Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-11-10 - Planning Commission MinutesA 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 THREE RIVERS SCHOOL -OTTER HALL 56900 ENTERPRISE DRIVE SUNRIVER, OR 97707 NOVEMBER 10, 2011 — 5:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Merle Irvine. Members present were Vice Chair Chris Brown, Ed Criss, Richard Klyce, James Powell and Bill Rainey. Absent: Todd Turner. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner; Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner; Terri Payne, Senior Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. Minutes of September 8, 2011 were approved. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. III. WORK SESSION/PUBLIC COMMENTS: Revisions and Recommendations for South County Plan Scope of Work — Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner. Terri summarized the Scope of Work to date and the anticipated process as we move forward. Commissioner Rainey asked Terri to explain the difference between a meeting like this and a public hearing. Terri said a public hearing is a legal event and a more formal process. Nick added that there is always a proposal with public hearings, where in this case there isn't one yet, although we are working towards it. Public Comments: Doug White mentioned that there is no policy group or technical committee, and he felt there should be some citizens represented in the various groups already discussed. Quality Services Performed with Pride Jerry Hubbard said that if we are trying to get more public input, we should put the survey on the County website and publicize it more in the senior centers where people can log in to take the survey. Commissioner Criss spoke about the potential areas to be included and wondered how the audience felt about more than one study area. Doug White commented that he was in favor of creating sub study areas. Commissioner Powell thought it might evolve as we move forward, and people will submit comments. Nick said we have had those same discussions when looking at the scale of South Deschutes County, and we would like to hear from the residents on this. Commissioner Powell asked why the boundary was set so large, and Terry said there are issues that overlap, subdivisions that were platted before land use came in; Sunriver and other areas matter because of how they fit into the South County area. People have indicated they wanted the larger area included. Austin Gilette said that it is not just the City itself, but an area four times larger which surrounds the City of La Pine. Commissioner Criss said he was encouraged by the Scope of Work, but he agreed with Doug White about stakeholder groups. There were 24 people on the Technical Advisory Committee regarding groundwater but only a few "real" citizens. We really need to make sure we have included citizens and small business owners. Carl Jansen asked about confirming the size of the area. Doug White asked if this includes all private property and if areas with groundwater issues are included. Nick said the groundwater topic is being addressed by the DEQ and this Plan will address wildlife and transportation — we are getting into the onsite topic in this process. Nick said we will be meeting with the Citizens Action Group next Friday as well as with others from whom we hope to receive guidance. We want to be sure we are connecting with the people who work here. Jerry Hubbard testified about the need to publicize information for the community. Ellen Curry spoke about electronic surveys and said she had recently become active in the CAG. Not all of the people in the area visit websites and some do not have computers. If we do not have other arrangements, we will miss many people in the survey. Commissioner Rainey mentioned being flexible in the process and open to many ways of getting public comments. Commissioner Rainey said that he would like to have staff arrange a detailed tour for the Commissioners to see and spend time in South County, take a day and make the rounds so they can see firsthand the specific issues and concerns of the community. Nick agreed and thought that some members of the community should accompany the tour as well. An unidentified member of the audience asked about BLM lands and how many of those would be included/involved. Terri said the intent was to get the public agencies involved, meet with them and hear their take. We have no regulatory authority or power over federal lands. Doug White asked for clarification as to what is going on with the DEQ and how Goal 6 will be incorporated. Peter Gutowsky said that the DEQ is the leader in addressing South County groundwater protection matters. We are collaborating but are not leading that effort. Commissioner Powell asked if there will be opportunities for citizens' groups to provide suggestions in this process that may change the way it unfolds. Terri said absolutely yes. E Commissioner Criss felt that the community conservations played out very well previously, and some of the Planning Commissioners attended them. Motion: Commissioner Criss motioned to forward this to the Board with suggestions made by the public and Commissioners. Seconded by Commissioner Rainey. Motion passed. