Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-10-15 - Planning Commission MinutesCommunity Development Department JJa'§r 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 SISTERS COUNCIL CHAMBERS - CITY HALL 520 E. CASCADE SISTERS, OR 97759 DECEMBER 15, 2011 — 6:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Merle Irvine. Members present were Todd Turner, Bill Rainey, Ed Criss and Richard Klyce. Absent: Vice Chair Chris Brown, James Powell. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. Minutes of September 22, 2011 were approved. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS Doug White suggested more information be obtained about non -resource lands. III. PUBLIC HEARING: PA-11-5/TA-11-4, Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update - Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner (2 hours). Chair Irvine and Peter discussed whether or not all bike trails would be shown on the map including those not maintained by the County. Chair Irvine suggested that those not maintained by the County be designated a different color or shown in some other manner. Peter said that the County has a different perspective as the provider of a service than the cyclists have as users. There may be some confusion if non -County maintained roads are shown. We could check with our GIS staff about potentially showing them; however, there is also an online map of bike trails. We could look at the mechanical aspects. George Kolb of the County Road Department wanted to make people aware that sources of funding are going away, and he does not want the public to think that all designated bike lanes will be maintained by the County. Factors such as daily traffic and conditions of pavement are considered. Camp Polk Road was widened a few years ago, for example, where it was possible and financially feasible. Adding a lot of fill is not cost effective, so if a road on the designated bike routes was being considered, perhaps a couple more feet of Quality Services Performed with Pride width could be added in some places where major fill is not required. Smith Rock has been designated as a State bike route. Commissioner Rainey said he did not hear George saying that designating these areas would create a major problem. George said that they frequently get letters regarding desired improvements, and the Road Department responds to all of them. George spoke about the recent committee that considered Road Department funding. They look at roads whenever they do a reclamation and see if they can add a couple of feet to each side. He wants people to understand that a designated bikeway supporting 150 cars a day would have less priority when compared to another road in great need of improvements. Priorities will be looked at much more closely in the future due to the lack of funding. There are several bike routes right now, such as one controlled by the Road District, on which the County cannot afford to spend dollars. Commissioner Turner asked about "bikeways" versus "bike routes." George said that in towns they are called "bike lanes" and designated with an 8" stripe. "Bike routes" are in urban areas. George said that what they are considering is County -established roads in general. Commissioner Criss asked if anyone has looked at private funding. George said he has not seen this mentioned. Commissioner Turner asked Peter about Deschutes Junction and no identified deficiencies in the Staff Report. Peter clarified that modeling standards for the future are met. There have been crashes, and some minor modifications, but ODOT is comfortable with the history of operation and no deficiency has been identified to date. Commissioner Rainey asked why the Black Butte/Sisters passing lane issue was not mentioned in the latest Staff Report. Peter said it is included, starting on page 7. ODOT still does not want to use the language contained in the letter from Sisters. Commissioner Turner and Peter discussed the definition of capacity in the Oregon Freight Advisory and whether overpasses have to be 28 feet high. Peter said that is correct. Commissioner Klyce asked George about other funding sources for bike routes and widening shoulders. George said that the Road Department is trying to find other sources for road maintenance. The hard part about widening a road is that each road is a unique case. They are trying to find more funding just for the Road Department — gas tax is off the table until 2014. Perhaps the Bike/Ped Advisory Committee could research grants. Peter said that staff could update the bike map, which is a little dated. Public Testimony: Michael Ludeman testifed on behalf of the Tumalo business owners. The ODOT plan is not in agreement with a majority of the businesses in Tumalo - they would like a plan that is more conducive to saving the businesses. There are probably seven that would close, which is a lot for Tumalo. They will not have the ingress and egress they have had in the past. They have suggested flashing lights, sidewalks, trees, and the creation of visual pieces to slow the traffic down to 35 mph. This needs to be done now, not in five years. They are more than willing to try and