2005-1246-Minutes for Meeting October 31,2005 Recorded 11/1/2005COUNTY
TES
FICIAL
NANCYUBLANKENSHIP,FCOUNTY CLERKS Q 1005.1246
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 11/01/2005 01;34;16 PM
111111[I11)1111111111111 II I III
2i
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK
CERTIFICATE PAGE
This page must be included
if document is re-recorded.
Do Not remove from original document.
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ora
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2005
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St.., Bend
Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly and Dennis R. Luke; Commissioner
Tom De Wolf was out of the office. Also present were Mike Maier, County
Administrator; Tom Blust and George Kolb, Road Department; Laurie Craghead,
Legal Counsel; Dan Peddycord, Health Department; Tom Anderson, Kevin
Harrison, Paul Blikstad, Catherine Morrow, Will Groves, Steve Jorgensen and
Cathy White, Community Development; media representative Chris Barker of The
Bulletin; and three other citizens.
Vice Chair Daly opened the meeting at 10: 00 a.m.
1. Before the Board was Citizen Input.
None was offered.
2. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Order
No. 2005-130, Declaring the Intent to Create Harper Road Local.
Improvement District, and Setting a Hearing.
George Kolb explained that this is an established County road and the residents
are paying to have the road paved. The hearing is scheduled for November 30.
LUKE: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Vice Chair votes yes.
Minute of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, October 31, 2005
Page 1 of 7 Pages
3. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of
Document No. 2005-420, Amendment #2 to the State Financial Assistance
Contract regarding Various Health Services.
Dan Peddycord explained this amendment revises the agreement that primarily
deals with pass-through Federal funds.
LUKE: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Vice Chair votes yes.
4. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of
Document No. 2005-421, an Intergovernmental Agreement for Deschutes
County to Provide Ready Set Go Nursing Services to the Crook -Deschutes
Education Service District.
Mr. Peddycord stated that these dollars go the Commission on Children &
Families for the Healthy Start/Ready Set Go program. The payment: amount
has been reduced by the State.
LUKE: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Vice Chair votes yes.
5. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Order
No. 2005-131, Approving the Dense Annexation into the Cloverdale Rural
Fire Protection District.
Laurie Craghead said the Board has already approved the annexation, but an
additional long driveway should have been included in the map. This Order
adds the corrected map, as required by the Department of Revenue.
LUKE: Move approval.
DALY: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Vice Chair votes yes.
Minute of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, October 31, 2005
Page 2 of 7 Pages
6. Before the Board was a Decision regarding a Proposed Plan Amendment
and Zone Change to Establish a Surface Mining Zone near Millican
(Applicant: 4-11 Equipment/Ron Robinson).
Laurie Craghead said the Board needs to decide what the impact area is, and
within that area whether the mitigation solutions the applicant proposed are
sufficient. If not, the Board needs to decide whether it will require an ESEE
(Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy) analysis.
The Board needs to state what the conflicting issues are, determine the impact
area, and whether they will agree with the area noted by the Hearings Officer or
note a smaller or larger area. The required impact area is 1,500 feet., and the
Hearings Officer went beyond that. The ESEE analysis will need to be done if
the mitigation measures are determined to be insufficient.
Commissioner Luke asked if there is anything in the record regarding other
mining sites. Paul Blikstad replied that he had done some research on this
issue. However, Ms. Craghead said that if this information is not already in the
record, they can't be discussed at this time.
Commissioner Luke stated that he feels the Hearings Officer went too far out
regarding impact areas, but he feels 1,500 feet may not be enough. He has not
come to a decision on this.
He added that the information he has received regarding the ESEE analysis and
the fact that this analysis has been done in every other mining site approval in
the County makes him reluctant to set precedence. He also said that if the
Board rejects this, it has to start all over.
He stated that after speaking with Legal Counsel he learned that by providing
written notice the record could be reopened to allow the applicant to obtain the
ESEE analysis. The opponents would also be allowed to comment. But the
distance out still needs to be decided.
Ms. Craghead said the basis for requiring the ESEE analysis would have to be
that the mitigation offered is not adequate.
Minute of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, October 31, 2005
Page 3 of 7 Pages
Commissioner Luke stated it is difficult to come to that conclusion without
seeing an ESEE analysis. He would like to see what was done in regard to
other mining sites in the past.
Commissioner Daly asked what the ESEE analysis would provide that isn't
already in the record. Ms. Craghead replied that it would detail possible
environmental consequences of the mining site in regard to conflicting uses.
The Board could change the size of the area, but has to have a good reason to
go beyond the 1,500 feet. To call for an ESEE analysis, the Board would have
to find that the proposed mitigation measures are inadequate or that it is
impossible to tell whether they are adequate. The ESEE consequences are
detailed in the law.
Commissioner Daly said he does not apologize for being knowledgeable about
this type of operation. He stated he worked in the field for eighteen years. He
added that he doesn't believe the area should be expanded to over 1,500 feet.
He feels the distance is adequate, especially given the location. And in regard
to concerns about dynamite damaging property some distance away, based on
experience and the new types of explosives being used, he feels there won't be
a huge explosion occurring.