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: PA-11-5/TA-11-4, Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update - Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner. Peter spoke about the issues with 1g`h Street and said the City of Redmond will be proposing findings for the proposed extension of Helmholtz. The Board supports letting the City of Redmond moving forward with the proposal. Regarding Tumalo and their concerns about the raised median, ODOT and County staff disagree that it will be a problem. The citizens are concerned about losing business, but staff feels there is connectivity "getting to here from here." The distance adds 17 feet which is small compared to the distance from Tumalo to Sisters. The Board directed staff to see if we can apply for a quick -response grant to look at these issues. Commissioner Rainey said he did not understand the parallel process of the staff working with the Board and the Board reaching at least tentative conclusions. This should be coming to the Planning Commissioners before the Board. Peter said that the Planning Commissioners can make whatever recommendations they wish; at the last meeting they directed staff to go to the Board and ask for input. Commissioner Rainey felt that staff are cutting off the Planning Commissioners and pushing the Board in a certain direction. Peter said we were asked questions and directed to go to the Board. If staff had that much clout, the Board would have agreed with staff about some changes in Tumalo but did not. Nick said we did ask the Board for direction on whether to proceed with Redmond's proposal which will require a new application, new public notification, etc. That was one key issue we needed direction on. Peter said he told the Board what we had heard from the public so far and we are open to the entire process. Peter mentioned the bike/ped bridge that shows up on the River under the City's TSP and again said that it does not show up on our TSP. On the issue of designated County bikeways, staff would like direction from the Planning Commission on the options shown in the Commissioners' packets (pages 4-5, items a -e). Commissioner Rainey said he attended the meeting with the Board and was distressed after hearing that the Board was supportive of the Trails Alliance position, persuaded by staff to back off from their viewpoint and reach almost a conclusion without hearing and giving proper weight to the Trails Alliance and the citizens of Sisters who have expressed their desires. He would urge no action on these items tonight and wait to hear from the bicycle group in Sisters when we meet there on December 15. Chair Irvine agreed. Commissioner Powell asked Peter to speak about the implications of designating a roadway a bikeway, and also wondered if there has been discussion about reconciling problems with kids trying to get along some of the roadways on their bikes with small or no shoulders, plus cycling events that are using part State/part County roads in Terrebonne, Bend, Tumalo, etc. How do we decide where to extend bike lanes? Peter said that the organizers of cycling events come to our Risk Management division with proposals, then they go to Transportation, the Sheriff's Office and the Road Department who evaluate the 3 routes. We've been working with those for years and have not had problems. The Road Department has a pavement management system based on functional classification, daily traffic and pavement conditions. The Road Department does not want to get into paving roads because of high cycling traffic when the roads do not support high levels of vehicular traffic. Signing is another issue. State -designated bikeways are paid for, signed and maintained by the State. County bikeways are the responsibility of the County. Peter mentioned that the Board basically supports the proposed passing lanes in Sisters as of this date, and staff does not agree with recent correspondence received. He submitted information about the ODOT standards used in predicting the need for passing lanes. He reminded the Commissioners that this is a stated deficiency in Tech Memo #3 and thus must be addressed. Commissioner Rainey felt that this is another hot -button issue for Sisters, and there are people who have analyzed the data and do not believe that the ODOT data is correct. He also heard at the Board meeting that they want to consider citizen input; we should not conclude that the lanes need to stay as stated without it. The result of the Planning Commission's deliberations and the public input should be passed along and reviewed by the Board. The people of Sisters feel strongly that adding these lanes and showing these lanes is not the thing to do. Peter said again that this in the 1998 plan, it is an identified deficiency and ODOT has to use both of these as well as the data in consideration of public safety and adding the passing lanes. Vice Chair Brown and Peter discussed designated bikeways and whether the State and the Department of Agriculture work together. Peter said there are separate programs for the State and the County. We can potentially work with the Forest Service. Commissioner Powell thanked Peter for the responses to the issues and said he found them extremely helpful. Nick said that our Transportation Planner is the expert in this field, and the core objectives are public safety and efficient movement of goods and services while being mindful of costs. We are also interested in events and asthetics but they are not the core issues. There are significant and strong opinions on these issues and this may take some time for the Planning Commission to work through. Peter also added that ODOT has no money. These passing lanes, if approved, may not be built at all — or not for some time. Commissioner Klyce asked if the State is responsible for maintenance of State -designated bikeways, and Peter said they do not maintain the pavement but they pay for the signs and installation. Public Comments: Doug White said that he appreciated Peter's comments about the City's TSP including the bridge designation but still felt we should say something in our TSP as it violates State law (see submittal). Doug also spoke regarding Deschutes Junction and the TSP (see second submittal). Jim Bryant of ODOT commended Peter on the TSP. The overarching issue he wanted to address is the available funding for transportation. There will be a focus on lower-cost projects that involve safety and operations more than capacity building. Volumes and needs will grow over time. There may be interim lower-cost solutions undertaken because of the severe lack of funding faced by the State and County. We are