Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-01-14 - Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER 1300 NW WALL STREET , BEND , OREGON , 97701 JANUARY 14, 2010 - 5:30 P .M. I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Chris Brown. Members present were Vice Chair Ed Criss, Todd Turner, Keith Cyrus, Merle Irvine, Richard Klyce and Susan Quatre. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner; Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner, Kristen Maze, Associate Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. December 10, 2009, minutes were approved. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. III. PUBLIC HEARING (continued) : File PA-09-2 - Amend the Deschutes County Transportation System Plan (TSP) Map to Add 19 th Street, a Future Rural County Arterial, between Redmond and Deschutes Junction – Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner. Peter handed out copies of correspondence received to date and gave a Power Point presentation which included deadlines; issues raised at the December 17 hearing; a description of how the TSP will be folded into the Comprehensive Plan Update; information concerning the difficulty of converting agricultural land to commercial uses in Oregon; responses to some concerns that have been raised (including game issues, whether there are increased safety problems on a straight road and whether there would be greater crash exposure on 97 if it were changed to six lanes). Peter also summarized public input received to date including letters of support from Redmond, Bend and ODOT and letters of opposition from approximately a dozen property owners. Commissioner Turner asked Peter about the City of Redmond’s master plan and an arterial coming in off Quarry Road – specifically why it is not being addressed at the same time. Peter said it might be possible to take Helmholtz down and bring it over to Quarry Road. So far it has not entered into the discussion. Nick Lelack said that this is being 2 discussed as part of the TSP update, just not this work session/text amendment. Jim Bryant (ODOT), and Peter discussed the Redmond TSP. Chair Brown asked how money would be found to build this road. Peter said that the County collects money from system development charges but this would not be enough, so a federal earmark would probably be sought. Tom Blust, Director of the Deschutes County Road Department, said that the County will be setting aside $2 million for the project, there is $1 million in federal earmarks over the last two appropriations bills, and another application will be made as well as another potential reauthorization under a future bill. Chair Brown asked about costs, and Tom Blust said $6 to $7 million. Chair Brown asked if the Quarry connection would be under or over the railroad tracks. Peter said there were advantages to each, and Tom said it would probably run over the tracks. Chair Brown said the concern is that we are talking about something that is not suffering overload at this time, and we do have an intersection in Tumalo that is suffering and needs to be addressed before this one. Peter indicated that ODOT and the County are working to address the problems in Tumalo on Highway 20, and that in some ways it is comparing apples to oranges – U.S. 20 is a state highway while 19th Street would be a County road. Commissioner Turner mentioned tying into Phase II of the Deschutes Junction interchange and wanted to see that Phase on a map. Tom said that Phase II was just completed, and 19 th Street would connect in the same place to Deschutes Junction. Commissioner Cyrus said he felt the sight distance to the east at Morrill Road is very limited and a potential hazard at 19 th Street. Tom Blust said that it will be posted at 45 mph, which meets national criteria for sight distance in both directions. Public Testimony: Bert Swift said they had submitted written testimony (Starwood Homeowners’ Association). Jeff Boyer said he attended the last public hearing on this issue and has serious concerns - he is concerned that the cities of Bend and Redmond are not represented this evening. He is a former transportation planner and said that the 19 th Street extension makes sense, but a connection to Deschutes Market Road does not. Regarding Yew Avenue, this problem will not be fixed by a connection to Deschutes Market Road. The Old Bend- Redmond highway is also an alternative route to existing Highway 97. The connection to Deschutes Market Road will create new problems and make traffic worse, as well as potentially becoming a truck route and creating sprawl between Bend and Redmond. There will be a loss of irrigated, productive farmland in this proposal. The County does not have funding to maintain existing roads, let alone take on new ones. Funds for these projects should be used for more pressing needs. A Quarry Road interchange will still be needed, and only the most urgent priorities should be funded. He also submitted about 30 letters from people opposing the project. Dan Rider testified about parallel roads in California and all of them started as lines on a map. If you’ve been there, that’s pretty much why people move here. He would like to see rural neighborhoods protected. Joan Worrell asked for shows of hands regarding how many people moved here from out of state, and how many moved here for the good schools, open sky, etc. She would like to see us use foresight and reasoning and feels there