is site and design review -Sub-section 20.118-010 which is design review criteria guide -lines -Section 20.118-050 which refers to all developments -Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, which is the procedures ordinance Board of County Commissioners Meeting -101"7 Page 1 0163-15'v -Chapter 22.04 which is introduction and definitions -Chapter 22.20 which is review of land use applications Wayne Sorenson also noted that there are also several Redmond urban area comprehensive plans which have been adopted by the Deschutes County Board. He continued with a written memorandum which is dated Sep. 24, 1997 summarizing the procedural history and the request. all persons who were involved were mailed notices that the property was re -posted with public notice to the Redmond spokesperson. For recommendation, planning staff initially recommended that the hearings officer denied this application and the hearings officer, Karen Green, did in -fact, deny this application. After having reviewed the application, Wayne Sorenson proceeded to call to the Board's attention number of policies and objectives that were in Karen Green's decision that this proposal did not comply with the criteria. Referencing to page numbers; page 8 discusses the decision made by Miss Green, which found that the conditional use did not meet criteria A. Criteria A requires compliance with Redmond Urban Are Comprehensive Plan. Page 9, she found that the development did not comply with plan policy 7D. Page 16, she fond did not comply with plan policy K. Page 17, she found that it did not comply with plan policies 8D and 8E. Page 18, she found that it did not comply with plan policy 23 and 24. Page 20, she found that it did not comply with transportation plan policy 9. Page 21, she found that it did not comply with the zoning ordinance objective E. Page 28, she found that it did not comply with conditional use criteria C, which is the provision of adequate public facilities. Page 33, she found that it did not comply with mobile home park standards, 14 and 15. Page 36, she found that it did not comply with design review criteria 20.118-050 (a) which refers primarily to traffic and traffic circulation. Page 37, she found that it did not comply with criteria C which refers to site and design criteria for public facilities and services. Indicating to a map, which is a county G.I.S system, the property is located on the edge of the urban growth boundary. The western boundary of the property is 35th St. To the east, is 27th St. The subject property is located about 400 ft. south of Hwy. 126. Indian Ave is a local street which terminates at the eastern boundary of the proposed development. Included in the record are maps used and prepared by the applicants engineers and were a part of the prior proceeding. One of the issues on appeal concerns a grant of access which will be explained by Peter Russell from ODOT. The development process assumed that 27th St. had a grant of access but later discovered that an extra permit was required to actually gain access to Hwy. 126 via 27th St. ODOT initially recommended a denial of the applications because there is no grant of access that exists currently for 27th St. It was also argued that if ODOT adopted the map for transportation plans why then did they not grant the access at the time. In response, Wayne Sorenson, noted that ODOT does not have the right to issue a grant of access and that both the city and county could apply for the grant of access. Other issues of concern, is that the city wanted two access points. The criteria standards for manufacutred home parks requires secondary access which the city interpreted as developing 35th St. On the west and 27th St. on the east to provide a secondary access. There was a possibility that if 31 st St. could be connected to the south which would require the assistance of an adjoining property owner, then 31 st St. would be a likely candidate for a secondary access. 31 st St. is a grid street and a local street which is included on the grid plan and not on the transportation plan. It was noted that the city disagreed with the applicant. The city wanted a paved access improved to a 314 street standard. The developer wanted to improve the secondary access to a gravel access which would conform to uniform fire code. the board has adopted the city standards and specifications. Board of County Commissioners Meeting -1(X09/97 Page 2 0163-15z37 The other concern was the intersection of Highland and 23rd St. If Indian Ave is used and take all the traffic to the east, 23rd Street is intersected. When intersecting with 23rd St., traffic can go either north or south. If traffic goes north, they would intersect with Highland Ave. In recent line use decision which concerns another development within the subjected area which is Stonehedge located to the south of the proposed development and east side of 23rd Street. Stonehedge was approved recently for 102 single family homes. During that hearing, the city had evidence which shows that the intersection of Highland Ave and 23rd St. is operating at an unsatisfactory level. The traffic study used at the Stonehedge hearing has been submitted as part of the record. The hearings officer addressed the traffic issue with Stonehedge by calculating the total traffic generation to determine the developers pro -rated share of the cost of improvement to the intersection of Highland Ave and 23rd Street which was charged back to the developer, Tom Fields. The board then raised a question if the current developer is required to pay for the improvements on 23rd St., 27th St. and 35th St.. Wayne Sorenson then stated that on appeal, the developer has asked to use Indian Ave with no connection to 27th St. and Highland Ave. until the second phase. Oncethe second phase of development commences, then the city feels that developer should be required to pay his pro -rated share of cost to the improvement. The last issue of concern from the city, was that developer had to fully comply with the Redmond Street Grid Policy. Although the hearings officer did not have the perogative to determine what the legislative intent of the governing body was when she