Loading...
45-946-Minutes for Meeting March 02,1983 Recorded 3/30/1983` FA C-9.4& DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 'VOL 4 MARCH 2, 1983 KNOTT ROAD APPEAL HEARING (DEvi) "Ll C) s ~r MAR 43 Chairman Young called the meeting to order at 2:00 P.M. Commissioner Prante and Commissioner Tuttle were als0A""-"Ny0LL0kV. Co. CLERK Craig Smith, Planning; Department, gave the staff report. He noted that the Hearings Officer had approved the conditional use permit to build the extension to Knott Road, his decision had been appealed to the Planning Commission who overturned that decision. The Department of Public Works is now appealing the Planning Commission's decision to the Board. There was some discussion in regard to the time frame in which testimony would be taken. Paul Speck, attorney representing those against the road extension, stated that he had received information that the Road Department had had pre-hearing contact with the Commissioners in regard to this application. He asked if any of the Commissioners had in fact had such contact so that they would have the opportunity to respond to it, and that it would not necessarily disqualify them from hearing this matter. Commissioner Prante stated that during her campaign she had spoken with residents of the Woodside area and with the Road Department in regard to the matter, but did not feel that this would affect her ability to hear this. Commissioner Tuttle stated that during his cam- paign also, he had been asked about his position on this matter and had also received a position paper from the Sunnyside Coalition, but had declined to discuss the matter because of the possibility of a hearing before the Board at a later time. He had had no contact with the Road Department. Chairman Young called for testimony from the appellant. Neil Hudson, Director of Public Works, came forward. He requested that all prior proceedings be made part of the record. With respect to the question of Policy 8 of the Comprehensive Plan (Environmental Impact) they do not feel that the project would have any significant effect. Because this property is zoned RR-10, it should not'have any impact and will not interefere with scenic vistas (but may possibly improve them due to the removal of trees). It is felt that this will increase public safety by providing alternate access to and through Bend from south of the project, especially by ambulances or other vehicles travelling to the hospital.or medical services. Mr. Hudson stated that Knott Road has been reviewed by the public many times in the past 6 to 7 years. In 1978 it was included in the Deschutes County Road Network Plan and was approved. Mr. Hudson stated that at this particular time it is very cost effective because of a developer who is willing to finance a portion of the con- struction through an LID and because of monies available through the State bicycle fund. In the future these advantages may not be avail- able, forcing the County to shoulder the expense. In addressing need, Mr. Hudson stated that this had been originally planned as an east-side bypass and many people still believe this is so, but it is not. In the last five years the area southwest of Bend has grown 7%. It is estimated that by the year 2000 the amount of traffic using the present road system from the south will double. pa?e 1 of 5 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners March 2, 1983 Knott Road Appeal Hearing ' 5 Mr. Hudson added that prior to the appeal hearing before the Planning Commission, his department met with people in the Woodside area, offering to lower the speed and weight limits if they would withdraw their appeal. Since then, he said that they had been accused of not following through with these promises, but that was because the appeal was not withdrawn. He closed by commenting that if they do not approve the project at this time, when it becomes necessary at a later time they may spend more to do it, and there will be even more neighbors in the area objecting to the project. He then submitted Exhibit A, the Knott Road Report. Paul Speck, attorney representing the Claflins and the Woodside Ranch Homeowners Association. Mr. Speck stated that what was submitted by the Public Works Department was a reiteration of what was submitted to the Planning Commission who denied the appeal. Mr. Speck then outlined a number of legal matters which had been pre- viously raised. Mr. Isham objected to the redundant information, saying that the Procedural Ordinance prohibits this. The Chairman sustained the objection. Mr. Speck stated that the Public Works Department has applied for a Conditional Use that doesn't exist under the zoning ordinance. Mr. Speck stated that another most important issue is having to do with whether or not this particular road is contemplated by the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan or the Bend Urban Area Plan. He stated that in 1976 the Bend Urban Area Comp Plan spoke to this roadway and it made textual reference to this possibly being used as an expressway or bypass but that it was not presently needed. In 1979 any textual reference of this proposed road was removed,(referring to the connection between Woodside and Highway 97). He stated that Jim Powell's letter to the Planning Commission sets out the history of this. Mr. Speck felt that the specific planning for this road had become extremely muddled over the years. He stated that in 1982 when the Bend Urban Area Transportation Element was updated a specific finding was made that the majority of traffic on Hwy, 97 was generated locally and therefore construction of a bypass would not relieve congestion in the central area of the city. He felt that the only basis for the Public Works Department's position that the road is now needed is that a line exists on the present map in the Comp Plan, but such a line does not exist on the Bend Urban Area map. He felt that the element of timing was not appropriate, because no study has ever been done indicating this road is necessary. In the Bend Urban Area Plan each arterial is addressed as it relates to traffic flow, but this one is not discussed. He stated that if the road were to be built it would be to benefit the Bend Urban Area, and that is why the text of the Bend Urban Area Plan is important. He felt that the putting in a road is one of the most important planning questions, and that its a far more important consideration that the cost. He said that this spring the Planning Department its review of the transportation element of the comp plan. He felt that consideration of this project should be delayed until after that time. He also did not feel that this project was coordinated with the City of Bend as it should be. He stated that the County Road Department has always gotten special Page 2 of 5 N Deschutes County