come up with alternatives. Commissioner Turner and Peter discussed the overpass in Tumalo. Chair Irvine and Peter discussed alternatives in Tumalo — Peter said that the final letter from ODOT received today contains alternatives, and when money is available they will be considered. Michael said that money has been spent, and they have not been heard as a community. Eva Eagle testified that when she moved to the area, she was looking for a village/community where she could ride a bike, have peace and quiet. The effects of tourism and cyclists spending money here are huge. It is important to maintain that quality. When people drive from Portland past Black Butte Ranch, there is a section of Highway 20 forming a "cathedral" over the road. It really sets the tone for the area. If the road is widened, people will be speeding through the area and ruin it. Also, the forecasts that ODOT and the County are using are really overblown. She read in the proposal that they are based on increased populations in Sisters and Black Butte Ranch which are really not going up. Is there really a value in destroying this beautiful stretch of road? She would like to take the four -lane stretch off the Plan entirely. Commissioner Criss asked Eva about just having a passing lane, which she felt was a bad idea. Any passing lane increases the width of the road and people speed up when they get into one. She feels they are dangerous because of the way people use them to skip by those who are following the speed limit. It's not as bad as four lanes but is a much different effect than two. People should not speed up when they are approaching town and we should not encourage it. Bruce Bowen submitted a written growth analysis and felt there is no evidence to indicate these additional lanes are needed. The 2011 data shows an annual growth rate of 1/10th of 1 %. A growth in traffic over the years of 2.4% is shown, and as a retired professional who deals with data, he feels this type of forecasting is of very little value or altogether useless. This type of analysis gives wide-ranging results with a small change in data. To believe this will be a 25% increase over 20 years is hard to believe. The real answer may not be 2.4% either, but it is a long way from 25%. Regarding accidents, ODOT and the Count staff have said the primary accidents to look at in connection with passing lanes are side swipes and head -ons. Those represent 8% of the accidents in ODOT's data. He would urge the Commissioners to look at the information he presented in October and does not feel spending our taxpayer money to build passing lanes into Sisters is justified. Chuck Humphreys said that, regarding County bicycle routes, he is very frustrated. They have been working on this in Sisters for five years and have not made any progress. They thought the TSP would be a good time to move forward but it is not happening now, either. This is about recognizing that we have some spectacular cycling venues in the County. As a strategy document, the TSP should recognize and promote these assets. Businesses in Sisters have testified as to the importance of cycling here. There is economic value, and the TSP should support that. Also, they thought that putting together the TSP would be a cooperative process; with respect to this issue, local concerns which have been voiced have been systematically ignored and defeated by bureaucrats in Bend. He wonders why we are even having this debate and wonders why we have spent to much time on it. The County map done a decade ago does not show the routes around Sisters and they have had no success getting it corrected for a decade. The initial draft of the TSP showed these bike routes on a map but excluded routes that Sisters feel are important. These maps will be part of the County GIS system. People visiting the area want to know where to ride and we need to get it right. One argument staff has made is that non -maintained County routes could not be shown. This can be distinguished — he lives on a County road that is not maintained by the County, and he does not call George to ask why. He cannot see the harm of saying that a bicycle route is on a publicly recognized right-of-way not maintained by the County and it is better to ride this route. They were told that in some ways, it does not make sense to designate any roads as County bikeways because it sends a signal that shoulders are needed regardless of traffic. This misses the point that these bikeways need to be promoted. So far, we have not been able to find a compromise and move forward, but we need to consider it carefully. Routes that residents have proposed around Sisters are routes that people actually ride. Also, regarding the passing lanes on Highway 20, Chuck said they appreciate the effort to come up with special indicators for Sisters as to whether passing lanes are needed. These could be refined, but the one thing that has been left out is the need for prior consultation before any decision is made. There is a level of distrust between the citizens and ODOT. There should be a proactive relationship to move forward, before any decision is made. There should be mutual trust and respect