Regarding dust from blasting and mining affecting the Pine Mountain
Observatory, he said he doesn't believe it should be a consideration since it is
six miles away.
Paul Blikstad noted that there are residences at 2,300 feet away and pictographs
at 1,950 feet. Recreational trails and other residences vary in distance.
Commissioner Daly stated that dust from blasting and mining won't affect other
uses, and there is sufficient mitigation offered for those uses that are within the
1,500 feet.
Commissioner Luke said that he feels it will probably be appealed, and staff
and the Hearings Officer recommended an ESEE analysis. This needs to be
done so the issue can move forward. The record should be opened so the Board
can analyze what's been done regarding other mining sites.
Commissioner Daly stated that if Commissioner Luke is set on having the
ESEE analysis, it should stay at the 1,500 feet.
Minute of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, October 31, 2005
Page 4 of 7 Pages
Commissioner Luke replied that the issue with land use decisions is that you
have to follow the law. He said he would like to know what has been done in
regard to other mining sites, but staff can't advise on this because it is not in the
record. There would have to be a good reason to go beyond the 1,500 feet,
which is a long way. If it means the analysis won't go beyond 1,500 feet, he is
willing to do that.
Ms. Craghead stated that to open the record, the Board needs to make a
preliminary finding that there needs to be an area larger than 1,500 feet or that
the mitigation offered is inadequate.
Commissioner Luke said that he doesn't see a reason to open anything but the
written record. Ms. Craghead clarified this would involve new evidence in
writing regarding the other mining sites, and parties will be able to respond to
that evidence. Commissioner Luke added that he would like to see the record
limited to the ESEE analysis and information on the other mining sites.
Ms. Craghead confirmed that the Board said the 1,500 feet is appropriate but
that mitigation within that area is not sufficient and requires an ESEE analysis.
This finding would be needed.
Paul Blikstad pointed out page 4 of the applicant's response to the Hearings
Officer's recommendations, contesting the impact area. Commissioner Daly
said that he would like to review this information in detail prior to making a
decision.
This was continued to the Wednesday, November 2 Board meeting, so that
Commissioner Daly will have a chance to discuss the issue with staf F
7. Before the Board was Discussion of a Public Hearing regarding :In Appeal
of the Hearings Officer's Denial of a 34 -Lot Subdivision located West of
Bend in the UAR-10 Zone (Applicant: Tumalo Creek Development).
Catherine Morrow said that letters have been received from the City regarding
the roads. Representatives of the applicant are aware of the findings in the
appeal regarding the road situation. (Ms. Morrow provided the Board with
copies of a memo and other documents in this regard. A copy is attached as
Exhibit A.)
Minute of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, October 31, 2005
Page 5 of 7 Pages
Steve Jorgensen stated that they have looked at the interconnectivity of the
area's roads in relation to the Hearings Officer's decision, taking into account
the possible future of this location, since the property is adjacent to -the City's
urban growth boundary. They have analyzed what approval conditions might
be recommended, should the Board agree with the appellant.
He said the roads on the map are hypothetical and don't necessarily make
engineering sense due to terrain, etc. He added that the map needs to show a
reasonable location for any roads by the time the property is platted.
This hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, November 1 at 2: 00 p.m.
8. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Measure 37
Hearings.
M37-05-062 (Continuation; Claimant: Johnson) — Order No. 2005-062
M37-05-42 (Claimant: Hannan) — Order No. 2005-095
M37-05-43 (Claimant: Davis) — Order No. 2005-096
These items were not discussed. They will addressed at the Wednesday,
November 2 Board meeting.
9. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Will Groves said that regarding the Dieter Mees appeal that the Board heard on
October 26 concerning the siting of an accessory building in a forest.
management area, a letter from the applicant has been received that extends the
timeline to January 2006. Documentation has also been located that shows the
applicant had followed proper building permit procedures.
Being no further items brought before the Board, Vice Chair Daly adjourned
the meeting at 11: 00 a.m.
Minute of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, October 31, 2005
Page 6 of 7 Pages
DATED this 31St Day of October 2005 for the Deschutes County Board
of Commissioners.
ATTEST:
TaWA,-L �b�
Recording Secretary
Tom DeWolf, Chair
y; Corflmissioner
is R. Luke, Cofnmissioner
Attachment
Exhibit A: Staff report dated October 31, 2005 regarding File No. A-05-9 (14
pages).
Minute of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, October 31, 2005
Page 7 of 7 Pages
Memorandum
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
From: Steve Jorgensen, Senior Transportation Planner
CC: Catherine Morrow, Planning Director and Kevin Harrison, Principal Planner
Date: 10/31/05
Re: File No.: A-05-9 (CU -05-17 & TP -05-958) Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Decision Denying a 34 -lot
Subdivision located west of Bend in the UAR-10 zone (Tumalo Creek Estates)
Appellant & applicant: Tumalo Creek Development, LLC
On September 26, 2005, the Board issued an order accepting to hear the applicant's appeal of the
Hearings Officer's decision denying the applicant's 34 -lot subdivision located west of Bend in the
UAR-10 zone. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the BOCC with my transportation -
related comments that apply to the Hearing Officer's findings and may be considered by the BOCC
as part of the official record for this appeal.