Board of Commissioners March 2, 1983 Knott Road Appeal Hearing 14 With regard to the text of the comp plan, although there is some joint jurisdiction, there is no question that outside the city boundary the City of Bend has no authority whatever. Anything in the Bend plan has no ability to plan any part of this road. Because there is no line on the City's snap it is consistent with their jurisdiction. He also noted that the City of Bend testified in favor of the road extension before the Hearings Officer. He requested that the Board look at the maps submitted in the prior year. The roadway has been in that map at all stages and at all times. In 1980 the Board adopted the Roadway Network study which was an adoption of the report and map. Be stated that it is the Public Works Department's stand that this was planned in the Comp Plan. He noted that each of the subdivision plats show an 80' right of way, which is only required for an arterial road. The map also indicates that there are no driveways off the road, and accesses have been limited. He stated that additional transport- ation planning will be occurring in the next year because the planning process is a continuing process, but he did not feel that they will. be doing; additional transportation planning is relevant if it is for the sole purpose of delaying the project until next year. He stated that the record shows that this road has been planned; the road will provide for traffic needs; and that the enhanced safety aspects are very important. Neil Hudson, Director of Public Works, came forward and submitted a map labeled "Map 5" (Exhibit B). He stated that Highway 97 will always be a 4-lane facility, so an alternate arterial will be necessary. Paul Speck submitted Exhibit 1. He stated that an 80 foot right of way had been required rather than having to condemn property. He stated that the roadway map wasn't included. in the original plan. He stated that the road did appear on the map, but in the text of the plan this was a "muddled mess" and this was never counted on. He stated that if the county had followed the directive of the advisory committee this would have been taken off the map. He felt that this should go back through the planning process before making any decisions. Being no further comments, Chairman Young closed the hearing. Commissioner Prante asked if anyone knew why the reference to the road had been deleted from the text of the plan. Dr. Powell responded that it was because this road would have beome a bypass, no matter what it was labelled. Commissioner Prante then asked the reason for going through the planning process again. Mr. Speck responded that he is sure that if the proper planning considerations are made this road would not go in. Commissioner Tuttle asked what year the Homeowners Assoc. took over responsibility for the development. This was about three years ago. Commissioner Tuttle asked Mr. Speck about his remark that this was a questionable hearing. Mr. Speck responded that he felt that the conditional use was questionable, but did not feel that the Board's capacity to hear this matter was questionable. It was the Board's concensus to A.M. on March 9, the first item Young adjourned the meeting. announce their decision at 10:00 on the regular agenda. Chairman Page 4 of 5 " Deschutes County Board of Commissioners March 2, 1983 Knott Road Appeal Hearing s 94 preference; that they always get what they ask for. He asked that the Board consider them as any other applicant. He felt that the history of this road was extremely muddled and that there is no present need for it and requested that they support the Planning Commission's decision. Jim Powell, 20607 Coventry Circle, Bend, stated that the transportation section of the comp plan met with very little controversy during the plan's development. He stated that in 1978 there was an amendment to the plan in regard to the Knott Road improvement. He stated that this amendment was dropped from the Deschutes County Comp Plan and the Bend Urban Area General Plan for the same reasons that are being discussed today. He further discussed the history of the project. He stated that the road that is now planned is not the same road as the 1979 map indicates. He did not feel that the applicant had addressed Policy 8 of the transportation element of the plan sufficiently in that it does not address adjacent property. He showed some aerial slides as it was formerly proposed and as it is now proposed. He felt that if the road were constructed it could be used as a major arterial. He felt that the current problems could have been avoided if the trans- portation study had been completed. Ray Lakey, Woodside Ranch Homeowners Association President, stated ifs,) response to the growth statistic of 7% that he knows of many vacant homes in Woodside Ranch and other areas south of Bend. He did not feel that traffic flow was a problem. He showed a map of some bad intersections in the area and felt that the area would be better served by improvement of these. Warren Hull, 20565 White Haven Lane, Bend, stated that his backyard now borders this road. He felt that even though the road may not impact the wildlife greatly, it will have a!tremendous impact on bhe neighbor- hood. He stated that the Planning department had advised them that there were no plans for expansion of the road, so they had built accord- ingly. He stated that this would decrease their property values and the only party benefited would be Brooks Resources. Judy Rotondi expressed concern over the many points of entry onto the road and the possibility of the road being used by semis. She noted that there is already one semi truck parked off of the road. She also felt that Brooks Resources would be the beneficiary of this project, and stated that the Board must weigh the concerns of hundreds. of property owners against one property owner. She also did not feel that sufficient need for this project had been addressed. .'Alan Tracy, 60205 Ridgeview Drive East, Bend, stated that there are ao intergrative plans in the county and the city that support this project. He felt that they should consider the quality of life in the area and that there,.could be an impact on wildlife. At this time Chairman Young called for rebuttal comments. Rick Isham, Counsel to the applicant, stated that since Mr. Speck had given his presentation with respect to legal aspects, he felt he should comment on some of these. He also noted that he is also a resident of the affected area. He stated that here is sufficient legal authority Page 3 of 5 416 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners March 2, 1983 Knott Road Appeal Hearing DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 4~~ ALBER A. YO G, L0I RISTOW PRANTE, COMMISSIONER LAUR CE A. TUTTLE, COMMISSIONER /ss Page 5 of 5 va 'u