with community input. Regarding the freight industry and roundabouts, they know the County favors roundabouts and the lobby group for the freight industry is opposed to them. Residents were disappointed that the towel was thrown in, and if ORS indicates "no roundabouts," there won't be any. He feels the TSP should more aggressively support roundabouts. Some in the community would like to see Sisters "bookended" by roundabouts to protect the area. The Bike/Ped Advisory Committee met with trucking representatives and they were not opposed to roundabouts; they wanted to make sure the accommodated the trucking industry's requirements. The TSP should say we support them and will find a solution to accommodate bicycles, pedestrians, vehicles and trucks. Commissioner Rainey asked Chuck if he would support language in the letter received from the City of Sisters and he said he would. Also, Chuck felt that people can be educated so they are not calling the Road Department about why shoulders aren't wide enough. He also feels that the needs of cyclists are considered less of a priority. Nick asked Chuck if he would like to submit language regarding roundabouts and he said he would. Nick also said that that everyone needs to remember this is a draft document, and whole purpose is to get feedback such as this. We are still early in the process and there will be further discussions with the Board. Commissioner Criss asked if these roads could be added to the maps. Peter said that they could be added and it could be indicated that cyclists use them at their own risk and need to understand that they are not County - maintained. Commissioner Criss asked if this would lead to responsibility/liability for roads maintained by the Road District. George Kolb said that the Road District is a type of government and can tax homeowners. If someone called him and said, "My road needs to be swept," it may be that according to statutes, people who live along a local access road are responsible. Commissioner Rainey said he was skeptical that putting designated bikeways on maps creates liability if they are appropriately indicated. He asked if County legal counsel could weigh in on a liability issue. Nick said we can ask about this. Chuck said he went to the County website and all of the other types of roads were already on there. There is no disclaimer saying drivers should be aware — if you can do this for motor vehicles, it should not be a problem for bicycles. Brad Boyd testified that we are competing for tourist dollars. Cyclists who come to his shop need to find good places to ride. Right now we are not putting our best foot forward 4 and if we lose an opportunity, people do not come back. We lose money on hotel rooms, etc. Many of the roads have low volumes and that is what makes them attractive. This seems like a low-cost way to put our best foot forward if they are recommended for cycling. Regarding the passing lanes, he is very familiar with traffic numbers and crash data. One of his concerns is that there are two "choke points" right now in the highway — Santiam Pass and Sisters. If there is a four -lane road dumping into Sisters, it does not make sense to him as a taxpayer. We are all dealing with less revenue. Why make it fast in the middle when the volumes are not there? The problem is actually Hog Rock. Bill Willitts said that he thought our survival as a community is about keeping Sisters unique and authentic. Sisters is a community of mostly small businesses. They support three main streets with 2,000 people. There are three significant assets — the town itself, the trail system, and the bikeways. The future of the community will be measured by the continuous improvement of those assets. We need to keep Sisters unique. There is no choice — it is part of survival. It's about why tourists come to this town. There is no small business in this town that can wait until the future gets better — we need to make improvements now. Carolyn Perry said that the Deschutes River runs through Tumalo, making Tumalo an enormous cycling destination. She feels the proposal for Tumalo should be stricken from the record. The Tumalo community has requested a neutral third party come in. Nick said he did ask ODOT about the Transportation Growth Management Project; there are funds but they will not likely be a quick response grant. Those are usually fora a developer coming in, and couple of agencies already working on it. Carolyn asked about accountability regarding Goal 1. Meetings that ODOT has participated in have not produced results. The citizen input process looks largely like a charade because they have not provided these. Charlene Weed said she is a Sisters City Councilor. They do not want the passing lanes from Black Butte. She looked at the ODOT letter and it appears that funding is not there, so the wisest thing is to remove the project from the list. If it does remain on the list, the changes suggested by the City need to be incorporated — to remove #5 because it is ambiguous and difficult to measure; to include another bullet that allows for a proactive process in Sisters; and we need to be sure to add the bicycle routes onto the