is a policy clash between environmental preservation and the avoidance of gridlock. She has lived in California, and in the late 1980’s the traffic on I-80 got really bad, and an article described how rights-of- 3 way had been sold to cover a budget shortfall. Federal funding should be taken advantage of, and vision is the key to a long-term stable employment base for the middle class. She felt that Juniper Ridge would be an important business center for the area, and some people like slower arterial roads and do not like 18-wheelers and fast traffic. Jan Elrod said she loves the land and has lived here all of her life – the greatest asset here is land management. This project will have a great impact on many areas, including all of the places on Deschutes Market Road. She believes that if 19 th Street is built, the livability will decrease for those on the road. Traffic on Deschutes Market Road is heavy, and when you talk about these arterials, Deschutes Market Road is different than the old Bend-Redmond Highway and already unsafe. She notices all the small places that have acreage which are not necessarily being farmed – this is a rural area. Paul Shomasberg said he was here primarily about the Deschutes Junction issue, but he believes this issue is related. He read from the Deschutes Junction Community Plan as discussed in the meetings – attendees placing dots on a board and/or filling out questionnaires indicating their opinions. The results showed an overwhelming desire for no changes in Deschutes Junction. Paul also questioned whether the earmarks could only be used for 19 th Street, and how is spending that money any easier on the taxpayers than getting it through the County or State? Jack Keeney said that you only build a road to solve a problem, and what problem is 19 th trying to resolve? Peter said he would respond at the end of the public comments. Paul Dewey testified on behalf of Central Oregon LandWatch. He has never seen a “line on the map” that eventually has not been built. He felt that the ODOT representative’s comment that there is a need to provide parallel local routes was misplaced and not part of the local land use goals. What is driving this? His sense is that DSL wants to develop land next to Redmond sooner rather than later, but this should not be the reason to do what he and others do not see as a good planning function. Jack Holt said this started out in 2003-2004 as a Redmond problem which has morphed into a Redmond/Bend problem. What are we really trying to approach here? It sounds like we are directing traffic from one congested area to another. We really need to look at the options and alternatives, and whether we are approaching this from the best long-term perspective. We are beginning to build things for the exception rather than the rule, and why do we need a County road? It puts property owners in limbo, as well. Scott Kirksey, President of Starwood Homeowners’ Association (about two miles west of Deschutes Junction on Tumalo Road, south side, about 174 homes in the community, opposite side of Boones Borough), testified that they are in full agreement with Boones Borough. Until Deschutes Junction was finished, people would drive 80 miles an hour down the County road. People drive over 55 on Deschutes Market Road all the time. With the added traffic for this project, it is not worth the cost. Peter Russell responded to Jack Keeney’s question and said that a parallel road is needed in case something happens on 97 and traffic has to be detoured. Adding 19 th Street provides a route so people can go east of the Yew Avenue and Deschutes Market interchanges; they can also avoid the railroad crossing. If there is future development, there is another way to get there besides the state highway. There is congestion at the Yew Avenue interchange that could be avoided. Nick Lelack said that the City of Redmond has provided a letter. He also spoke about the public meeting referenced by 4 Paul Shomasberg and the significant disagreement in Deschutes Junction about public opinion. Peter also mentioned that trucks are legal vehicles in general, and with some exceptions they can travel any road for legal vehicles. Truck drivers would probably prefer 97 anyway, because of the straighter construction and four lanes, instead of shifting over to the 19 th Street/Deschutes Market corridor. Bert Swift of Starwood asked where there is data showing that we need an extra road. The west side of Canal Road goes directly to Redmond, and how many times in the last ten years has there been a railroad accident between Bend and Redmond. Peter discussed federal requirements for rail plans and potential increase of rail system use. There are trains every day at Yew Avenue, which also may be double tracked. There are data about historical crash rates, but it is hard to predict what the future will hold. Commissioner Turner asked about the mandate to eliminate 25% of the rail crossings, and Peter said a pool of money has been contributed. Motion: Commissioner Turner moved to close the oral comments and leave written until the 21 st . Seconded by Commissioner Quatre. Motion passed unanimously. IV. COMP PLAN UPDATE , continued from January 7, 2010. Nick provided a summary of the matrix information and discussed staff comments and questions on how to proceed. Chair Brown suggested that the Commissioners review the matrix and discuss next steps at the meeting on January 28. Commissioner Irvine asked