Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-02-23 - Planning Commission Minutes117 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 23, 2012 — 5:30 P.M. 1. 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, Bill Rainey, James Powell, Todd Turner and Richard Klyce. Staff present were Nick Lelack, Planning Director; Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner; Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS Bill Kuhn testified that he had not been able to attend many of the public input sessions regarding event venues. He would like to encourage the Commissioners to consider putting an extra restriction on events within the winter deer range. There are a couple of parcels on Sisemore Road that have been spot zoned and are more than ten acres. The land is not farmable. One of the former owners got a special dispensation on taxes because he could not farm on his land. Also, the County has always had files for different parcels in the County. Bill would like to find out from CDD what constitutes the decision to put something into those files, and what does not get put into the files. Specifically, the County used to have a manila folder system with one file for each parcel, and they were constantly getting lost. Sometimes it took a year to get a look at a specific folder. The County then developed a computerized system which has broken down several times in the past year. It used to divert people to DevDocs and CD map where you could put in a tax ID and find all of the documents. But there is no set criteria as to what gets put into the files and what does not. This is very frustrating to those who have been at loggerheads who want to see what is in those files. Is there a process and procedure the County uses to determine what is and what is not put into DevDocs? He has asked numerous people on numerous occasions, and no one has given him a straight answer. Nick said that he had never been asked that question. Everything is scanned and associated with the property tax ID. Chair Irvine asked Bill if there was a specific problem Quality Services Performed zvith Pride he could state. Bill said that he found the declaratory ruling but has sent emails regarding other documents and received no responses. Sher said that documents are scanned in as timely a manner as possible (they are caught up right now), and all of the documents from the manila folders have been scanned into the system. Bill asked the Commissioners whether, if an individual knows the County is doing something against County Code, the individual can file a Code complaint against the County? Nick said that is possible. Vice Chair Brown also mentioned that the record is open to make comments to the County Commissioners for event venues. III. DELIBERATION, continued: PA-11-5/TA-11-4, Transportation System Plan (TSP) Update — Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner. Peter showed a map depicting the locations of the Bill Healy Bridge and South Canyon Bridge in relation to the proposed bridge discussed at the last meeting. Commissioner Powell asked about people needing to go outside the trail. Peter said that the Forest Service has some trails on the west side of the river, and it makes sense from a larger transportation scheme to get across — they also need to cross the river in terms of the best topography. Peter showed an air photo indicating a proposed location of the bridge. There is currently no funding for the bridge under discussion and it is not allowed under the OAR's. Chair Irvine asked if this location, outside the boundary, is where the bridge is proposed to be. Peter said that on the City of Bend map, this is the case. Peter discussed adding policy language versus actually discussing the bridge in the TSP which is really a City of Bend issue. He read from testimony submitted by Doug White and Steve Jorgensen with proposed language. Commissioner Rainey asked Peter about the wording of the last sentence on page 6 regarding the bridge not being legal. He suggested something like "the current law does not permit the bridge," or just removing the entire sentence. Commissioner Powell suggested language saying that the bridge could be constructed within the UGB and leave it at that. Peter said he would have to double check as to whether that statement is true. Vice Chair Brown said he does not think this makes sense. This does not make our feelings known. We are supposed to be saying how we feel, not what the rules say. We had a previous discussion saying that we are not in the business of drafting documents that usurp OAR's or helping the City of Bend. We are making a statement as to how we feel about the bridge which is not what this says. We can keep it much simpler than that and state that we do or do not endorse changes in the rules. Either we are on board with the City of Bend and Parks and Rec, or we are not. Commissioner Criss said he agreed with Vice Chair Brown on this. Parks and Rec has basically said they want this bridge which is outside their area of control. Throwing it to us and asking us to change the rules when they have alternative choices makes no sense. We represent people with rural properties, not the City of Bend. Peter said that one of the factors was in Steve's memo to the Planning Commission on February 5 which mentioned the difficulty of picking a route, and it involves private property. Bend Parks & Rec has had its share of outreach and residents want a trail system with crossings at appropriate intervals. The reason it is on our TSP is because of spatial location; we only want to show the intent to have this and it would be up to the City and Parks & Rec to apply for grant funding, etc. Nick said that Parks & Rec responded when Doug White raised this, and he is 2 certain that Parks & Rec would welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue which has been on their table for quite some time. Chair Irvine said that he appreciated the map, and it looks like the bridge is a pivot point, close to the