Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-02-09 - Planning Commission MinutesI cA N A I. CALL TO ORDER 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 FEBRUARY 9, 2012 — 5:30 P.M. Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Vice Chair Chris Brown. Members present were Ed Criss, Bill Rainey and James Powell. Absent: Chair Merle Irvine, Todd Turner and Richard Klyce. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner; Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner; Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner; Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. November 10 and December 8, 2011 minutes were approved. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. III. DELIBERATION, continued: TA -11-3, Commercial Events Text Amendments in the Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zone — Nick Lelack, Planning Director. Nick submitted a matrix of the recommendations. Vice Chair Brown and Nick discussed the definition of "agritourism." Commissioner Powell felt that the property line in the noise level area of the matrix needed to be more specifically defined, since multiple property lines are involved with any property. Also, under "Time of Events," maybe it should be clear that event guests need to be off the property by 10:00 p.m., rather than indicating that the event must be finished by 10:00 p.m. Nick read from the specific text and the Commissioners discussed whether the noise measurement could be taken from any property line. Vice Chair Brown felt that there would be some times that people would be staying late to talk, etc., but the event itself should be over by 10:00 p.m. People may be leaving after that, but the music would be stopped. Commissioner Powell said that this again raises the issue of traffic and noise when people are departing. Perhaps there should be a statement saying that most of the Quality Services Performed zvith Pride people should have vacated by a certain time. Commissioner Rainey felt that people would understand that the party would be over by 10:00 p.m. except for some stragglers who may want to visit. Nick and the Commissioners discussed law enforcement and code enforcement officers being allowed onto the property. The Commissioners agreed on the content of the matrix and Nick said it would be presented to the Board at next week's meeting. Vice Chair Brown recommended that at least two of the Planning Commissioners attend the Board meeting, preferably with opposing points of view. IV. DELIBERATION, continued: PA-11-51TA-11-4, Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update - Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner. Peter summarized the eight areas under consideration as presented in the PowerPoint at the last meeting on January 26. Commissioner Rainey said his two concerns were the bicycle and trail issues, but he could support the language discussed previously about public input and holding meetings. Commissioner Powell suggested going down the list item by item. Peter read from a submittal by Richard Klyce, who suggested adding a small commercial area in Deschutes Junction to support local activity. Staff recommends keeping the current language, which does not include a refinement plan for Deschutes Junction, and wait until we are directed to do one by the Board. Vice Chair Brown wanted to make sure this is addressed, whether it is in the upcoming work plan or elsewhere. We need to hear more from the public. Commissioner Criss agreed with Commissioner Klyce's written comment and mentioned a recording studio that is now in the pink building. This area needs to be looked at and we should draw up a refinement plan as soon as we can. Some changes will be happening there and we should work through this sooner rather than later. Vice Chair Brown asked how a draft refinement plan would be added to the TSP, and Peter said they could go with the staff language and certain boundaries for a refinement plan, or recommend to the Board that a plan be done within a certain number of years. Commissioner Powell said that what he is hearing from Commissioners Klyce and Criss isn't really about the TSP but about Deschutes Junction per se. If we leave the TSP language as Peter suggests and then look at the action plan later tonight, and the plan rises to a higher level at that time, wouldn't this language suffice for now? Peter said the Board could direct us to do this tomorrow or in 20 years. If we go with staff's language, we would not do anything until the Board directs us to. If we do a refinement plan for Deschutes Junction, then the TSP stops until it is done. Motion: Commissioner Powell motioned to accept staff's language regarding Deschutes Junction. Seconded by Vice Chair Brown. Motion passed. Peter discussed the Terrebonne frontage road and raised median. Commissioner Powell asked if other options were limited, and Peter said no. It is on the west side of 97 and Gift Road, and if for some reason the road would be better at the back of the property, it would still be called a "frontage" road. Nick emphasized the significance of this policy, which would manage this area for the future. Vice Chair Brown said that one of the concerns is trying to reduce the number of access points on 97. Some of his clients have had major disputes with ODOT on these reductions. We need to protect the landowners there. Motion: Commissioner Rainey motioned to adopt staff's recommended language. Seconded by Commissioner Powell. Motion passed. Peter said that staff recommended continuing not to show the bridge on our TSP. Commissioner Powell said when the river study was done, the City told residents they would do whatever they wanted, build to the river's edge, cut trees, etc., and he does not agree with this. Peter added that trying to get across the Deschutes River as a pedestrian is difficult. Nick said he had spoken with Parks & Rec staff, and as the river continues along the canal, there is a stop that picks up over on Forest Service Property. Parks & Rec wants to make this a whole connection and there would be a footbridge across at some point. Vice Chair Brown said he would rather see the City annex the property instead of accommodating one specific task. Commissioner Powell said that the problem is that this contemplates a change in statute that would open up wild and scenic lands. A lot of the Parks & Rec vision is great, but it needs to work within a system