maps. There is overwhelming support in Sisters. Bill Rainey and Peter spoke about trigger mechanisms and whether the language was needed in the TSP as ODOT said they always look at those. Bill felt that the community wants the consultant process mentioned in the TSP, and it does not make sense that ODOT would not want language reflecting something they do anyway. Peter said the Planning Commission has the discretion to add the language. Brenda Pace said she went to a meeting put on by COACT in which ODOT was reviewing proposed revisions. In the Oregon Highway Plan, they said that they wanted to provide tools for better solutions. They have said, in VC standards for highways, different rates may be used for different processes. Are we including help for the public to know how to go about creating mobility target standards in the TSP? If a community wants to develop a larger plan, maybe alternatives should be considered such as putting more police on Highway 20 or paying for an extra Sheriff's officer to be there. She also assumes that Highway 20 west of Sisters is a freight route on a State highway. She wondered about the changes in volume that are being considered. As a cyclist, she likes maps. They can find 5 map from DeGaulle airport to Paris online. They have been to the Netherlands, Germany, Austria and have run into at least 100 people on their last trip from the U.S. and Canada who are there because they are so welcome. The maps are one of the things that tell them they are welcome. Peter said that the Transportation Commission will hold a hearing on December 21 regarding changes in VC standards. The Oregon Highway Plan also outlines how ODOT works with the State and outlines how a local community can work with this. Tony Aceti testified that his issue was trying to get a study area for Deschutes Junction. On the TSP, this does not relate. The map shown did not include his property on the west side. He feels the same frustration here tonight — the citizens' input is not included and there is no reflection of their voices. He sees Deschutes Junction as a diamond in the rough. The TSP is a 20 -year plan. Right now, there are landowners who want to work with the County to solve the transportation issues that are going to occur. If this is planning for the next 20 years, citizens who want to participate and be part of the solution need to have input and have some sense of direction. People want to put their land to a higher and better use. To leave Deschutes Junction with an improper boundary would be kicking the can down the road to where Tumalo is now. Commissioner Turner said that when he looks at the projects and construction cost estimates in the TSP, he wonders how Tony thinks a project at Deschutes Junction could be incorporated into the TSP when the master planning does not yet indicate what this would be. Tony agreed that a refinement plan needs to be done. We need a master plan because Deschutes Junction is a bullseye — one day the cyclists will want to have a place to rest. We need to identify a proper boundary and people want upzoning and changing as allowed in the land use system as changes occur over time. Doug White spoke about a suggested conceptual study area and submitted written proposals. He also discussed the footbridge across the Deschutes River identified in the City's TSP and ignored in the County's TSP. He submitted information from the Oregon State Parks that recognizes that a bridge is not allowed upstream from the irrigation uptake. Bend Parks and Rec is aware of this and that it should not have been approved by the City. It will take an amendment to OAR to authorize the bridge and the County should recognize that in its TSP. Doug said he also took a shot at addressing the connectivity issue regarding trails. He has suggested policy language that focuses on addressing it. He and his wife support a footbridge in the South Canyon area but it should be done in accordance with State law. He has not seen anything in the record about studies of alternative crossings. His property is in the scenic waterway designation and his property would be impacted. Fire issues would be increased — this is where Aubrey Butte jumped the river. It is also a wildlife corridor. The County should encourage the City to engage folks in addressing the State regarding this. Nick wanted to clarify that this is a Bend Parks & Rec trail in the Deschutes River Trail plan. Peter indicated three potential actions by the Planning Commission on the last page of the Staff Report. Commissioner Turner mentioned testimony about roads with low traffic volumes in the area being great for cycling. If it is a County road designated as a bikeway and maintenance must be done such as resurfacing, are we required to increase the width? Or, because of the low traffic volumes, can it be repaved the same width? Peter 0 said that our current language encourages widening the shoulders. George added that they look at the road classification and take into account the current average daily trips. Brad Boyd and Peter discussed considerations and whether the designation would change. Peter said if there are two roads needing repair, one with a