entertained the evidence, she did, however, agree that the governing body did have the right to determine its legislative policy in this proceeding. The Redmond Street Grid Policy was adopted by the County Board of Commissioners but codified it in the section of Title 22 so that it only appears to apply in the C5 commercial zone and was not placed in supplementary provisions which made it difficult for the hearings officer to declare the Board's intent. Although the developer does comply with the Street Grid Policy to a certain degree, with the exception of what is 33rd Street. And in order for the developer to fully comply with the Street Grid Policy he would have to extend 33rd St. from where it terminates in an adjacent sub- division to Indian Ave. Wayne then noted to the Board that there is no C5 commercial zone outside the city limits. In relation to the Street Grid Policy, the staff needs to know from the Board on how to apply the Street Grid Policy should it be applied throughout the urban area. Even if the board determined that it was appropriate to apply the Street Grid Policy in this instant, it is not clear whether it is intended to apply to manufactured home parks. It was noted that the County Staff is preparing an amendment to the code so that the Street Grid Policy is placed in the correct section of the code which should be supplementary provisions. There were no questions from the staff. Dick Johnson, Deschutes County - raised his concern about getting the road improvements timed with the phasing as getting traffic funnelled out Indian Ave to 23rd St. during Phase 1 did not seem feasible. He further stated that the improvement to 27th St. was sensible during Phase i of development. Another concern was that there would have to be a realignment with 35th St. He also states that the County agrees with the 3/4 street improvement_ Board of County Commissioners Meeting -10108197 Page 3 Andy Osborn, City of Redmond Public Works - stated that Public Works reviews every land use application concentrating on four different areas of concern. Pertaining to this particular development, he noted the sewer capacity was agreed upon, the proposed list station was agreed upon. Water pressure analysis met the standards for the entire development. However, with approximately 300 housing units total for the development connected to a single source, the city feels that it is bad practice to subject that many people to a single source. Because of this circumstance the Board suggested that the Public Works should change their criteria since there isn't one currently one in place that would require such a development to provide a loop system. In regards to the traffic study, Andy raised questions on the capacity of Indian Ave during Phase 1. Randy Davis, City of Redmond Fire Department - stated that the fire departments main concerns was access. Phase 1 was marginal in allowing the absence of a secondary access. But stated that phase 2 and 3 would definitely require one. The access would require a 20 foot all weather surface, must support 60'000 pounds and have 20 foot road -ways unobstructed stressing that the biggest concern is to get people in and out safely when emergency circumstances arise. Peter Russell, Oregon Dept. of Transportation - submitted three letters for the record. MOT has three issues of concern regarding the development. The first issue regards the access to the highway at 27th St. and 35th St.. ODOT has a policy that only allows access that do not conflict with the Redmond Transportation System Pian. ODOT does not want to allow sub -standard accesses to the highway in terms of width. Sub -standard width is that proposed accesses from ODOTs perspective have to be the standards from the city and county's arterials. The second issue is wanting to condition the developer to construct a left turn refuge at the intersection of 271h St. and Highland Ave, Hwy 126. The third concern regards the proposal in Phase 1 to have traffic go out Indian Ave to 23rd St. and then onto Highland Ave.. ODOT recommends denial on that proposal because of the current level of service at Highland Ave. and Hwy. 126. If access is denied through Indian Ave up to Highland Ave then the developer would have to get access elsewhere which would be 27th St. When the left turn warrants are observed, Phase 1 won't generate enough west bound traffic turning left south into the development to require a left turn refuge, about 7% of the west bound traffic would make a left and ODOT requires 10% of traffic making a left to warrant a left -turn refuge. However, other concerns regarding this issue such as safety and spacing standards. ODOTs biggest concern is the potential of someone being rear-ended while waiting to make a left turn. And because of this concern, ODOT recommends a left -turn refuge be built as soon as possible or at the end of Phase 1. The length of time to receive a grant of access varies depending upon whether or not ODOT has access control in a particular area and safety issues. The legal authority rests with the Right of Way office in Salem but District, which is our local area here, has input. Ultimately, Salem makes the decision and their first question being, "Is this in comformance with the comprehensive plan for this particular jurisdiction?" The district would then reply, "Yes, its identified in the comprehensive plan here." Salem will also ask if the public owns this, meaning does the city or county own it outright. And this is why ODOT would request that the applicant dedicate the "right of way" to the city or county so that the city or county has enough "right of way" based on their own classifications to meet our reservation of access. Salem will also look for adverse impacts upon the highway and other issues which is often why there is a $1500.00 fee to do an assessment. Oregon, under the constitution, state agencies can't give away something of value. They have to get full market value for it. In turn, Salem will assess how much the access is worth and what the development would be worth with or without the access. Board of County Commissioners Meeting -1 QMM7 Page 4 O1 S3_1trtL9 Concerns arose from the Board that