Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-10-27 - Planning Commission Minutes-, 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/ MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701 OCTOBER 27, 2011 — 5:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Vice Chair Chris Brown. Members present were Ed Criss, Richard Klyce, James Powell and Bill Rainey. Absent: Chair Merle Irvine and Todd Turner. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner; Terri Payne, Senior Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. Minutes of August 25, 2011 were approved. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. III. PUBLIC HEARING: PA-11-5/TA-11-4, Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update - Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner. Peter gave a PowerPoint summary of the project and discussed some of the public comments received via email. Commissioner Criss asked if statistics included drunk drivers, and Peter said that agencies typically do indicate in crash reports whether alcohol as a factor but it may not be actually in the database. Commissioner Klyce asked about intersection closures and one slated for Eagle Crest — which entrance would that be? Peter said it is related to a County Road called Nutcracker Drive. Commissioner Rainey asked whether Peter had gotten comments about the "trigger language" in Sisters. Peter said there was one regarding speed -related crashes which was given to ODOT, but the data were not precise enough. It's a State highway under State jurisdiction so we haven't gotten input from the community. Public Comments: Chris Doty, Public Works Director for Redmond, congratulated staff on the document. The City went through a robust urban growth boundary process and also produced a Quality Services Performed with Pride transportation system plan recently. He spoke about growth on the west side. The connection to 97 is not in their plan and they need our help with that. With regard to Quarry Avenue, also on the west side, they feel that a lot of the opposition to 19'" Street came from the area south of Quarry. They know there is a lot of work and these projects are significant, requiring statewide planning goal exceptions; but they would like to offer a lot of their staff time to reduce the burden on County staff. Commissioner Criss and Chris Doty spoke about roadway alignments for Helmholtz. Nick said that we will have a work session with the Board and it is great that Redmond offered to help with findings. It will be on November 7 in the afternoon. Chris Doty said that a lot of the work has been done and just needs to be wrapped up. They've done the modeling, know the volumes, etc., and it's just a matter of going through the exceptions process. Hopefully it won't take the process out too far. Commissioner Powell asked about the alignments and whether there was variability. Chris Doty said there was variability. Commissioner Powell also asked about 19'" Street and whether this was an attempt to resurrect an extension to Bend. Chris said it is solely to provide connectivity with the arterial. The cost keeps going up, so they need to get the most out of the system without having to re-route the highway. This would be a logical connection for traffic to get on at Quarry. Nick said that most of the private properties on the west side that would be involved are MUA-10 and this would be Goals 11, 12, 13 and not an exception to Goal 3 like the previous 19`" Street extension. Marianne Fellner said that she owns a business in Tumalo and knows a lot of people in town. She wrote a letter that she feels is a statement of what people are saying in general. There are over 30 businesses in Tumalo and she would like to see that number grow. The community would like to retain connectivity with businesses across Highway 20. They would like to see more sidewalks, street trees, and make certain we do not cut off access to our local streets. They would like to see the Tumalo trail system linked to the State Park. They do not want a solid median and hope that the TSP language reflects the views of a great deal of community input given over the years. Slowing ,traffic and improving the community need to be considered. Vice Chair Criss asked if Marianne could provide a letter signed by the business owners, and Marianne said she could provide that. Jacqui Pennock of Deschutes River Woods testified on behalf of its Association. The members are disappointed that not much attention was given to their transportation needs. They get a lot of bike tours through the area, but there is no designated bike route. The roads are not wide enough, and they would like to see their bike routes connect with those in other areas. They would like to see parking spaces leased during the week for a park and ride — perhaps one of the local churches could be approached as their lot is empty during the week. These types of things were not mentioned in the TSP. The Baker Road intersection is not mentioned, for example. They would like the County's support and a plan. Nunzie Gould said she will submit written testimony in the future. She would like to know about how monies collected through SDC charges are allocated. She questions the costs of roundabouts and would like to see a footnote regarding the analysis of Kansas State University regarding roundabouts. This is a health, safety and livability issue for the communities. People have to navigate dangerous intersections. What is the methodology for SDC's? Two plans have also been submitted by ODOT where they said a roundabout is not an option. She would like the Transportation Department to come back to Tumalo to talk about economic vitality and connectivity. She has also been reading about the scenic bikeway program and thinks it is a wonderful thing. She is not seeing any financial commitment and feels it should be addressed in the TSP even though parts of it would involve the City. Vice Chair Brown said that the decisions regarding allocations of funds in the County are not made by the Planning Commissioners and would be under the jurisdiction of the County Commissioners. Nunzie felt that the discussions should occur at this level since we are prioritizing projects. Peter said there