I. Backaround
On August 29, 2005, the Hearings Officer issued a decision denying the applicant's request to
establish a 34 -lot residential subdivision to be called "Tumalo Creek Estates" in which each lot would
be at least 10 acres in size and served by public roads (see attached Hearings Officer's decision).
The proposal is located on the western edge of the Bend city limits and zoned Urban Area Reserve
(UAR-10) with a Destination Resort (DR) overlay (tax lots 17-11-00-6000, and tax lots 17-11-26-101
and 400, see attached location map and tentative plat.
II. Transportation Issues Raised On Appeal
The appellant raised the following transportation -related assignment of error on appeal relative to the
Hearings Officer's recommended conditions of approval.
b. Third Assignment of Error Skyline Ranch Road Dedication.
Lots 29 and 34 and a southern outlet between lots 20 and 21. The
The proposed subdivision will take primary access from a public road with a northern out et between
northern outlet would connect the
subdivision road with McClain Drive and thereafter with Shevlin Park Road (see attached Tentative
Plat). The southern outlet would connect the subdivision road with either the future Skyline Ranch
Road, and also a designated collector, or a future street in the adjacent Northwest Crossing
development.
Quality Services Performed with Pride
The Hearings Officer recommended the following two conditions of approval relative to the dedication
of Skyline Ranch Road:
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR The TWENTY-SIXTH (26"') SUBDIVISION
DWELLING:
22. The applicant/owner shall dedicate 40 feet of right-of-way for the abutting segment of Skyline
Ranch Road.
23. The applicant/owner shall construct a southern subdivision access to the county's standards
for rural local roads. This road shall consist of a connection from the main subdivision road to:
a) Skyline Ranch Road if at the time of connection it is improved and connects to either
Shevfin Park Road or Skyliners Road; b) a dedicated and improved public street within the
Northwest Crossing development; or c) the Miller Tree Farm property to the south if this
connection is available at the time the building permit for the 26th dwelling is requested and
before the access described in (a) above can be constructed.
The appellant believes the Hearings Officer's suggested conditions of approval are inconsistent with
her findings as stated below:
The inconsistency seems to derive from the fact that the Hearings Officer concluded that a
secondary access should be provided prior to issuance of a building permit for the 26"'
dwelling within the subdivision. (Hearings Officer's Decision, p. 32). This is due to a Rural
Fire Protection Standard allowing up to 25 homesites in a single access subdivision.
However, the right-of-way dedication for Skyline Ranch Road is not necessary to provide the
secondary access. Rather, as recognized by the Hearings Officer in Condition 23, the
Applicant has several options to provide secondary access, and only one of the three options
would require the dedication and construction of Skyline Ranch Road. Therefore, the
Applicant requests that the Board remove Condition 22 from the heading "PRIOR TO
ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE TWENTY-SIXTH (26TH) SUBDIVISION
DWELLING," and place it under a new heading that reads: "PRIOR TO FINAL PLAT
APPROVAL FOR PHASE 8."
III. Comments
The appellant is requesting to add a new heading and place Condition 22 under the new heading.
The timing of dedication of the 40 -feet of right-of-way for the abutting segment of Skyline Ranch
Road could be accomplished with the last phase, phase 8 of the subdivision, or before, as stated by
the Hearings Officer on page 24 of the decision.' I believe the issues are more complex than simply
changing headings.
' Page 24 of the Hearings Officer decision states:
Accordingly, I find I cannot constitutionally require the applicant to improve the abutting
segment of Skyline Ranch Road. However, l find that if the subdivision is approved it should
be conditioned on a requirement that the applicant dedicate 40 feet ofright-of--way for the
abutting segment of Skyline Ranch Road with Phase 8 of the subdivision. 18
Footnote 18 of the Hearings Officer's decision on page 24 states "the applicant may elect to dedicate this right-
of-way prior to Phase 8 to facilitate the provision of a required southern access."
In light of the Hearings Officer decision to
provide three options for secondary access,
should be addressed directly such as how
addressed, the dedication and construction
existing and planned developments.
From the applicant's burden of Proof,
defer the Skyline Ranch Road ROW dedication and
there appear to be several transportation issues that
orderly development (including shadow platting) is
of Skyline Ranch Road and connectivity to adjacent
The Applicant proposes to design the subdivision in a manner that carefully integrates
development into existing landscape. The Applicant's plan will preserve rock outcroppings,
ravines, meadows and forested areas as part of the overall scheme to maintain significant open
space, as required by the lot size standards for the UAR-10 zone. Consistent with the purpose of
the UAR-10 zone, the Applicant has also produced several alternative "shadow plats" to
demonstrate how portions of the site could be developed at a higher density if the property is
included in the Bend Urban Growth Boundary at a future date (Exhibit 5).
The proposed subdivision is designed to achieve orderly growth by developing desirable low
density residential options while creating an appropriate transition area from higher density
development within the Bend UGB to the less developed open space, forest, and rural residential
lands to the west. To implement the purpose of the UAR-10 zone, the low-density subdivision
will meet the ten -acre minimum Iot size, and the majority of each lot will remain in open space.