bikeway designation and otherwise the same, the bikeway designation would be widened first. Commissioner Turner asked about deteriorating roundabouts and whether staff could provide information about other locations in the State where roundabouts have been installed. Commissioner Turner also asked where the funds and revenue would come from for these projects. Peter said revenue is generated from gas receipts, weight taxes, and we do have a committee looking at funding options. What ODOT does is prioritize the projects — there is a huge gap between projected income and need to build. Commissioner Rainey suggested that we close the oral record this evening and leave the written record open, continuing the hearing to January 19 and holding a work session on January 12, beginning deliberations on January 26. Commissioner Klyce said he would prefer to close the written record before the work session. Commissioner Rainey said he wondered if folks would have enough time given the holidays. Commissioner Klyce suggested closing the oral testimony tonight and leaving the written record open until January 5. Nick said that deliberations might begin on the 12th. Chair Irvine felt that there have been a lot of issues raised and he likes the idea of having a work session. One of the things he has heard tonight is that the public submits information which is ignored. We should not cut testimony off at this time and should allow the public to weigh in again. He would like to continue both oral and written testimony until January 26. Nick said the Board would want the Planning Commission to take as much time as necessary and has given us no date for completion other than this fiscal year. Commissioner Turner asked if the public would be included in the work session; if not, we need to continue the public hearing until after that. Nick clarified that the public is welcome to attend a work session. The Board goes back to the public after work sessions to get more input. Commissioner Rainey wondered if the public would want to keep coming back to hearing after hearing. Commissioner Criss said we have a lot of written material that spells out the major issues although we have not heard from the City of Bend. We may not need more oral testimony. He is concerned that the public may not feel they are being heard, but another hearing may not fix that. The written materials we have received go right to the point. He could agree with closing written testimony on January 5 and then holding a work session. The public will also have an opportunity go before the Board of County Commissioners for public hearings. Nick also said that we could keep the written record open until January 5 and then have the public make comments on January 19 after the work session. Motion: Commissioner Klyce moved that oral testimony be closed as of this date. Seconded by Commissioner Criss. Commissioner Klyce withdrew his motion. Motion: Commissioner Rainey moved to continue the public hearing and leave both written and oral testimony open to January 26, holding a work session with staff on January 12. Seconded by Commissioner Turner. Motion passed. 7 VI. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS Nick said we have received notice that the destination resort map amendments will be appealed by Central Oregon LandWatch. Yesterday we had a work session with the Board regarding our long-range work plan and we will be working on a series of housekeeping text amendments. Nick discussed provisions in the Code regarding temporary housing for medical hardship and whether a caregiver living on site must be related. Last week it became evident that the Code says that a caregiver does not have to be related to live in the primary residence or manufactured home. We asked the Board if they would like to address this policy question and they would like the Planning Commission to discuss it. Commissioner Turner discussed the definition of "relative." Nick also spoke about administration determinations (AD's) and said we proposed to change the wording. Many AD's processed at the $1230 level should be at a lower level. Commissioner Turner asked if there has ever been a discussion about a fee-for-service approach. Nick said it has not been discussed and he did work for one jurisdiction that used this approach. County fee adjustments are considered every year. Nick also said that on Monday we will meet with the Board on the South County Plan work scope and we will be providing a written cost estimate. We are proposing two meetings per month, one in Three Rivers and one in La Pine, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, every other month starting in January with one bigger meeting in February. Costs range from $1200 to $2500 just for venue fees, not including organizational/neighborhood/ stakeholder meetings. We will need to have an election for Chair and Vice Chair for the next year. Commissioner Klyce asked about the grounds for a Central Oregon LandWatch appeal of the destination resort remapping, which Nick said we do not know at this time. VII. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Resp ctfully submitt, IZ' Buck er Administrative Secretary 0