facing a significant change to the way things have been done in the past. If you look at the costs for State 4 facilities, for example, there are over $350 million in improvements shown as necessary which may raise expectations. The County TSP is not required to be financially restrained, but some items shown may need to be deleted if funding will not be available in the next 20 years. The recent widening of 97 near Sunriver should continue south in time. The passing lanes in Sisters have been identified as a future need but may be phased in - not in the immediate future. ODOT will continue to work with the County on a solution in Tumalo. ODOT does agree with most of the identified needs in the TSP. ODOT does understand the feelings of the citizens in Sisters; but it is important to recognize that there are ten miles of eastbound traffic without an opportunity to pass. When the volumes increase, accidents will increase accordingly. We want to be sensitive to the community but do not want to be handcuffed from future improvements. Vice Chair Brown said that if we are talking about 20 years in the future, and he has followed BNSF and its plans to put a second line in Bend, is there any possibility we will be able to transport people as well as freight? Where does ODOT weigh in on this? Have they had conversations with BNSF? Is there a possibility which will impact our 20-year projections? Jim said that passenger rail/commuter service is a visionary idea and they are interested in looking at the opportunities provided by the existing infrastructure of the tracks. We are working with the Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council to look at passenger rail in central Oregon through Bend and Redmond. There are lot of difficulties to overcome but they do support looking at it in the future. If nothing else, they would like to reserve the option with language like that in the TSP supporting rail transit. Chair Irvine mentioned tracks in Wilsonville where they were used for heavy rail. There is a train running now which takes commuters into Portland during set hours. Commissioner Criss asked if there would be funding for transportation routes in rural areas. Jim said they are looking at funding in Washington changing daily but he does not know. Commissioner Rainey wanted to include the additional bullet point stating that before ODOT puts in the passing lanes they would come back and talk to the Sisters community, when the time comes and money is available. There should be a public meeting as indicated in the bullet point. Jim again mentioned the lack of funding making any of these projects very difficult. He will look at the language. Nick said he appreciated Jim being very clear about having realistic expectations going forward. Nick asked Jim if he could help identify some of the priorities and cost estimates further. Also, what do the austerity measures mean for us? We have to comply with the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR), and does that mean costs will be transferred to the County? Jim said that the trend with the TPR is that the standards for identifying needs are being lowered, higher levels of congestion may be considered, requirements of local jurisdictions will be taken into consideration along with funding limitations across the State. ODOT is looking at less-expensive ways to achieve objectives and address the lack of funding. Commissioner Klyce and Jim spoke about the overpass in the O'Neil Junction/97 interchange. The realignment of O'Neil with a rail crossing is a high priority. Commissioner Powell asked if ODOT is considering three passing lanes instead of four in some cases, more roundabouts, etc. Jim said that the standard for shoulders is ten feet and they are considering eight feet, for example. Roundabouts are being considered although the trucking industry does have concerns. There is a national study looking at roundabouts in terms of trucking. Roundabouts are safer than signaled intersections. We 5 have an aging population and there is also a falling skill level for drivers, so errors are the primary cause of most accidents. Monte Dammerell asked if there is a South County bike plan. Peter said that they worked with Jim Stone, the bike/ped Advisory Committee liaison, and there is a proposal in the TSP. The State did not agree with the designation so will not provide signs. Peter and Monte discussed submitting proposals for bikeways that South County would like to see added. Monte and Jim discussed money for Wickiup Junction. Jim also said that they would like to build in enough money for a second rail line. Motion: Commissioner Rainey motioned to extend the hearing until 6:00 on December 15 in Sisters. Seconded by Commissioner Rainey. Motion passed. V. WORK SESSION: TA -11-5, Historic Landmarks Commission, Amendment to DCC 2.28 - Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner. Peter said that this is a minor modification which has been scheduled for a work session. It involves a change in the cities of Bend, Redmond and La Pine either creating or being in the process of creating their own Landmarks Commission and thus qualify for funding from the State. These modifications reflect a mutually -agreed upon separation and recommendation to take the members from nine to five; the Board would appoint four and the fifth would be from the City of Sisters (still being a part of the County's program). The four members would hopefully represent the geographic areas of the County such a La Pine, for example. Motion: Commissioner Rainey moved to forward this to the Board (with one change to correct a typo pointed out by Commissioner Brown). Seconded by Vice Chair Brown. Motion passed. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS Nick spoke about the December 8 and 15 meetings and submitted a draft comment form. VII. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Resp tfully subm itted h r B�er Administrative Secretary