about underlines and strikeouts, which Nick said were comments received from Commissioners. There were some blanks where Terri could not read some of the handwriting when she compiled the summary,. Chair Brown asked Nick about the Commissioners being instructed to prepare an annual report indicating points of focus for the County; this would affect the action items. Nick said we have the fiscal-year based work plan, and our annual accomplishments, which are calendar-year based. V. WORK SESSION : File TA-09-8 – Amend the Deschutes County Code to Add One New Section in Chapter 18.132.025, Minor Variances, an amendment proposed by the Board of County Commissioners to assist private property owners in resolving longstanding conflicts between legal deed descriptions and actual property boundaries under certain restricted conditions – Chris Bedsaul, Associate Planner. Chris summarized the staff report and proposal. Chair Brown asked if this would result in more lots being created, and Chris said no – it is only to deal with existing lots. Many are absentee property owners and there will be notice of the public hearing. Commissioner Turner asked how many of these lots have structures built on them, and Chris said perhaps a third. Commissioner Klyce asked if this TA would apply only to this area and not the rest of the County. Chris discussed the responses to this in the staff report and trying to avoid adverse possession. The affected areas are in the southeast corner. Chair Brown said he is concerned about a “whiskey survey” and wonders if something unanticipated will be coming forward. Chris said he has over 25 years of survey experience and this is the worst survey problem he has ever seen. Commissioner Turner said he agreed with Chair Brown’s concern, but so what if this does come up again – two homeowners, for example, could deal with it at that time. Commissioner Irvine asked if the surveyor would be going out and staking/describing the 5 properties. Chris said this was explained in the staff report with some examples, and there will be some significant changes in property ownership. The ortho-area photography is extremely accurate and will provide greater detail when completed. Commissioner Klyce and Chris discussed what constituted some of the lot line adjustments and whether people would pay for them individually. Chris said it would be a single lot line adjustment application with multiple adjustments, instead of a major replat out there. Chris also added that these properties cannot be sold through a bank/title insurance transaction right now. Vice Chair Criss was concerned that there would be some costs borne by the property owners. He also asked how much land the County owns in the area; Chris indicated this on a map. Vice Chair Criss asked if the County could give up some land to help the homeowners. Nick said that by State law the County could not give land away. Chair Brown asked if the landowners could form an LID and re-survey the entire parcel, and Nick did not think this was possible. Commissioner Criss felt that a hearing should be held in the area. Chair Brown asked if there could be a public meeting in the area, and Nick said that was possible but we have to be aware of the financial considerations. Chair Brown thought perhaps it could be made a public information meeting. Chris also added that there may be vacant lots with absentee owners, and people could still come before the Board. VI. Consideration of Planning Commission Letter to Board of County Commissioners Regarding Destination Resort Code Amendments. Chair Brown discussed the letter and communication with the Board of County Commissioners. He also distributed copies of the letter with small revisions and an additional chart. Nick and Chair Brown discussed removal of irrigation criteria and the additional 170,000 acres that would be created (not presently mapped) and could be petitioned to add to the map. Commissioner Irvine asked if right now, the 40- and 60-acre irrigated lands are on the current map, and Nick said they are not. If they were in the adopted Code as eligible, when we go through the mapping process, people could come in and apply. Commissioner Turner asked if this was not already addressed – when Peter Gutowsky presented the criteria, the Commissioners could have said they wanted to look at existing criteria. Chair Brown said that the Board had commissioned him with presenting some of the nuances – since the decision was not decisive, he wanted to provide more information. Commissioner Turner mentioned that the 2-2 vote, if there had been a full Commission, could have failed 2-4. Chair Brown said he had mentioned at the last meeting he would have liked to have had Susan’s vote, for example. He knows there has to be a re-opening of the hearing and public testimony, but there must be a way to communicate with the Board. Commissioner Turner felt that the letter did not tell the Board what the Planning Commission considered but rather asked the Board questions. If the majority of the Planning Commissioners do not feel comfortable with something, can’t they make a motion for reconsideration? Commissioner Turner said he would rather use that process. Chair Brown and Commissioner Turner discussed the possibility of the Board remanding some items, whether it would be pieces or the entire thing. Commissioner Turner mentioned that he was not at the meeting where the motion passed. Chair Brown mentioned that Peter