As depicted on the draft "shadow plats," depending upon the timing of sale and construction of
lots within the subdivision, there are a variety of options for future redevelopment of the property
to accommodate "orderly growth" in the future if the site is ultimately selected for inclusion in
the Urban Growth Boundary, as contemplated by the UAR-10 purpose statement. (Exhibit 5).
The Applicant has designed the southeastern comer of the subdivision to accommodate a portion
of the right -of --way for the extension of Skyline Ranch Road, the future collector proposed on the
Bend Urban Area Transportation Plan. Although this north -south connector is not necessary to
accommodate the proposed subdivision, the subdivision has been designed to connect to the road
when it is constructed to support additional development on the west side of Bend. This sequence
of development contributes to the orderly pattern of growth in the Urban Area Reserve: west of
Bend.
A. The subdivision contributes to orderly development and
land use patterns in the area, and provides for the preservation of
natural features and resources such as streams, lakes, natural
'Tgetadon, special terrain features, agricultural and forest lands
and other natural resources
The proposed subdivision is designed to facilitate orderly growth and development by creating a
transition area between the existing dense residential areas within the Bend UGB and the rural
residential, open space and the forest lands to the west. Given the denser residential
development to the east, the proposed low-density development will provide an appropriate
transition into the undeveloped OS&C and F -I lands to the west because approximately 76
percent of the project will be left as open space and appropriately vegetated to blend with and
complement the surrounding areas. The proposal also contributes to the urban goals of
accommodating future higher density residential development by accommodating future urban
densities when appropriate, as depicted on the Shadow Plats. (Exhibit. 5).
The applicant correctly states that the nature of the UAR-10 Zone is as a holding zone until urban
level development is appropriate, which is why the applicant submitted seven different shadow plats.
The applicant also acknowledges that the proposal addresses the urban goals of the City of Bend via
shadow platting. However, the street pattern shown in the shadow plats does not align with the
proposed local roads shown on the tentative plan not does it connect with exiting platted or
constructed local roads adjacent to the property. As submitted, this application (arid the shadow
plats as well) do not identify connections for connectivity south to the Miller UAR-10 property or north
to Three Pines or east to a platted right of way adjacent to Phase 4. Also Northwest Crossing to the
east has an approved local street design. The applicant should be required to connect to this
subdivision rather than having the connection be one of three options as conditioned by the hearings
officer. Local street connections should be dedicated and constructed to assure connectivity to
meet Bend Urban maximum block length standards (600 feet in residential subdivisions according to
Bend Land Davison Code Sections 6.030). To comply with orderly development and adjacent land
use patterns, the applicant should be conditioned to construct local streets to connect to the planned
and platted local street network to the north, south and east.
The burden of proof does not provide findings to demonstrate that it is possible to construct the
proposed Skyline Ranch Road can be located in such a way that it can actually be built and connect
to the north and south of this property. The Hearings Officer's Condition #22 does not assure that
any right-of-way (ROW) for Skyline Ranch Road will be dedicated (for instance if the applicant
chooses to only plat 25 lots), let alone be built. If in fact this property is brought into the Bend UGB
and urbanized as suggested in the City Comprehensive Plan, there are no assurances that the City's
grid street policy can be followed as well. Additionally, the 40 -foot ROW dedication shown on the plat
does not completely line up with the previous dedication to the north, thus putting the burden for
completing the needed ROW dedication, and presumably construction as well, on the: West Bend
Properties, Ltd. Development to the east (Northwest Crossing). We clearly need to see how the
entire length of Skyline Ranch Road from Shevlin Park Road to Skyliners Road can be properly
aligned with respect to topography and existing and future developments, including all local road
connections to it in the proposed tentative plan.
The applicant has not demonstrated that Skyline Ranch Road can actually be constructed in the
location identified on the tentative plan. The issue involves the topography and grades identified by
contours on the tentative plan map submitted with the application. If road ROW is to be dedicated as
a condition of approval (per the Hearings Officer Decision), the County has a responsibility to have
reasonable assurances that that future road is constructible.
Both City and County Transportation System Plans (TSP) identify the same generalized alignment
for a future extension of Skyline Ranch Road as a future north -south collector road linking Shevlin
Park Road and Skyliner Road. The City TSP specifically states that:
"The circulation plan designates a system of major streets that are necessary to move people and
goods safely and conveniently within the urban area. way System The system is depicted on the Road
Plan Map as expressways, principal arterials, major and minor arterials, and major collector streets.
In many instances, the alignments depict a generalized corridor and precise alignments of future
streets will be determined after further study and engineering analysis, or during the development of
vacant properties.
