Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-11-09 Work Session Minutes Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 1 of 7 Pages Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2011 ___________________________ Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Anthony DeBone. Also present were Erik Kropp, Interim County Administrator; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; George Kolb, Road Department; Tom Anderson, Nick Lelack and Peter Russell, Community Development; and Hillary Borrud of The Bulletin and four other citizens. Chair Baney opened the meeting at 2:45 p.m., after the completion of an executive session held under ORS 192.660(2)(e), real estate negotiations. 1. Update on Sisters Bikeway Proposal. George Kolb’s main concern about the various bikeways is the cost of installing more than 60 signs. They are negotiating to be reimbursed for this expense. They may also choose to contract out this work. He wants to be sure they are covered for future maintenance as well. Chair Baney said there are some issues on this particular route. The Sisters to Smith Rock route has been designated; Twin Bridges has not yet. The biggest issue is the expectation of maintenance of the roads because of the designation. The Road Department will be maintaining the roads on a regular schedule based on PCI. They will look at other aspects when a road comes up for maintenance. Mr. Kolb said there is a hearing on Monday regarding the route, and he will provide all the information he can. Chair Baney asked about grants for the bikeways; Mr. Kolb stated there might be opportunities for this. He went over an oversized map showing the bikeways. Some are advertised as recreational opportunities for cyclists, and have been advertised as such for many years. However, some are not even County roads or are maintained by homeowners’ associations or road districts. The cycling groups are trying to tie roads some together, especially in the Sisters area. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 2 of 7 Pages Commissioner Unger said that in Redmond there are designated minor collectors and major collectors. Perhaps roads can be designated in the same fashion for bikeway improvements. Mr. Kolb stated that someone else would have to take the lead on roads that are not County roads. Peter Russell said expectations have to be clear if a road is designated, especially concerning road widths and signage. If you have a second ary bike road, how would you indicate this and have this be clear to the cyclists. Vehicle parking is also a consideration if it is not a County road. In addition, the groups who maintain privately maintained roads may not be that excited about the additional traffic. Mr. Russell feels that designating and promotin g only County roads is the right way to do it. It would be hard to include others that are not maintained by the County. The discussion is then which roads should be designated; either the ones that are already heavily travelled by cyclists, or those that are best suited for cycling. Commissioner Unger stated that Visit Bend or other groups could address signage and other issues. The County should concentrate on connectivity, which benefits all. Mr. Russell said the County is involved in the cycling designation process with the State. Mr. Kolb stated they try whenever possible to get to 28 foot width on roads, which allows three feet for cyclists. Mr. Russell said he is working with the Planning Commission on the requests for designated bikeways on the TSP. This will likely be addressed through the hearings process. There are several ways to do it through the State and other groups. Mr. Kolb added that they are looking at various ways to fix the roads that are more bicycle-friendly. 2. Discussion regarding Draft Transportation System Plan Update. Peter Russell said that the City of Redmond’s TSP does not show the extension of Helmholtz to Quarry and Highway 97. Also, 19th Street is not on the TSP, but Redmond has a dotted line for both. The City feels these are critical to their east and west side connectivity. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 3 of 7 Pages Redmond has given testimony to the Planning Commission, and DLCD said that since the land is zoned EFU, it requires a goal exception. Redmond agreed to provide findings and exhibits, and will defend the plan amendments if challenged. They will continue to move the TSP along, so eventually there will be a final plan amendment to address. Meeting the burden of proof did not go well with the 19th Street extension. This time it would end at Quarry, which may not be subject to an appeal, but the DLCD may not like it. Helmholtz is probably easier to show as needed. Highway 97 gets congested as does Highway 126, so this would give options to travelers as a ring road. This would also extend north to Crooked River Ranch. Mr. Russell said that an interchange is proposed at Helmholtz and Quarry. Redmond decided to do two different applications. The County will be the actual applicant, and will do both simultaneously. They are not a part of the plan at this time. Redmond would like to have these added and will cover any appeals. They meet again on November 16 to go over these options. Commissioner Unger noted that he sees transportation as being inclusive of everyone, including the cities, County and State. The TSP should show how these are connected and how traffic flows. Mr. Lelack stated that these have been separated because the