that does not put the entire wild and scenic program at risk with changing one law, so they put one bridge in place. Peter said that we cannot predict where the urban growth boundary will go, but it likely will not go as far south as that level. The bridge shows up on the City's transportation system plan and also in the Parks & Rec plans and goals which are separate. We could delete that portion and keep the language that Doug and Steve suggested, leaving the bridge off. Peter said there was some language about mountain/hiking trails that probably should be maintained. Nick said that the Parks & Rec boundary is the same as the City's. Peter and the Commissioners discussed proposed language as submitted previously by Steve Jorgensen. Commissioner Criss asked who would be responsible for maintaining the bridge, and Peter said it would be Bend Parks & Rec. Peter Gutowsky said that the parks district is trying to position itself, if the Bend UGB ever expands to the south, so they can follow that. Right now Parks & Rec is located more to the north, but if they do expand into the Buck Canyon area they would have resources to provide trail connectivity. Vice Chair Brown and Peter Gutowsky discussed scenic waterway laws and whether they would need to be modified. The Commissioners tabled this discussion pending being able to see the language on a screen. Motion: Commissioner Rainey moved to approve Option G for designated County bikeways (fourth item). Seconded by Commissioner Criss. Motion passed. Regarding the fifth item, Highway 20 in Tumalo, Peter read from Commissioner Klyce's submittal which stated that he was not in favor of the overpass. Commissioner Rainey and Peter discussed the public concern that it would be difficult to get access to businesses on the south side. Many times raised medians are controversial at first but then later become part of the landscape. The main reason is to control vehicular accidents, but raised medians also provide passage for pedestrians. The citizens want a signal or roundabout which would still result in crashes, and it would still be difficult to get back and forth across the highway. A signal would be an improvement. Commissioner Criss asked about slowing traffic which was suggested by the citizens. Peter said that ODOT's previous speed zone study resulted in a 45 mph limit (ODOT uses an 85% percentile). City downtowns are legislative and they can set their own speed limits, which is not the case in Tumalo. The speed limit right now is probably as low as it would go with another study, but keep in mind that it could also increase. Commissioner Powell asked if it is possible, within the TSP system, to have some sort of caveat in the 3 policy that it be re-examined before execution, such as what could be proposed for Sisters? Peter said there will be another round of public outreach if funding is achieved. Commissioner Powell felt there should be some way to weigh some of these improvements — for example, people on Cook Road should wait much longer than those on Highway 20 at a crossing, due to traffic volumes. Vice Chair Brown felt that the road should go underneath Highway 20 rather than over it — the costs, for one thing, would be much less. Peter and Commissioner Rainey discussed possible language. The overpass is probably less of a political flashpoint than a raised median. Commissioner Rainey asked if the Commissioners were representing people who pass through Tumalo, or should they give greater emphasis to residents of the area who are not concerned about passing through it quickly but are concerned about quality of life? Vice Chair Brown said that he recalled from public testimony that one of the concerns was the need for safe passage across Highway 20. Commissioner Rainey asked if we could put in a provision that ODOT would need to have an active public process when this project is under active consideration. Nick said that we had done a Tumalo Community Plan, and also that the Commissioners are playing both roles - as Tumalo residents while trying to see the overall County picture. Motion: Commissioner Rainey motioned to adopt staff language in (a) but to support the County road as an underpass beneath Highway 20 and also encourage a public process. Seconded by Commissioner Powell. Motion passed. Peter returned to the discussion about the bikeway and pedestrian plan and showed Doug White's and Steve Jorgensen's proposed language on the screens. Commissioner Powell felt that most of the additional language was unnecessary, and he did not want to see the wild and scenic waterway language changed. Peter said that Bend Parks & Rec (Steve Jorgensen) and Doug White both wanted more forceful language but it would not change the scenic waterways. Commissioner Criss and Commissioner Powell discussed whether changes needed to be made to the language at all. Just because Bend wants to put a trail outside the boundary does not mean we should support it. Vice Chair Brown and Peter discussed Doug White's proposed language which would result in the County adding comments about something not shown on our TSP (or allowed) but rather on the City's TSP. Commissioner Rainey said he personally did not see anything in the proposed language that would concern him. The Commissioners discussed having Peter bring back proposed language and changes for them to review at the next meeting. The Commissioners reviewed the table of proposed highway and road projects. Peter also read from Commissioner Klyce's submittal. He felt that the traffic at the intersection of O'Neil highway was fairly light. Peter and Commissioner Powell discussed railroads and the fact that they do not have to conform to local land use regulations. Motion: Commissioner Powell motioned to adopt the project list as proposed by staff, and to retain the high priority classification for US 20/OB Riley/Cook intersection. Seconded by Vice Chair Brown. Motion passed. Peter spoke about the illustrative project list. Staff disagrees with ODOT's proposal to put the Quarry/97 interchange on the illustrative project list. 4 Motion: Commissioner Rainey motioned to adopt staff's recommendations. Seconded by Commissioner Criss. Motion passed. The passing lanes in Sisters were discussed. Motion: Commissioner Rainey motioned to adopt staff's recommendations for (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e), along with language for (f) that staff will bring back for approval, relating