said there were no significant changes to current Code. Commissioner Irvine said he had asked twice if there were any new criteria and the answer he got was “no” – all the criteria were in force right now. But as Chair Brown 6 pointed out, with the platted subdivisions, they were not part of the existing criteria. Commissioner Turner said he was hearing that there was confusion with what Peter Gutowsky said, and perhaps there was a misunderstanding as to whether it was “current” criteria or “proposed” criteria. Nick said that it was underlined in the draft ordinances as to what was new, on both November 19 and December 2. Peter did not say all the existing criteria are carried forward. There could have been a misunderstanding but we showed the dramatic impact this could have and it was crystal clear. Commissioner Irvine said again that he had asked if we were adding new criteria because he did not want to do that without discussing it. The minutes of December 2 were discussed. Commissioner Irvine mentioned that he was one of the “no” votes – he felt there was not enough discussion at the time. Commissioner Quatre and Chair Brown discussed some items in the proposed letter further regarding farmlands. Chair Brown discussed asking the Board to remand and needing a full Commission to vote. Commissioner Turner said that he did not want to recommend the remand based on misunderstanding of the motion. Motion: Commissioner Quatre motioned that the Board remand to the Planning Commission Ordinance 2010-01/02 for the reasons that at the time of the vote, there was not a full Commission, but we would like to have the vote considered by the entire Planning Commission to reconsider Deschutes County’s local criteria. Seconded by Commissioner Irvine. Discussion: Commissioner Turner asked whether they had seen “Exhibit A,” the grandfather clause. Chair Brown said it had been added to the Ordinance but they had not seen it. Nick mentioned that it is on the website. Vote: Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Cyrus abstaining. Chair Brown asked if the table he provided could be provided to the Board and mentioned that he had gone over it with Peter Gutowsky. Commissioner Irvin said he liked the table and thought it was interesting. Commissioner Turner objected and thought the table was only useful to the Planning Commissioners if it is remanded to them. The table is also part of the letter which the Commissioners have decided not to send. Chair Brown said that if the Board decided not to remand it, could the table be provided for their review? Commissioner Turner said he would have to think about it, and Commissioner Quatre thought it would be a good tool for the Commissioners if it is remanded but not to send to the Board. Commissioner Klyce said that based on the last meeting the Board had, there was a lot of confusion and this table would help them understand the situation. Commissioner Irvine said if he had had the chart the night of the hearing, his questions would have been answered. Chair Brown said he was very careful not to express an opinion and just put the information on paper. Motion: Commissioner Turner motioned that, to further clarify the vote they just took, the Commissioners would like to provide the Board with the attached outline covering the existing State, existing County and additional proposed criteria for their information. Seconded by Commissioner Klyce. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Cyrus abstaining. VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 7 VIII. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS Nick discussed the recent County layoffs. Commissioner Klyce asked for the names of the people laid off and who would be acting in Dennis’ Perkins stead. Nick said Dave Pederson would be taking over that role. Nick also said that CDD had received $1.5 million from the Board for this fiscal year. Nick talked about the Bend meeting on Monday and the five-mile buffer and related criteria. The Council wants citizen input. The UGB was discussed and staff believes there is room in current law for their proposal. The Department of Justice also reviewed the report before the DLCD sent it out. Nick said he had discussed a recent email response to a question from Commissioner Klyce with Laurie, who determined that sending the email to all of the Commissioners constituted a quorum and violation of public meeting rules. Chair Brown and Commissioner Quatre spoke about trying to have information available to the Commissioners before meetings without violating the rules. Nick provided the staff report he had sent to the Board for their upcoming discussion on events in the EFU zone. Commissioner Turner said that if a County-initiated text amendment would come back to the Planning Commission, and Nick said it would. Commissioner Klyce spoke about land that will never be farmland and House Bill 2229 is an acknowledgement on the part of the State that zoning mistakes were made, and it provides a framework to correct the mistakes if counties choose to (one county alone can do it). Nick said it has been estimated that it would cost the County 2 FTE’s for two full years and at least $1 million to do it. Soils have to be re-evaluated, exception lands, etc., would have to be re-designated, among many other things. IX. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary NEXT MEETING – January 28, 2010, at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97701