DLCD does not see 19th Street. even going to Quarry. The new Economic Opportunity Analysis may play a part in this because of the need to expand the UGB. Employment needs could help justify this. Redmond will decide as to whether this should be approached now, but Helmholtz may be easier. He said they have to work with the property owners to have it be successful and to come up with creative solutions. Mr. Russell added that 19th Street is all publicly owned lands; Helmholtz is all private. ___________________________ Commissioner Unger asked if there have been changes in the makeup of the DLCD or a change in philosophy that is causing different recommendations. Mr. Russell did not know, but feels decision-making at that level should be stable no matter what. ___________________________ Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 4 of 7 Pages Discussion occurred regarding proposed passing lanes between Sisters and Black Butte Ranch. The TSP shows additional lanes. There have been Planning Commission and other public meetings in Sisters. Some citizens are not in favor of the lanes. ODOT does not have the funds to build them now anyway. The timing will depend on the crash rate, how many vehicles stack up, etc. ODOT is looking at deficiencies up to 2030. There is not a lot they can do in forest areas, so it will be passing lanes or nothing; and there are aesthetics issues. The volume has a lot to do with whether there are passing lanes and how successful they might be. Commissioner DeBone would like to leave these on the TSP and act on them when appropriate. Commissioner Unger added that they need to communicate to Sisters that they need to plan for the future. None of this will happen right away. The truck route is not built to this standard. ___________________________ Also, Tollgate residents should have another option than having to go onto the highway to get to town. Mr. Russell stated they are trying to get a paved path between Tollgate and Camp Sherman. The community opinions vary on this, and they have to find rights of way also. Mr. Lelack said that one consideration is not ignoring Sisters within its boundaries. They do have a TSP in place, and some improvements planned in the next ten years. Chair Baney noted that they received funding and are working on Cascade Avenue in town, but nothing outside of that as far as she knows. The consensus was to stay the course as written. ___________________________ Mr. Russell said that there has been a lot of discussion regarding traffic in and around the town of Tumalo. There were two long-term ideas from ODOT, involving either an overpass or an underpass at O.B. Riley Road, with a raised median for pedestrians. The community does not seem to want the raised median, and they are not keen on the overpass because it needs to be easier to get to Bend. The County feels neither option works. The overpass and underpass lessen conflicts, but give few local transportation options. Commissioner Unger stated that he does not like what ODOT presented, either. He asked why there cannot be a traffic light in a rural area. It is more cost effective and would help traffic flow. There might be other ways to manage this traffic. Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 5 of 7 Pages Chair Baney said that they do not want signals on the highway system. It is a policy issue with ODOT. The Oregon Transportation Commission is grappling with this. Some improvements are needed for safety reasons. Commissioner DeBone asked if the TSP references this. Mr. Russell said that is just shows an interchange. A new map suggests two different improvements. They need to identify deficiencies and come up with ideas. The County is not the road authority there. Signals in rural areas do not meet driver expectations. This can’t happen just because it isn’t working as it is. A light may result in gridlock. Commissioner Unger noted that smart signals can manage this; they can coordinate for heavy traffic times. ODOT needs to consider this. Mr. Russell said that the steering committee will meet eventually. Citizen Carolyn Perry, from Tumalo, was allowed to speak at this time. In terms of the TSP, she feels traffic signals in unincorporated areas should be stricken from the TSP language. It is critical to keep access open. Final long term solutions are in conflict with other needs of the community, such as health and business needs. Businesses are concerned about the current proposals. They have repeatedly asked for better access. Perhaps a special transportation area through Tumalo could control spacing and speed. Chair Baney said that the OTC is looking to change from ‘standard’ to ‘target’. She is not sure what this means yet, but it appears to have big implications. Ms. Perry said that the community’s desires directly conflict with the need to get freight traffic through the community. There are quick response grant applications available for funding. She believes these grants are due in January. Commissioner Unger stated that they need to see what this means to ODOT. The foundation on these issues is already there and just perhaps need to be reheard. ODOT often ignores what others want and don’t think about the need to be multi-modal. Chair Baney said there will be a hearing before the Board, and this is important testimony for that event. It will also be important to bring forward information on what this means to the staffing side of things. Mr. Lelack stated that the Planning Commission has only discussed