if the proposed development is approved, is the developer being set up to do something he may not be able to do? Peter Russell replied that the request for Grant of Access does not guarantee the awarding of one. It has to go through the Right of Way office in Salem. Bruce White addressed a couple of concerns to Wayne Sorenson regarding lighting and guest parking and whether or not they have been addressed with the applicant. It was noted that they had not been addressed. Bob Lovlien, Attorney for Applicant - requests that the provided and reduced map of the actual development be submitted as an exhibit for the record. Bob stated that the developer will accept as a condition of approval that the 27th St connection be constructed as part as Phase 1. As partof Phase 2, left turn refuge on Hwy. 126 be a condition of approval. As part as Phase 1, the developer will build Indian Ave to the western boundary of the sub -division all the way to 27th St. And then to construct 27th St. to Hwy. 126. In second phase, Bob noted that the developer would be required then to build 31 st St. And so as part of phase 2, they have proposed to construct the 20 foot wide road access from 35th St. and Hwy. 126 to boundary of Phase 2 for the emergency access as identified by Redmond Fire Department. Phase 3, the developer would complete the extension of Indian Ave, proposing that only a dedication of 35th St. be required as condition of this approval. Another significant point raised is that 35th St. is the urban growth boundary which at this time there is no contemplated development beyond 35th St. for the next 20 years which means that the developer would be building a road that actually accessed nothing at this point beyond the urban growth boundary. Bob noted that it was rational to say that some point in the future when urban growth boundary is extended that it would also be an appropriate time to develop 35th St., or when there is development on the property between Sun Ridge Meadows and Hwy. 126 which would be an appropriate time to extend 35th St. down to Indian Ave. Mr. Lovlien noted that the development had 5 to 7 access points onto Indian Ave. He also referenced a quote from the staff report, "that the city is willing to make application for a grant of access and staff believes that the county could also assume the responsibility for making such applications, " also stating that he believes that such a statement supports the development. He also stated the developer is under contract with owner Max Mills and had to renegotiate after receiving the initial staff report which included acquisition of the right of way for 35th St. , dedication as shown and for the acquisition for the right of way for the 27th St. connection. Mr. Lovelien stated that the traffic issues were not their greatest concerns but the cooperation of both the city and county. The lighting plans, as enquired by Bruce White earlier, are asked by the developer to be a condition of approval that the lighting plan be submitted. Referencing the map submitted as exhibit for the record, Bob Lovlien notes the spaces in the plan that would allow 2 parking spaces within 200 feet for every unit within this particular park. Request to leave the record open at least for another week. Bob Lovlien also requested that Tim Brown identify the single source water issue from an engineering stand point stating that the developer meets the standards. At this time Commissioner Schlangen opened the hearing to oponents and rebuttals of the application. Rolley Meish, Resident of Stonehedge - asks if 27th St. will be developed before they start developing the proposed development. Mr. Moish stressed traffic conems imposed by the development and requested a schedule for the restructure of 27th St. The developer did not have a response at that time. Board of County Commissioners Meeting-11XU8(97 Page 5 0163-15A0 Lou Bartlett, Resident of Stonehedge - stated that Indian Ave. was not designed for heavy traffic. Also stating that 27th St. is a poor choice as an arterial to Hwy. 126. Dallas Witty, Resident of Stonehedge - stated that his concern was for the increased traffic from Indian Ave. on to 23rd St. due to the development and believes that they should only allow a left turn on 27th St., detouring continuing traffic. Mark Gorham, Resident of Stonehedge - asks what would happen to existing water pressure once all phases of the development have occured. It was noted that a study would be taking place to observe that issue. Mr. Gorham also stated that the secondary access should be initiated into the development before Phase 1. Tim Brown, Engineer for Applicant - stated, in regards to the water pressure issue brought about by Mr. Gorham, that an analysis was done for this type of development and that it had concluded to the same result supporting Andy Osborn's statement in meeting the standards of criteria. Mr. Brown noted that this does not indicate any pressure reduction in the final of all three phases of the develpment to the existing Stonehedge residents. Sandy Seeley, Resident of Stonehedge - states that the speed limit on 23rd St. and Highland Ave. should be addressed before the growing traffic from the development begins. It was noted by Peter Russell that ODOT is working on 23rd St. and Highland Ave. to put a left turn refuge since it is a key intersection and that 27th St. and Highland Ave. has been identified as a perspective signal location. Scott Ross, Resident of Stonehedge - stated his concern for future traffic problems with 27th St. and 23rd St. and feels that these issues should be addressed with now before development takes place. Kevin Hoffman, Resident of Stonehedge - doesn't believe that there should be an option to Phase 2 regarding the addition of a left turn refuge on 27th St. The record will be left open until Friday, Oct. 17, 1997 at 5:00 p.m. Decision will be made on Oct. 22, 1997. All written submissions can be sent to the Board of Commissioners in Bend. III. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Commissioner Schlangen adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Board of County Commissioners Meeting -1 OM97 Page 6 LL lu Recording Secretary