The road system is based generally on a spacing of one mile for arterials and one-half mile for
collectors. The precise alignment for new streets must be defined as development occurs. In some
areas, additional collector or arterial streets beyond those shown on the plan map may need to be
established as the community grows. The City would establish the location of additional streets as
part of the land development process and Street System Plan amendments made as necessary. It is
extremely important that adequate rights-of-way are secured as development or redevelopment
occurs along these designated corridors to protect these future roadways. "
What this points out is that typically, some alignments on the TSP will be generalized to show
regional connectivity and be subject to engineering evaluation when developments are proposed that
impact or require access to such future roads. An example is the southern extension of Skyline
Ranch Road from Skyliner Road to Century Drive which has been partially completed, and will be
completely built as a result of already approved County land use permits. This portion of Skyline
Ranch Road was also a generalized alignment on both TSPs, then as development was proposed,
the applicant's engineers worked with topography to route the new road through their development to
its ultimate connection with Century Drive.
From reviewing this application under appeal, the applicant has not located the future collector ROW,
or the private road connection to it, in an area that meets grade requirements identified in Table A of
DCC Title 17. Those maximum grade requirements are 12 percent (12%) for private roads and eight
percent (8%) for collectors. From my slope calculations, using the tentative plan map submitted with
the application, I found that the local road connection includes grades ranging from 18 to 36 percent
just before it connects with the proposed Skyline Ranch collector. The section of Skyline Ranch
Road shown includes grades ranging from 13 to 24 percent. Both of these proposed roads exceed
the acceptable level of allowed slope (not to mention sight distance requirements), with no mitigation
in terms of fill and removal identified. As such, because TSPs are part of adopted Comprehensive
Plans, the application does not meet the intent of DCC 17.16.100:
17.16.100. Required findings for approval.
A tentative plan for a proposed subdivision shall not be approved unless the Planning Director or Hearings
Body finds that the subdivision as proposed or modified will meet the requirements of DCC Title 17 and
DCC Title 18 through 21, and is in compliance with the comprehensive plan. Such findings shall include,
but not be limited to, the following:
A. The subdivision contributes to orderly development and land use patterns in the area, and provides for
the preservation of natural features and resources such as streams, lakes, natural vegetation, special
terrain features, agricultural and forest lands and other natural resources.
B. The subdivision will not create excessive demand on public facilities and services, and utilities required
to serve the development.
The Hearings Officer has identified conditions 22 and 23 (above) that have various road dedication
and connection options by Phase 8 of the development. I find that the application does not delineate
how these various options could be built, but instead relies on dedication of ROW along what was
clearly a generalized alignment in the TSP. Therefore, there is no indication how this segment of
collector ROW shown on the TSP will fit with future extensions both north and south from the subject
property, and contribute to the required orderly development. If the appeal is upheld and the
tentative plan approved, a likely recourse may be for the City and County TSPs to be amended to
move the proposed Skyline Ranch Road west beyond the Urban Area Reserve lands or delete it
altogether.
As shown on the tentative plat, the alignment of Skyline Ranch Road (straight along the section line)
could be physically built, but at greater cost than other nearby alignment choices, and it would require
slope easements from adjacent private lots. No slope easements are identified in this application. In
addition, the County does not have transportation System Development Charges to help offset the
construction of this road, and if given the choice, the City and County would both choose to relocate
the ROW from that shown on the plat if we had to build it. At a minimum, the applicant should be
c
P
conditioned to dedicate the necessary ROW (in a proper location) and bond for their portion of the
construction of Skyline Ranch Road.
If the BOCC accepts the appeal and approves the tentative plan as submitted, the possibility exists
that lots will be platted that effectively preclude a realistic future alignment of a collector roadway
shown on the County and City TSPs. Once the proposed lots in Phases 1 through 8 are platted, the
opportunities for proper collector and local ROW dedication may be lost.
Based on the foregoing, the BOCC has four courses of action regarding the appeal relative to Skyline
Ranch Road based on the criteria in DCC 17.16.100, "contributing to orderly development and land
use patterns in the area" and in DCC 17.36.020 Design Standards for Streets:
1 • Uphold the appeal, but delete conditions 22 and 23 and replace them with the following
conditions:
• Dedicate right of way and construct a local road meeting county standards to be stubbed out
at the southern edge of the property in Phase 7.
• Construct the local road to the east edge of Phase 8 so that it connects to the local street
shown on the Northwest Crossing Street Type Plan adopted by City of Bend Ordinance
NS 1968.
• Dedicate right of way and construct a local road meeting county standards between lots 32
and 33 to connect to the stubbed out right of way in the Three Pines subdivision to the north
• Dedicate 80 feet of right of way for Skyline Ranch Road in Phase 8 in a location that can
reasonably be constructed considering topography and connection to properties to the north
and south, or demonstrate prior to final plat approval for Phase 8 that Skyline Ranch Road
tentative plat.
can reasonably be constructed at the eastern edge of the property as identified on the
2. Uphold the appeal and accept the recommended amendments to language suggested by the
applicant to Hearings Officer Condition #22. With this option, there is no guarantee that the Skyline
Ranch Road collector will be built or relocated to a more appropriate location, future urban densities
will be accommodated, or local road connectivity will be achieved to the north, east or the south to
assure orderly development and future land use patterns in the area.
3. Deny the appeal based on non-compliance with DCC 17.16. 100 and DCC 17.36.020.
Attachments.