is a list of projects in the TSP to be built over the next 20 years. The Board, when adopting the TSP, also adopts that list of projects. But public testimony can be taken as part of the process of deciding what to build. They can change the priorities if they desire. Nunzie said that within the community, we can do better planning than waiting for a death to occur to send some project to the top of the list. It behooves us in our planning to evaluate, when we put big infrastructure projects on the table, whether they are realistic or whether we should evaluate costs at the time of prioritization. What is the likelihood of the more expensive projects being completed? Roundabouts cost about half of what grade - separated interchanges cost. Toni Aceti said that the policies for Deschutes Junction are very inadequate. We all know Deschutes Junction will be a hub and he will be submitting information proposing that Deschutes Junction be set off to the side rather than bypass it in the TSP. Solutions can be worked on later. Chuck Humphreys said that BPAC has discussed the need to update the County cycling map, which has not been done due to lack of resources. They would like to see it updated to include roads that are actually being ridden around Sisters. Staff has said that these are low-volume roads and they are not always County roads, but there are other low- volume roads in the TSP. Most are County or State roads. The Oregon State Scenic Bikeways are included. They are not recommending all roads be included, only those used on a regular basis by cyclists. Some roads such as Camp Polk have been repaved but without cycling shoulders. They are asking for the TSP to recognize that cycling is an important recreational activity and recognize that the County does not have the funds to pave all cycling roads. A paved route from Sisters to Camp Sherman is an important consideration. It is 11 miles long and should be included because it would be a fantastic recreational and connectivity access and funding should be considered. Bruce Bowen referred to testimony he had submitted via email before the meeting. He has written several books on statistics and data analysis. These statistics are extremely unreliable as presented. Regarding the crash analysis, the data from ODOT include a histogram indicating how many crashes occurred at each milepost. If you look at it, Black Butte Ranch is at Milepost 93 and shows 149 crashes. Pick almost any three towards Santiam Junction and you have that many crashes. All four crashes between Black Butte Ranch and Sisters occurred with drivers hitting an object, not passing. Two of the 149 accidents involved alcohol. There were seven crashes with incapacitating injuries, whereas there were 56 between Santiam Junction and Black Butte Ranch. Mara Stein spoke as Co -Chair of the Tumalo Community Association which has long been involved with ODOT and the community. The issues of connectivity and economic vitality, improving access, reducing speed, etc., have been addressed in their work with various representatives. They would like to continue to work with these plans. Doug White submitted written testimony and felt that there were things in the TSP that did not add up for Deschutes Junction. He suggested a group be formed to establish a study area for Deschutes Junction and work on a refinement plan for the TSP. There is a need to start this discussion now and form a work group to work directly with the planners at the table to come up with language, especially regarding a frontage road. Doug also testified about the bicycle plan addressed in the TSP involving the City of Bend and extension of a trail in connection with the State Scenic Waterway. He referred to several maps where the City of Bend has designated something in the County in violation of State law. Motion: Commissioner Rainey motioned to keep oral and written testimony open until December 15. Seconded by Commissioner Criss. Motion passed. Peter said that Highway 20 at Powell Butte and Hamby were the only two based on roundabout funding. Doug White's statement about a bridge being built illegally by the City of Bend is correct — they cannot build it in that location and we aren't showing it on our TSP. Nick said that we perhaps should continue the hearing for another month after December to have a work session with staff so we can fully respond to testimony at the public hearings. Commissioner Rainey asked if we alter something during a work session, does that alter the timeline? Nick said yes and there would have to be extended public hearings. Commissioner Rainey asked people who are interested in the process to please continue to submit testimony either in written or oral form. IV. WORK SESSION: Draft of South County Plan Scope of Work — Terri Payne, Senior Planner. Terri spoke about the potential boundary and said we would like to have a consensus so we can begin data collection. Terri also summarized the scope of work and timeline with pubic hearings starting in November of 2012. Vice Chair Brown and Terri discussed public input. Commissioner Rainey asked if there are noticeable differences in scope of work, timeline, etc., compared to other plans we have done. Terri said there would be more public input. When we started the Comprehensive Plan, staff availability was limited. We have now completed some major projects and hopefully there will be more time. Nick said the scale of the region is also larger — our other plans for Tumalo and Terrebonne involved much smaller areas. Terri said there are a lot of organizations, agencies and groups in the South County area that will be involved and submitting ideas. Commissioner Criss said there was no press release in the Bulletin for our last meeting there and he would like to see that. Commissioner Criss and Nick discussed potential issues and the necessity of hearing from the community. Terri summarized potential outreach techniques, meeting agendas, community meetings, and the website page devoted to the South County Plan. Commissioner Criss suggested having a booth during Frontier Days to enable the community to ask questions. Terri said she had gotten calls from radio stations during the Comp Plan process and would hope the same would happen during