boundary. He is not bothered by the language. Commissioner Turner said that he does not see anything saying whether or not the bridge is inside the boundary. Vice Chair Brown said that we are concerned about prohibition of putting the bridge in, and Parks & Rec was asking for our endorsement of the plan which would require a change in the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act and not what we should be doing. If Parks & Rec wants this done, they need to get the UGB expanded. Commissioner Powell commented that in Steve Jordan's letter, he says that the bridge could be either in or outside the current UGB. Commissioner Powell participated in the river study in 1986. The City lobbied hard to keep from having any constraints on development along rivers in the UGB. When the wild and scenic rivers were designated, they set the river boundaries on the river mile at the UGB for Bend. To go back and try and unravel that law just because the City wants to put a bridge 50 feet upstream from the UGB does not make sense, particularly since during discussions of the river study, there was a lot of interest in essentially making landowners who bordered the river grant access to the public for trails, etc., all the way along the river. That was going to be done without any tax benefits, indemnification for liability or provisions for cleanup. People who owned property along the river pushed back. Commissioner Rainey said maybe we should delete the entire section on page 6 and not comment on the bridge at all. Deleting it means we are saying nothing except keeping the TSP the way it is, without the bridge on the map. Chair Irvine asked about the impact if we are silent on the bridge. Peter said that was his original proposal. Motion: Vice Chair Brown motioned to support Commissioner Rainey's position that the original language in the TSP be used and not include the additional language proposed by staff. Seconded by Commissioner Criss. Peter asked if the Commissioners also want to delete the other proposed language. Motion amended by Vice Chair Brown to exclude the bridge language in regard to page 5-29. Discussion: Commissioner Turner said we have bent over backwards to accommodate ODOT on their projects, and here is a project with Bend Parks & Rec that is not in coordination with the TSP. Peter said it is the State Scenic Waterway designation that contains a prohibition against the bridge. Commissioner Powell asked if this motion just has to do with the memorandum, page 6, under item 6, and the entire underlined paragraph starting with the City of Bend's Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. This was confirmed. Commissioner Powell felt that in that case, there is nothing in this motion that addresses goals and policies under item 5 on the previous page. Those would be a separate issue. Vice Chair Brown said that they would be omitted - everything on page 5-29 that relates to the bridge. Commissioner Powell said that on page 5-29, pedestrian walkways are mentioned. Peter said that the only place we discuss the bridge is on page 5-29. The other policies suggested by Doug White and Steve Jorgensen are not involved and do not mention the bridge at all. He would like to keep those suggestions and delete all references to the bridge. Commissioner Rainey and the Commissioners discussed where to use the proposed language, other than regarding the bridge. Vice Chair Brown clarified that his motion was 3 only regarding page 5-29 and the reference to it on page 6. Chair Irvine clarified that on page 5, the policies would remain and the other Commissioners agreed. Vote: Motion passed. Peter discussed the proposed language on page 6 regarding passing lanes in Sisters, and a submittal today by Commissioner Rainey. Motion: Commissioner Rainey moved to insert a bullet point at the end of the trigger criteria on page 4-16 and make the same change in the Tumalo segment: "Prior to design, ODOT will hold a public meeting in Sisters [Tumalo] to receive and consider the viewpoints of Sisters area residents and how they might be addressed in terms of project design and construction." Seconded by Vice Chair Brown. Vote: Motion passed. Motion: Commissioner Rainey motioned to send the TSP to the Board with the changes we have made this evening and to recommend approval. Seconded by Vice Chair Brown. Discussion: Commissioner Powell asked if anything needs to be in the TSP regarding hazmat precautions such as addressing potential for toxic spills along corridors, or do we need to make a statement about working with agencies to develop plans? Peter said that the 1998 TSP does have a hazmat section in it. There is no requirement for us to have a contingency plan. ODOT and our Road Department have requirements for vehicles transporting hazardous materials. Vice Chair Brown asked Peter about it being in the previous Plan, and Peter said we would be bringing it forward. Commissioner Powell also said that in the airport section, he did not see something about establishing training areas that will minimally impact residents. Flight training is going on all the time at the Bend airport. Peter said that the Bend airport has come up with changes in training. There is no training in Kline Falls or Sisters, but there is some in Redmond. Commissioner Powell also asked about policies in the rail section. Is there interest in encouraging commuter rail on unused freight lines? Peter said that there was a Central Oregon Area Commission on Transportation that is looking at this and following up once local governments have reviewed it. In his professional opinion, there won't be any commuter rail in the area for quite some time due to a number of reasons. Bus rapid transit would probably arrive first. We have also talked to Burlington Northern since they control the tracks, and they feel it is not cost effective. Chair Irvine said that a commuter was put in between Wilsonville and one of the Tri -Met junction areas near Beaverton. It practically took an act of Congress to do it and the line was later abandoned, but if there had been any actual usage to haul freight they would not have touched it. Peter said it would also involve upgrades to city streets to accommodate it with grade separations, etc. Nick added that if it is the will of the Planning Commission to support it in the TSP we can do that, no matter how far off it may be in the future. Vote: Motion passed. 