1) City of Bend Memo from Robin Lewis
2) County Road Dept. Memo fro George Kolb
3) Northwest Crossing Approved Master Plan Map
4) Location Map with TSP Road Classifications
MEMORANDUM
TO:
STEVE JORGENSEN, SENIOR PLANNER
FROM:
GEORGE KOLB, COUNTY ENGINEER
SUBJECT:
TUMALO CREEK DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
10/31/2005
CC:
FILE
Steve;
This memo concerns the location of the proposed 80 foot right-of-way for the future collector, Skyline
Ranch Road, which the Road Department addressed in the comments dated May 26, 2005. The initial
comments stated that Skyline Ranch Road right-of-way would be dedicated on the eastern boundary of
the property and that the road would be constructed by the applicant. After further review of the right-of-
way location with yourself and the City of Bend on Wednesday, October 26'h, It appears that the hearings
officer decision indicates that the applicant will only be responsible for dedication of the right-of-way but
not the construction of the road itself. What this means is that eventually either Deschutes County or the
City of Bend will be responsible for the construction of this road. After review of the topographic
contours and also the plan/profile sheets provided by the applicant's engineers, I feel the location shown
on the tentative plat is not a good location as far as constructability and the right-of-way should be
realigned to take advantage of the flat area between the two draws. The original alignment, going north -
south along the east boundary would be an expensive road to build based on the following:
♦ There is a fill of over 20 feet in depth at station 37+18.42. This fill would necessitate slope
easements on the adjoining properties to allow construction of the fill slopes. Guardrail would also
have to be installed along the higher portions of the fill per AASHTO standards.
♦ The vertical curve at station 43+93.47 has cuts of up to 15 feet so there my have to be slope
easements here also from adjoining property owners.
♦ Sight distance to access onto this road will be limited by the cuts.
An alignment that utilizes the flat area between the two draws would be a much less expensive road to
build based on less earthwork and easier constructability. It would also have better access for side roads
from adjacent subdivisions. It appears the road could be built within the 80 foot right-of-way without the
need for slope easements.
V
Memorandum
To: Steve Jorgenso>r-)
From: Robin Lewis.y
Subject: CU -05-07, TP -05-598
Date: October 28, 2005
cc: file
Thank you for the opportunity to have the City provide further input
on this land use proposal.
The City really is concerned about two items - grid/ connectivity, and
Skyline Ranch Road.
With regards to grid/ connectivity, the City of Bend, in accordance to
Bend Code 10-13.6, Section 6.020, Streets, Sidewalks and Bikeways
and 6.030, Blocks, would like to permit satisfactory future division of
adjoining land. There are two issues with grid and connectivity
pertaining to the Day land use. First, there are adjoining properties
that have already developed within the City that were required to
provide the Day property with stub streets. The applicant is not
showing connections to these already stubbed rights of way, and
should be required to do so. Second, the Day application is not
proposing to continue the grid/ connectivity pattern of development
onto undeveloped adjoining properties. Block lengths within the City
of Bend is 600 feet for residential properties. Stubbed streets :should
be provided to all redevelopable properties adjoining the Day property.
This would include Northwest Crossing to the east and the parcels to
the west and to the south.
With regards to Skyline Ranch Road: On May 23, 2005, City provided
the following comments regarding Skyline Ranch Road;
The applicant has proposed a dedication of 80 feet (should read
40') along the property's eastern boundary for the future alignment
of Skyline Ranch Road. This road is designated as an urbaxl
collector road on the Bend Urban Area Roadway System Plan. The
plan map shows a straight north -south alignment of this road that
would cross the eastern boundary of proposed Lots 20 and 21. We
Q:\engineering\TRAFFIC\LandUseApplications\County Land Use - Skyline Ranch Road.doc
believe that the topography in this area may require a meandering
alignment similar to that of Mt. Washington Drive. We also believe
that the applicant's engineer may ,have completed some
preliminary work on this meandering alignment for Northwest
Crossing."
The roadway in question, Skyline Ranch Road, is shown on the City's
TSP map as a secondary ring road extending over 5 miles in a_ general
north -south alignment, roughly parallel to Mt. Washington Drive.
Skyline Ranch Road has been planned to create a strong grid system
tying important east -west roadways on the west side of Bend,
including Century Drive, Skyliner Road, and Shevlin Park Road.
The roadway alignment contained within this land use action TP -05-
598 is critical as it could potentially create a barrier in roughly the
middle of the Skyline Ranch ring road. If the location of the right-of-
way dedication, as proposed by the applicant, is accepted, there is a
strong possibility that the City would not be able to overcome the
topographic and slope easement constraints presented by this
alignment, effectively forever creating a disconnect in the ring road.
Furthermore, the land in question is located in Urban Area Reserve,
which when developed to RS densities will create thousands of new
homes. The applicant's impact alone, even when developed as 10 acre
lots, is projected to add over 300 new vehicle trips to the
transportation system. These homes, being far from the urban core,
will not have much opportunity for walking and biking trip reduction.
Reliance on the automobile necessitates the ring road.
