Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-01-09 - Planning Commission Minutesim A A,�A.,A < I. CALL TO ORDER Community Development Departmeni 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 JANUARY 9, 2014 — 5:30 P.M. Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Bill Rainey. Members present were Vice Chair Chris Brown, James Powell, Ed Criss and Todd Turner. Absent: Hugh Palcic and Matt Lisignoli. Staff present were Nick Lelack, CDD Director; Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner; Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner; Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner; Matt Martin, Associate Planner; and Sher Buckner, Administrative Secretary. II. PUBLIC HEARING: TA -13-2, Relocate Traffic Study Requirements from Deschutes County Code (DCC) from Title 17 to Title 18 and Change the Performance Standard for New County Facilities from Level of Service (LOS) C to LOS D — Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner. Peter presented slides summarizing the application. Peter and Vice Chair Brown discussed traffic study requirements and trip generation numbers. Commissioner Powell asked Peter for more information about the trip generation rates in the ITE; Peter also compared pass -by trips (where people come through the site on their way elsewhere) and site -generated trips such as a movie theatre which is a specific destination. Vice Chair Brown wondered if there should be additional language so that accidental pass - by trips are not counted. Peter said that in terms of mitigation, the County is more interested in new trips being generated into the system. Commissioner Turner and Peter discussed application reviews, timelines and when traffic studies are required. Nick mentioned that Peter spends a lot of time with applicants so they know what to expect. Commissioner Criss asked about the traffic study done for the McDonald's in La Pine. Peter said it was originally an A & W and gas station before it became McDonald's. In the ITE, all fast food restaurants generate the same amount of trips, no matter what the company. They figured out how to get to the 49 trips by reducing the footprint, so a traffic study was not required. Commissioner Criss wondered if there is some language that needs to be added to the proposal so that something like this does not fall through the cracks again — this restaurant generates much more than 50 new trips. Peter said there are many inconsistencies in the ITE and the fast-food numbers are one example. There are no separate sections for Subway versus Dairy Queen, etc. Commissioner Turner asked how something like Mt. Bachelor is dealt with, where the trips would be generated based on weather conditions. Peter said sometimes we have to work with the applicant if there isn't a specific number available in the ITE — it could depend on something like ski lift capacity that isn't listed. The ITE works pretty well most of the time. Vice Chair Brown asked Peter to confirm that any traffic study must have a P.E.'s stamp on it. Public Testimony: Jerry Norquist testified that with the shrinking resources we have for transportation, we need to be careful with everything. When he hears that a business can come in and change the rules so they don't have to pay, it falls on the public to pay more. Sisters is a perfect example of a development going in that generates hundreds of trips a day — there has to be a way so that people who benefit from a development have to help pay for it. Peter said that if an applicant does not have to provide a traffic study, that does not get him or her off the hook for system development charges (SDCs). There is currently a base rate for pm/peak hour trips. You can have a land use that does not require a traffic study or mitigation, but you still have to pay the SDCs that the County then uses to fund improvements. This particular aspect is different than the proposal under consideration. Commissioner Powell asked if someone came in with phases of trips, each of which generated less than 50 trips, how would that be dealt with? Peter said for something like that, the whole project would be considered. Paul Blikstad spoke about the process for Fred Meyer's and their trying to get stoplight approval, which was denied. Tony Aceti said he knew of a situation in Deschutes Junction where traffic coming from the north didn't go westbound to go over an overpass, and commuter traffic especially has been diverted due to road closures, which is putting more trips into an area. Where a new business would be liable for impacts or mitigation due to extra traffic, this did not happen here. Peter said that ODOT has the authority to put up medians, which we do not control. If they are disconnecting a public road, it has to go through a public process and they have to present evidence regarding the impacts. If the project is of sufficient size, ODOT has to get land use approval from the County, so there is always an avenue for public participation. Motion: Commissioner Turner motioned to close the public hearing. Seconded by Commissioner Criss. Motion passed. Commissioner Brown compared this to the people who bring in the most sales tax — the people who can least afford to deal with the cost for 50 trips a day are the ones to pay. This is tough for encouraging people to start businesses in the County. We are creating an additional burden. Fifty trips are really easy to come up with, whether you're a barbershop or a McDonald's. Every time we institute a change in the Code that is weighted towards small businesses, we should be very careful about endorsing it. Commissioner Turner said he heard Vice Chair Brown and felt that the bigger concern was SDCs. Changing language from one section of the Code to another is just a change in status quo, and he would be in favor of forwarding this to the Board with a recommendation for approval. Commissioner Powell agreed. Vice Chair Brown agreed that SDCs were a bigger problem. Commissioner Criss agreed that SDCs were an issue. Vice Chair Brown felt that this should be forwarded to the Board with no recommendation one way or the other — we are talking about something that goes much further. Peter added that under C(3)(B), requiring a traffic report is now discretionary. Commissioner Turner asked if there is any language for truck trips — for a new gravel pit, for example — that would have more impact than cars. Peter said the roads are built to handle all types of traffic, but if there will be a lot of truck trips, a lot of slow, heavy trips, there may be a requirement for more slow lanes, for example. Commissioner Powell thanked Peter for the way he presented the information and would like to endorse the changes. SDCs