to a proactive public process to receive input from Sisters and the community with respect to the project, with no predetermined outcome. Seconded by Commissioner Criss. Peter read further comments from Commissioner Klyce, who felt that the road is overburdened. He does not want to see his own safety jeopardized for someone else's aesthetics. Commissioner Rainey wanted to clarify that they would be voting to have some triggers and a public process for this. Vice Chair Brown said that what the Commissioners were doing was basically supporting (a) -(e) and waiting for Peter to bring back language for (f), but the Commissioners then wondered whether they should review all of the sections at the same time. Commissioner Rainey withdrew his motion and the Commissioners discussed whether to wait to approve all of the sections at once. Motion: Commissioner Rainey restated his previous motion. Seconded by Commissioner Criss. Motion passed. The second on roundabouts was considered. Motion: Commissioner Powell motioned to accept staff's recommendations. Seconded by Commissioner Criss. Motion passed. V. WORK SESSION: Action Plan to Implement Comprehensive Plan — Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner. Peter said that projects in the action plan are contemplated over the next five years and will be included in our work plans. The decision in 2010 was to keep the action plan separate from the Comprehensive Plan. Peter said there are also three additional tasks that could be folded in: a Deschutes River Woods community plan; small destination resorts; and a streamlining/review of the zoning code. Themes for the action plan include EFU as a predominant block on everyone's radar; Goal 5 (energy, surface mining, wildlife, open space, etc.); small destination resort concepts; and a possible revisitation of the code, Deschutes Junction and Deschutes River Woods master plans, bicycle and pedestrian plans. Peter would like to have a draft with which the Commissioners feel comfortable that we can disseminate to the public. Vice Chair Brown asked if we have completed 2.2.12. Terri said that we are not addressing renewable energy and it could be revised to state "such as alternative energy." We have not addressed small wind. Commissioner Powell wondered if private parks will need to be considered down the road. Vice Chair Brown suggested that agri-tourism has been covered and the language could be deleted. Nick said the first question is whether we have identified the correct actions. Then we need to prioritize them, which will be more difficult. Peter said we would just like to know at this time if the action items have been appropriately identified. The only things missing are a Deschutes River Woods community plan, small destination resort work program and some kind of code audit to look at clarifying our zoning code. Commissioner Powell and Peter discussed policies and action items. Peter said we rely on the recently adopted policies to inform us to make changes. The public can review them, and staff distills them into actions. Commissioner Rainey and Vice Chair Brown discussed listing the larger categories such as EFU with individual policies as part of that. Commissioner Rainey asked who would decide the priorities, and Peter said that the Planning Commission would make the recommendations to the Board. The Commissioners discussed public input, how the items should be listed and how to establish priorities. Peter spoke about the timeline for holding a public hearing and establishing priorities before this coming year's work plan is determined. We could also have a more thorough public process and use it for the next fiscal year's work plan instead. Nick said it depends on the level of survey, public involvement, etc., and we should have hearings no later than the end of April. We have to have a draft work plan for the next fiscal year by the end of this month. Vice Chair Brown felt that we need an open process and Nick could give us a dollar unit for this without identifying specific pieces, so we know how much we have available for the next six months. Then we can determine the biggest project to undertake. Commissioner Criss wanted to hear from staff as to whether there is anything that really needs to be in year's budget. Peter said that we as staff will coordinate with Tom Anderson to provide recommendations for next year's work plan. But if asked to state what we feel are pressing issues, it puts staff in an awkward position. We have to remain neutral and objective. Goal 5, for example, is a very sensitive topic and could polarize the community. Nick said staff has an important role in providing information, helping with the public process, etc., and we want to help the Planning Commission make the best decisions. VI. UPDATE: South County Plan, Progress and Survey Discussion- Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner. Terri spoke about the community meetings we have had so far. The next meeting is February 21 at the La Pine High School. We put a draft survey together that we would like to post online soon. There were about 30 people at the first La Pine meeting and about 20 in Sunriver. There was a lot of discussion in Sunriver regarding what to call the Plan. Commissioner Powell had attended the La Pine meeting and felt that staff did a good job of trying to make the public feel like they were the ones running the ship. Commissioner Criss said the Sunriver meeting included a lot of folks from Sunriver. They were talking a lot about process. He would like to recommend that the DEQ, DLCD and the State Division of Lands be at the next meeting. Terri said we have invited DEQ a number of times. DLCD is planning to be there. Nick said we are trying to get ODOT to attend, too. Terri asked the Commissioners for their input on the survey. Commissioner Powell had suggested previously that property rights language be removed from some of the areas. 11 Commissioner Criss asked if we could look at questions that were asked during the community conversations at some point in the future. Terri said we have summary sheets and we will be bringing those to the next meeting. VII. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS Nick gave an update on the bill to let three counties define farmland, which is now moving through the legislature. VIII. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Res ctfully submitt d, er Buckner Administrative Secretary