The City in their earlier comments pointed out the necessity to
meander the road. The need for the meandering was not, however,
considered by the Hearings Officer. Furthermore, it is not clear in the
Decision whether the right-of-way is even required at all. It appears
that if the applicant applies for a building permit on a 26th lot, then
the 40' right-of-way, located along the eastern property line, would be
required. The applicant may never apply for a building permit on the
26th lot. The 26th lot does not correspond to Lot 20 or Lot 21 of the
applicant's tentative site plan. These lots may be owned privately at
the time of the building permit request for a 26th lot. This is an
extremely tenuous requirement for such an important ring road to the
future transportation system.
The Bend Urban Area Roadway System Plan map includes the
following comment regarding proposed roadway alignments: "The
proposed roadway alignments shown on this map are general in
nature. Precise roadway alignments will need to comply with city of
Bend street standards, and other engineering and design work that
will be conducted as part of the land development process."
Q:\engineering\TRAFFIC\LandUseApplications\County Land Use - Skyline Ranch Road.doc
Furthermore, the City's Transportation System Plan document,
Section 6.5 states, The precise alignment for new streets must be
defined as development occurs ... It is extremely important that:
adequate rights-of-way are secured as development or redevelopment
occurs along these designated corridors to protect these future
roadways."
We believe the time for this engineering and design work is now - in
conjunction with this land development process. The applicant has
shown that a roadway along their proposed alignment cannot be
constructed to proper engineering standards within the 80 foot right
of way due to the topographic constraints.
After having an opportunity to review with the County Engineer the
potential vertical curvature, and the required cut and fill necessary to
construct Skyline Ranch Road in a straight north -south alignment,
the City is convinced that the roadway cannot be constructed :in an
80' right-of-way due in this direct north -south alignment due to the
extensive cuts and fills and their requisite slope easements.
The cuts and fills would be on the order of 25' to 30' high/deep in
order to achieve a safe roadway design (adequate sight distance along
the roadway as well as for cross -streets). Safe roadway design
parameters are provided in the AASHTO Greenbook (a.k.a. American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Policy on
Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2004 Edition). In order
to have recoverable side slopes, the roadway should have a 3:1 to 4:1
side slope which leads to extremely wide slope easements (75' to 120')
on private property. Attached is a conceptual plan and profile of the
roadway if placed in the proposed straight alignment. This
preliminary alignment shows the magnitude and extent of potential
impact associated with a straight road at the property line. This
shows a 100' slope easement to either side of the right of way Eine that
would be necessary to lay back the cuts and fills so that sight lines as
well as roadside safety are achieved.
A far safer and less expensive design (nominal cuts and fills), that
achieves AASHTO standards, requires that the ROW for Skyline
Ranch Road be meandered as the City suggested in our May 23, 2005
comments. Therefore, it is the Citu's request that an 80' right -o Iwau
be dedicated bu the applicant alongthe top of the ridge (between the
3,790' contours). This requires that the entire 80' right of wau be
dedicated bu this applicant from their northern propertu line to their
southern propertu line in a meandering fashion trending northeast to
southwest, parallel to the ridge line somewhere on Lots 20 and 21.
The City of Bend feels that this is in compliance with the City's
Transportation System Plan and is in the best interest of the citizens
of Bend.
Q:\engineering\TRAFFIC\LandUseApplications\County Land Use -Skyline Ranch Road.doc
The City would also request that the applicant be made responsible
for designing and constructing Skyline Ranch Road to County and
AASHTO standards as it would be a connecting road within their
subdivision, providing access to Lots 20 and 21.
In the event the City's request cannot be accommodated, we request
that the applicant dedicate 40' along their eastern property boundary,
Plus 100' of slope easement (or as necessary for an approved design),
plus design of the roadway to meet County and AASHTO standards.
Consideration should also be given to requiring the applicant to pay a
proportionate share of the cost of this roadway given that a roadway
in this location will have increased costs due to the cut and fill
needed.
Q:\engineering\TRAFFIC\LandUseApplications\County Land Use - Skyline Ranch Road.doc
UK#
JL
I
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - w wx.deschutes.ora
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
10:00 A.M., MONDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2005
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building
1300 NW Wall St.., Bend
1. CITIZEN INPUT
This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board regarding issues that
are not already on the agenda. Visitors who wish to speak should sign up prior to the
beginning of the meeting on the sign-up sheet provided. Please use the microphone and also
state your name and address at the time the Board calls on you to speak.