this once. They are moving around the County now, and there may be citizens in other areas that are concerned about the TSP. The Planning Commission needs to be comfortable with its recommendations. ___________________________ Minutes of Board of Commissioners’ Work Session Wednesday, November 9, 2011 Page 6 of 7 Pages Mr. Russell brought up the bicycle-pedestrian bridge proposed to cross the Deschutes River near Meadow Camp. It is on the Bend TSP, but is not in the city limits. It is against the wild & scenic river rules to put in a bridge at that location. It is not on the County plan and OAR’s prohibit it. The property owner wants it off. Mr. Lelack noted that another property owner supports it in that area. This connection with the bridge and trails is the last segment between Sunriver and downtown Bend to connect the two areas. Mr. Lelack does not think prohibiting this is a good idea. The State Park & Recreation Department will try to get Tumalo trail grant. ___________________________ The Deschutes River Woods Neighborhood Association would like to get a park & ride lot. They are seeking a technical advisory grant for the Bend MPO for a park & ride study. ___________________________ Commissioner Unger said he likes the idea of an interchange management plan. Mr. Russell stated that this is an ODOT function. They can be asked, but when a traffic analysis is done, it would have to show that mitigation is needed. The SDC program is through County. The Road Department handles it, but it is at the Board’s discretion how this money is spent. ___________________________ Chair Baney noted that the methodology and implementation are not in alignment. Mr. Russell replied that once the TSP is adopted, the project list is then reviewed. They can revise the priority and figure out the cost for it. Commissioner Unger added that they need to get something on the map to protect possible needed changes for the future. 3. Other Items. Erik Kropp said there is a Dog Board of Supervisors’ hearing next week. There might be a timing issue. If there is no quorum, he suggests the y name Chris Bell to act as the Board, either to complete the Dog Board to a quorum or to act on behalf of the Board in this situation. DEBONE: Move approval. UNGER: Second. \rOTE: DEBONE: Yes. UNGER: Yes. BANEY: Chair votes yes. Being no further discussion, the meeting ended at 3:55 p.m. DATEDthis )/~ Dayof AJgV~ 2011 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. Tammy Baney, Chair Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair ATIEST: Alan Unger, Commissioner ~~ Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, November 9,2011 Page 7 of 7 Pages J... III .0 E III ::> 0,.... z5 >.N ra • -00\ '"III C 1l I I =It: Q) C o ..r:: Q.. I I I I I ! I I I I i ..... o Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 -Fax (541) 385-3202 -www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 2:00 P.M., WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2011 Please note later time! 1. Update on Sisters Bikeway Proposal-George Kolb, Peter Russell 2. Discussion regarding Draft Transportation System Plan Update -Nick Lelack and Peter Russell 3. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues. Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board a/Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated ffyou have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6571. 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. Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner DATE: October 31, 2011 MEETING: November 7,2011 SUBJECT: Work session on draft Transportation System Plan Update (PA-11-S!TA-11-4) The Planning Commission held its first public hearing on Oct. 27 regarding the draft Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update. The major topics covered in 90 minutes of public testimony, in no particular order of importance, were: • City of Redmond's desire to add an extension of SW Helmholtz and 19th Street to the TSP map with both extensions terminating at the US 971Quarry Road intersection • Tumalo residents' concerns about connectivity and loss of direct access due to a raised median on US 20 being an integral part of ODOT's long-term plan to install either an overpass or an underpass at Cook-O.B. Riley and US 20 • Deschutes River Woods Neighborhood Association desires transit service into DRW and a park and ride lot • Questions about how the County collects and then apportions transportation System Development Charges and how County prioritizes projects in this era of limited funding • Property owner's desire for a Deschutes Junction refinement plan • A bikelped bridge across the Deschutes River that is shown on the Bend TSP outside the SW edge of the UGB is not allowed by State or federal scenic river deSignations • Sisters Trail Alliance's request to expand by approximately twenty (20) the number of roads segments in Sisters and Redmond to be designated County bikeways plus a trail between Sisters and Camp Sherman • Discussion of proposed passing lanes on US 20 between Black Butte Ranch and west edge of Sisters The PC has continued the TSP Update hearing until Nov. 10 at Three Rivers Elementary School. A third hearing will be in Sisters on Dec. 1S, site yet to be selected. Quality Services Perfonned with Pride Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ TO: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners FROM: George Kolb, Road Department Interim Director Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner WORK SESSION: Sept. 14,2011 HEARING: Held August 31, 2011, continued until Sept. 26, 2011 SUBJECT: Policies for implementing transportation system development charges Background The Board held a hearing on August 31, 2011, regarding a protest of transportation system development charges (SDC's) applied to an existing single-family home. The structure was being relocated from a lot just south of Redmond to a vacant lot in Terrebonne. Both lots are in rural Deschutes County. The appellant asserts that due to the home's age and original location it was already included in the traffic assumptions upon which the transportation SDC is based and thus SDCs should not be applied. Staff cited language in Resolution 2008-059 that indicates an SOC is triggered by land development and the parcel the home was being moved to was undeveloped. The Board continued the SOC protest hearing until 10 a.m. on Sept. 26, 2011, after directing staff to summarize the major policy implications of this appeal and the application of the SOC resolution in general. Major issues • Are SDC's tied to the land or the structure? SDC's are triggered by building permits. Building permits are not generic, but rather are issued for particular activities on site specific locations. The premise is that these activities are expected to result in increased traffic from the site. This argues SOC's are tied to the land and not the structura. Resolution 2008-059, Section 3, Definitions, provides the following at 3(H): u'Development' shall mean a building or other land construction, or making a physical change in the use of structure or land ... " and 3(1) «'Development Permit' shall mean an official document or certificate, other than a building permit, authorizing development." Under Section 4, Applicability, at 4(A) describes how SDC's apply when there is an increase u... compared to the present number of peak hour trips generated by the development or the property on which the development is located." Quality Services Performed with Pride Deschutes County Title 18 contains the County's zoning ordinances and 18.04.020(A) details the purpose of the code is " ... to establish zoning districts and regulations governing the development and use of land within portions of Deschutes County, Oregon." Based on the above, staff feels the clear intent is for SDC's to be based on the land and not the structure. Development occurs at a specific place. While SDC's are tied to building permits, those permits in turn are for a specific site. Issuance of building permit also provides a clear and objective triggering event that the Community Development Department can use to assess the SDC. 1A. If SDC's are tied to structures, how will the SDC's be tracked? If the Board decides SDC's are tied to structures, then staff will need to devise a system to accomplish two tasks: a) review the land use assumptions for both the donor and the receiving parcels at the time the SDC was established in 2008; b) document the movement of structures from the donating parcel to the receiving parcel and note SDC's apply to the donating parcel immediately following the structure's removal. For task a), one option would consist of reviewing assessor's office records or GIS databases to establish whether a structure was located on the applicable parcels in 2008. Even if the applicant provided the information, staff typically reviews such information. In task b), staff can use the comments section of the existing Land Use Tracking System (LUTS) database to record that the donor parcel would be subject to SDC's. Currently, the SDC amount includes a $45 administrative cost recovery fee. If the Board decides SDC's are tied to structures, then staff recommends the administrative cost recovery fee be reassessed as the fee does not include tasks described in a) and b). • How long can a use be abandoned or extinguished before SDC's apply? In the past, staff has approached this on a case~by~case basis. If the use had been abandoned 30 years ago, staff has applied SDC's. If the use had been abandoned for less than a year, then staff has not applied SDC's. The gray area seems to be uses that were lawfully established prior to the 2008 implementation of the SDC, but then abandoned for two years or more. Under County code for non~conforming uses at 18.120.010, the County sets a one-year timeframe for abandonment or interruption of a non-conforming use or structure. This timeframe is based on national case law. Staff recommends a policy that abandonment of a use for more than one year results in requiring any future establishment of a use requires payment of SDC's. A one-year time period would ensure County consistency in dealing with abandoned or interrupted land uses. • If the use was established illegally, then SDC's should apply Infrequently, a land use process is initiated as a result of a code enforcement complaint. The County's first option in code enforcement is voluntary compliance, which means the property owner or his agent applies for the necessary building and/or land use permits. 2 Staff recommends these cases be dealt with as if this was a new use and SOC's apply, otherwise the County runs the risk of people building illegal structures to avoid paying SOC's. Summary of Staff Recommendations: • SOC's are tied to the land, not the structure • Abandonment of a use for more than one year means the re-establishment of a use requires payment of SOC's • Illegally established uses will be dealt with as a new use and SOC's apply 3