are like other fees. At one point general revenue was used to fund them, and then the decision was made to change that. There were a number of developments that came through and did not pay SDCs, and someone who came along later had to make up the difference. Motion: Commissioner Powell recommended that we forward TA -13-2 as presented to the Board for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Turner. Motion passed. III. WORK SESSION: Agricultural Non -Resource Lands Draft Public Involvement Concept — Peter Gutowsky, Principal Planner; Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner; Matt Martin, Associate Planner Chair Rainey asked Nick if public comments were allowed during the work session, and Nick said it was at the Commissioners' discretion. Chair Rainey said there would be time for public comments. Peter gave a PowerPoint summary of the proposed public engagement concept. Vice Chair Brown commented that now might be a time to consider a name change for "non - resource lands." Chair Rainey suggested staff could take a look at what other areas have used for a name. Commissioner Powell suggested "adjudicated resource lands." There may also not be a finite outcome for each parcel, but general criteria could be developed. Chair Rainey felt that the term "adjudicated" indicated a judicial process. Vice Chair Brown mentioned "rural lands." Commissioner Turner suggested "unique resource lands." Peter felt that the term "resource" would be consistent with how it is used in State law. The other approach may be to go forward with the public engagement plan and see what they say. A good term may also become more apparent once the uses are considered further. Nick spoke about "high desert," too. Commissioner Turner felt he has not heard any compelling testimony as to why we would do this. What was the Board's purpose in adding this to the work plan? Why are we changing the current situation where each plan amendment is evaluated on its own merits and a decision made, rather than trying to create an over -reaching system that won't cover all of the different scenarios? Does the Board not want to deal with these issues? Nick said that the Department of State Lands' application was one trigger. We had hoped to look at House Bill 2229 but did not have the chance to do that. Jon Jinings suggested we create a plan to eliminate some uncertainty on the part of these applicants. DLCD was opposed to the next application, and they are opposed to Newland. Matt Martin and Commissioner Criss discussed the Newland and Rose applications; they may be trying to streamline their options to get included in the Urban Growth Boundary. Paul Blikstad added that everything in the EFU Zone is taken directly from state law. Commissioner Criss agreed with Commissioner Turner that perhaps the problem is between two state agencies that cannot get along. Nick said that for the Big Look, we would identify the areas and we could propose the changes — this non -resource program would be the same 3 except that property owners could make their own applications. When we found out we couldn't do 2229, it was suggested that we create a non -resource lands program. Commissioner Turner asked for clarification about plan amendments recently - the goal is to locate them within the UGB. Peter said that proximity to the City of Bend is a common factor and they are zoned EFU. Paul said that DSL did state their goal is to get inside the UGB. Commissioner Turner felt that lifestyles on non -resource lands are important, as much as those on agricultural lands. Nick said it would be helpful to know how the Commissioners feel before we update the Board in February, but there may not be a rush to make a decision on how to proceed. Nick offered to invite the Jackson County Planning Director to speak about that County's experiences. There was more discussion on application procedures and costs, how to approach the public, what we would achieve with this process. The Commissioners suggested that staff return at the next meeting with samples of materials that would be provided to the public for their input, how the public will be notified about the meetings, etc. Public Comments Eva Eagle spoke about the people who own EFU lands. Everyone needs an opportunity to comment, not just those who farm their lands. She felt that the questions are narrowly based on how to extract value from land that doesn't have agricultural value. The answers may be prejudiced and additional questions maybe desirable, such as a panel of experts on recreational industries, water, wildlife, experts who see the resources that the non - resource lands have which are not agricultural. Bruce Bowen said he does not need to have the zoning changed on his land and he is not convinced that this program is a good use of taxpayer money. The legislature threw everything that they felt needed protection under the EFU designation. People in favor of this process want their land included in the Bend UGB or the Sisters UGB. You need to give a lot of thought as to how public input is obtained so as not to appear biased. It sounds right now like staff has an opinion as to what should be done, and the public may have a different answer. There are people who bought property with the expectation that it would be protected from development because it was zoned EFU. Jerry Norquist felt that this may not be needed. He wonders who is driving this — is it developers, or people who want to put houses on their farmland? Will this help someone put a home on 40 acres? That's one thing, but we do not need urban sprawl. He also feels the name should remain "non -resource," and it will bring more people out to comment. There are so many uses for land besides agriculture, so it isn't "non-productive" if it isn't farmed. Tony Aceti felt that all situations are different. Some people may buy 40 acres for serenity; with others, there are changes in circumstances. There is a process in place if we do not go forward with this proposal. Why is the burden of proof on the applicant going through a rezone? Why doesn't the County recognize the soils and go through it? We have marginal lands here. 4 IV. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Commissioner Turner nominated Vice Chair Brown as Chair, and Chair Rainey as Vice Chair. Approved by the other Commissioners. V. PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF COMMENTS Nick said that the City of La Pine has taken over its own Planning application process. VI. ADJOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, vD Sher Buckner Administrative Secretary The video record of this meeting can be located at: hftp://deschutes.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view—id=5 5