the South County Plan process. Terri suggested that the Planning Commission act as the steering committee and hold regular meetings to oversee the process. Terri said that one Planning Commissioner could come to each community meeting (four sets of two each, for about 10-12 months) as a suggestion. Vice Chair Criss agreed that at least one Planning Commissioner should be at each meeting. Commissioner Rainey asked if we could record the meetings and post the audio on the website. Terri said we may have stations set up around the room which would be difficult to record with various conversations going on at once. Nick said we do expect at every meeting to have some open mike format and we could capture that, and we will also be writing down what we hear at the stations. People will be providing comments in a variety of ways. Vice Chair Brown said he would prefer the discussions not be broken up into groups so that everyone can hear everything. Commissioner Criss spoke about sensitive land use issues in South County. Vice Chair Brown and Terri spoke about two locations for each of four topics, eight meetings in total, one in the northern part of South County and one in the southern part for each meeting topic. Commissioner Powell suggested talking to David McGarris, a local reporter for OPB who may be interested in covering these meetings. Peter Gutowsky discussed the November 10 South County meeting and said we would be looking for a recommendation of support from the Commissioners on an agreed-upon South County Plan. They would make a recommendation to the Board on a scope of work, with their refinements, defining the emphasis and timeline related to this effort. He underscored that we have very limited resources and wanted to be clear about the scope of work and conveying that to the Board. The deliverable here is a policy document and some specificity may be required. This is an 18 -month project right now that will consume long-range planning staff. We will not be able to undertake other long-range planning projects and expectations need to be clear. Nick discussed possible formats for the meetings. One consequence of not having separate discussions would be an inability to focus on more than a couple of topics or else having very long community meetings. Also, some people are more comfortable speaking in smaller venues and may not give input in front of a larger group. Terri said we will have dates and locations once we receive a recommendation from the Planning Commissioners and approval from the Board. Peter Gutowsky also mentioned many people leaving the area during the winter and scheduling meetings so we can receive input from residents who return in the spring. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS Nick spoke about the Pumpkin Patch and meetings with Mr. Lisignoli. In October of last year, Tom Anderson became aware of a code complaint about operations on the property, and the Pumpkin Patch was sent a letter regarding applying for commercial use. Matt Lisignoli met with Paul Blikstad and one of our code enforcement officers. The County has only dealt with one type of farm operation applying for commercial activities and this was Mike Duggan's property. The fees were about $3,000. In the late 1990s, the farm stand rule was added to the EFU zone but had not been used, so that was what Paul and our Principal Planner Kevin Harrison advised. A public hearing was thought to be required as well. The County said it would not initiate code enforcement during the fall season. Nick was not involved with that. .9 In January, a follow-up letter was sent about compliance. In April we began to talk about commercial events on farmland; during the fall season on October 4 another letter was sent to Mr. Lisignoli about compliance. Then everything hit the newspapers, and Nick called the DLCD, the Oregon Department of Agriculture and the Farm Bureau to discuss how we might approve this. He also asked some other county planning directors for their thoughts. Unanimously, everyone said it was a farm stand. Events occurring inside must be safe for the public. When we met with Mr. Lisignoli this week, we discussed the history and potential building improvements. We agreed to do nothing for the balance of the season and close the code enforcement case early next week, and conduct a more formal pre -application process next month which should be pretty straightforward. There may still be some questions where we need to get information from the State. One of the keys to having a farm stand is that 75% of the income must be from farm products. There are different interpretations about the other 25% - what about the $2.50 charge for the petting zoo? These may be considered promotional activities for the farm. We will issue the decision administratively without a hearing, and if there is an appeal the Board will call it up. We also discussed whether it plays into SB960 and we feel it will fall within the farm stand rules. Commissioner Klyce said that in the past, once individuals got a letter about violation they have been treated as guilty parties and had to prove their innocence. He appreciates that the County has been proactive in finding a solution. Would weddings be considered promotional events? Vice Chair Brown felt it comes down to what constitutes farm stand activity, and weddings clearly do not apply. Commissioner Rainey asked about revealing the complaining parties. Nick said the information is confidential until the case is closed. A farm stand is still a land use decision and may be appealed. This is our first experience improving a farm stand of this magnitude. Nick noted that during the Grossman winery approval, we felt our Code specifically stated that we require site plan review to address transportation and other issues. We have since found out what we cannot require this because it is more restrictive than State law. So we cannot charge for site plan review for a farm stand. HB3280 allows us to create public health and safety standards so this could be a "back door' to site plan review. Commissioner Powell spoke about language in HB1055 being changed or removed in HB3280. VII. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Ser�AW Administrative Secretary 9