2. DISCUSSION and Consideration of Signature of Order No. 2005-130,
Declaring the Intention to Create Harper Road Local Improvement District, and
Setting a Hearing — George Kolb, Road Department
3. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Document No. 2005-420, Amendment #2
to the State Financial Assistance Contract regarding Various Health Services —
Dan Peddycord, Health Department
4. CONSIDERATION Of Signature of Document No. 2005-421, an
Intergovernmental Agreement for Deschutes County to Provide Ready Set Go
Nursing Services to the Crook -Deschutes Education Service District — Dan
Peddycord, Health Department
5. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Order No. 2005-131, Approving the
Dense Annexation into the Cloverdale Rural Fire Protection District — Laurie
Craghead, Legal Counsel
6. A DECISION regarding a Proposed Plan Amendment and Zone Change to
Establish a Surface Mining Zone near Millican (Applicant: 4-R Equipment/Ron
Robinson) — Paul Blikstad, Community Development Department
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Monday, October 31, 2005
Page 1 of 7 Pages
7. DISCUSSION of a Public Hearing (scheduled for Tuesday, November 1 at
2: 00 p.m) regarding an Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Denial of a 34 -Lot
Subdivision located West of Bend in the UAR-10 Zone (Applicant: Tumalo
Creek Development) — Catharine White, Community Development
8. DISCUSSION of Measure 37 Hearings (scheduled for Wednesday,
November 2)- Tom Anderson, Community Development; Mark Pilliod, Legal
Counsel
• M37-05-062 (Continuation; Claimant: Johnson) — Order No. 20015-062
• M37-05-42 (Claimant: Hannan) — Order No. 2005-095
• M37-05-43 (Claimant: Davis) —Order No. 2005-096
9. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY.
Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.
FUTURE MEETINGS:
(Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place in the Board of
Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have
questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.)
Monday, October 31, 2005
8:30 a.m. Meeting with Mental Health Director regarding Mental Health Organization
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Work Session
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
Tuesday, November 1, 2005
2:00 p.m. A Public Hearing on an Appeal by Tumalo Creek Development regarding the Hearings
Officer's Decision Denying a 34 -Lot Subdivision (West of Bend in the iJAR-10 Zone)
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Monday, October 31, 2005
Page 2 of 7 Pages
Wednesday, November 2, 2005
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
Thursday, November 3, 2005
7:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Redmond City Council, Redmond Fire Hall
Monday, November 7, 2005
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Work Session
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
3:30 p.m. Local Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting
Tuesday, November 8, 2005
9:00 a.m. Meeting regarding Recruitment Process — County Administrator Position
1:00 P.M. Commission on Children & Families' Advisory Board Interviews
3:30 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with Community Development
Wednesday, November 9, 2005
9:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the Director of Tax & Finance
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Forestry Specialist, at Road
1:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Road Department, at Road
2:15 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of Solid Waste, at Solid Waste
3:30 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Health Department, at Health
4:15 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Mental Health Department, at
Mental Health
Thursday, November 10, 2005
8:30 a.m. Meeting with Sunriver Service District Managing Board, at Sunriver Resort
Friday, November 11, 2005
Most County offices will be closed to observe Veterans' Day.
Monday, November 14 — Friday, November 18
Association of Oregon Counties' Conference, Eugene
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Monday, October 31, 2005
Page 3 of 7 Pages
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Most County offices will be closed to observe Thanksgiving.
Friday, November 25, 2005
Most County offices will be closed to observe Thanksgiving (unpaid day).
Monday, November 28, 2005
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Work Session
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
3:00 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Commission on Children &
Families, at the CCF Office
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
Thursday, December 1, 2005
8:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Sisters City Council, Sisters City Hall
Monday, December 5, 2005
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Work Session
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
3:30 p.m. Local Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting
Thursday, December 8, 2005
12:00 noon Regular Meeting of the Audit Committee
Monday, December 12, 2005
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Work Session
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
3:30 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with Community Development
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Monday, October 31, 2005
Page 4 of 7 Pages
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
1:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Parole & Probation Department,
at Parole & Probation
2:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Juvenile Community Justice
Department, at Juvenile
3:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Sheriff, at the Sheriffs Office
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
9:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the Director of Tax & Finance
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Forestry Specialist
1:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Road Department:
2:15 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of Solid Waste
3:30 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Health Department
4:15 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Mental Health Department
Monday, December 19, 2005
11:30 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Update Meeting with Department Heads
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
11:00 a.m. Regular Meeting of Employee Benefits Advisory Committee
Monday, December 26, 2005
Most County offices will be closed to observe Christmas.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
Monday, January 2, 2006
Most County offices will be closed to observe New Years Day.
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Monday, October 31, 2005
Page 5 of 7 Pages
Tuesday, January 3, 2006
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
Wednesday, January 4, 2006
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
Monday, January 9, 2006
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Work Session
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
3:30 p.m. Local Public Safety Coordinating Council Meeting
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
1:30 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of Information Technology
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Forestry Specialist
1:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Road Department
2:15 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of Solid Waste
3:30 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Health Department
4:15 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Mental Health Department
Thursday, January 12, 2006
7:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Redmond City Council, Redmond Fire Hall
Monday, January 16, 2006
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
3:30 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with Community Development
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
3:00 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Director of the Fair & Expo Center
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Monday, October 31, 2005
Page 6 of 7 Pages
Monday, January 23, 2006
9:00 a.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the District Attorney
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Work Session
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
3:00 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Commission on Children & Families
3:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with Juvenile Community Justice
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
9:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the Director of Tax & Finance
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with Parole & Probation
2:45 p.m. Regularly Scheduled Meeting with the Sheriff
Monday, January 30, 2006
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Work Session
1:30 p.m. Administrative Liaison
Wednesday, February 1, 2006
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY.
Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.
Board of Commissioners' Work Session Agenda Monday, October 31, 2005
Page 7 of 7 Pages