4 IV. WORK SESSION: Draft Comprehensive Plan Action Plan - Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner. Peter said that the Comprehensive Plan Update was adopted in August last year, with a decision by the Board to uncouple the Action Plan element. The purpose of the Action Plan is to be a companion document to CDD's annual Work Plan, to reflect the types of work projects that Planning Division staff can undertake. Peter discussed revisions to the document and prioritization of projects. Commissioner Powell said he appreciated the changes. Nick said they had also discussed level of detail and whether there would be subsets of priorities. If we revisit agricultural lands, for example, that would be pretty much all we could take on for major projects. Vice Chair Brown said that we have spent a great deal of time talking about Deschutes Junction and Deschutes River Woods and we have been told these will take significant resources. Will they require the same amount of effort as reclassification of agricultural lands? Nick and Peter said that figuring out FTE hours for projects is challenging because we collaborate on so many things that it is difficult to come up with a number. Our staff consists of Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner; Terri Payne, Senior Planner; and Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner. Nick said it will be very tough to prioritize these projects. The REOA may take more time this year due to the appeal. Peter said that on Monday the Board will receive a presentation from the BLM regarding becoming a cooperating agency with the BLM and participating in sage grouse conservation. We would be the staff for that. The Board can choose the level of participation that they want. Between sage grouse, the South County Plan, REOA, DR map amendments — this gives you a context of the drag we have. Commissioner Turner asked if Peter and Nick would give an idea of FTP's for each project, just ballpark. Vice Chair Brown proposed that each Planning Commissioner be given so many votes (X's) and vote perhaps for six items, either all on one or whatever they want, so we have an initial prioritization and we can sequence by vote. Commissioner Rainey asked what would happen if he put all six votes on one item and no one else voted like that. Vice Chair Brown felt that was appropriate and the Commissioners should mark the ones they really care about. Chair Irvine suggested turning the votes in to staff by a certain date. Commissioner Powell suggested that instead of putting six or whatever votes all on one item, they could choose "x" number of items and spread the votes between them, so everyone could get their priority projects into the mix. Peter Gutowsky spoke about the significant staff resources involved in a scope of work for many of these projects. Nick said that "minimal" is up to .5 FTE, "modest" is .5 to 1.5, "significant" is over 1.5 FTE. Peter Russell is also 50% funded by the Road Department, and about 1/3 of his other time is spent on current planning applications and 2/3 on long- range planning. He still spends a fairly significant amount on coordination and attending meetings. Nick's time ranges from .25 to .5 for long-range planning. Commissioner Turner said that with that scale, he would take the six votes and put them into six FTE's, then go down the graph and put them in. Vice Chair Brown said he would like to see the Commissioners cast their votes without budget restrictions. We also may not need six votes if we are voting one per item — we may need only a smaller number. 5 Commissioner Turner said there are 22 items on the list. Staff and the Commissioners discussed the Commissioners turning in their six votes to Peter Gutowsky within a week, which Peter will tabulate and return for further discussion at the March meeting. Commissioner Klyce and Peter discussed regulations for docks in the river. Commissioner Powell said that for Scenic Waterways, the Parks Department has a say on cut and fill. There are the landscape management overlay and State restrictions as well. Commissioner Klyce wondered whether the County has authority to oversee construction of a physical structure in the water. Peter said there are State removal/fill requirements, comparable to wetlands — there are permits because of the Clean Water Act and other requirements if a dwelling is being built, for example. V. WORK SESSION: TA -12-1, Historic Landmarks Commission Amendments — Nick Lelack, Planning Director. Nick summarized the text amendments which covered members residing in the County, representing various geographic areas of the County, and a proposal to remove the language about acquiring members from unincorporated areas of the County which has always been difficult. Commissioner Rainey asked if this would give flexibility to appoint from incorporated areas, and Nick said yes. Motion: Commissioner Rainey moved to support the recommendations and forward them to the Board. Seconded by Vice Chair Brown. Vote: Motion passed. VI. PLANNING COMMISSION & STAFF COMMENTS Nick mentioned an update on the South County Plan. Also, the House today approved the Redmond rezone bill and the Governor is expected to sign that. HB 4095 is sitting in Ways & Means. He also wondered about not having the second meeting in March. On April 19 there will be a training session on historic preservation in Bend, starting at 4:45 and going until about 9:00. Commissioner Powell relayed his appreciation to Peter Russell for his work on the TSP. VII. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Resp c ully submitted, uc n r Administrative Secretary 0