Loading...
1996-40509-Ordinance No. 96-072 Recorded 10/17/1996t 9f��pcp9 REVIEWED tw J LEGAL COUNSEL 0155--2961 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending the Bend * A; Area General Plan Map, as amended, to Change the Plan Designation for Certain Property located in the -- Southeast One -Quarter of Section *- 17 of Township 17 South, Range 12 East of the Willamette Meridian, and Declaring an Emergency. *_ ORDINANCE 96-072 WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Sheriff's Department submitted a request for a quasi-judicial amendment to the Bend Area General Plan to change the plan designation for certain property from Residential, 6,000 square foot minimum land area per dwelling unit, to Light Industrial; WHEREAS, a hearing was held on July 23, 1996, after notice given in accordance with law, before the County Hearings Officer; WHEREAS, the Hearings Officer recommended approval of the proposed zone change; WHEREAS, the decision of the Hearings Officer has not been appealed; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUN'T'Y COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS, as follows: Section 1. Adoption of Plan Map Amendment to Change Plan Designation. The Bend Area General Plan Map adopted pursuant to Ordinance 80-216, as amended, is further amended to change the plan designation for the property described in Exhibit "A", and as depicted on Exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein from Residential, 6,000 square feet minimum land area per dwelling unit to Industrial Light. Section 2. Findings. The Board adopts as its findings and decision the Findings and Decision of the County Hearings Officer dated September 11, 1996, relating to Plan Amendment Application PA -96-5, marked Exhibit C, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. ORDINANCE NO. 96-072 1 MICROFM IL -ED -� NOV 2 P; 1996 CNE. Section 3. Severability. The provisions of this ordinance are severable. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of the ordinance or any line or area on any map is adjudged to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction that decision shall not affected the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. C".�" 01aa rN �.��1 A Section 4. Codification. County Legal Counsel shall have the authority to format the provisions contained herein in a manner that will integrate them in the County Code consistent with the Deschutes County Form and Style Manual for Board Documents. Such codification shall include the authority to make such changes, to make changes in numbering systems and to make such numbering changes consistent with interrelated codes sections. In addition, as part of codification of these ordinances, County Legal Counsel may insert appropriate legislative history references. Any legislative history references included herein are not adopted as part of the substance of this ordinance, but are included for administrative convenience and as a reference. They may be changed to correct errors and to conform to the proper style without action of the Board of County Commissioners. Section 5. Emergency. This Ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage. DATED this 16th day of October, 1996. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ATTEST: Recording Secreta ORDINANCE NO. 96-072 2 BARRY 11. SLAUGHTER, Commissioner rr ROB T L. NIPPER, CoWnissioner EXHIBIT "A" 0355-x-2968 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A portion of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (NEI/4 SEI/4) of Section Seventeen (17), Township Seventeen (17) South, Range Twelve (12) East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon, described more particularly as follows: Beginning at the center 1/4 corner of Section Seventeen (17), Township Seventeen (17), South, Range Twelve (12) East of the Willamette Meridian, thence North 89°53'48" West 1351.27 feet; thence South 00°58'51" West 467.42 feet; thence North 89°50'01" West 22.00 feet; thence South 00°12'31" West 20 feet to the true point of beginning which is a 1/2" iron rod in the approximate center line of Hardy Road; thence South 89°50'01" East, 422.95 feet; thence South 28043'54"West 48.07 feet; thence South 00°12'31" West 790.78 feet; thence North 89°49'10" West 382.75 feet; thence following an existing fence line North 00°41'15" East 361.91 feet to a point which is 6 feet more or less Northerly of an existing irrigation ditch; thence running parallel with said irrigation ditch South 65°37'12" West 54.83 feet to an existing fence; thence following said fence North 03°58'42" East 449.87 feet; thence North 00°12'31" East 45.68 feet to the centerline of Hardy Road and the termination of this line. EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE 96-072 �91�'i1`t1100A M9• 0155-29+ 9 t Property described in Exhibit A of Ordinances 96-072 and 96-073 20309 Hardy Road, Map 17-12-17D, Tax Lot 599 Scale: 1"=400',. North J � Q NJ z --D 7Z °Iw 0 Qo w N r W IWL 0 Q - J U Y U) 0 0 N 0 --D 7Z °Iw 1 0155-2970 DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES HEARINGS OFFICER$91011 72� FILE NUMBER: PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 VLr0 �i,� SEP APPLICANT: Deschutes County Sheriffs Office D 1100 NW Bond Street TE9 N Bend, Oregon 97701 OWNER: Deschutes County �9zszv REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a plan amendment and zone change from residential to Light Industrial (IL) in order to construct a law enforcement and corrections complex on property in the Bend Urban Area adjacent to the county jail. STAFF REVIEWER: HEARING DATE: RECORD CLOSED: Damian P. Syrnyk, Assistant Planner L APPLICABLE CRITERIA: July 23, 1996 July 30, 1996 A. Title 19 of the Deschutes County Code, the Bend Urban Growth Boundary Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 19.64, the Light Industrial Zone: -Section 19.64.020, Permitted Uses Chapter 19.116, Amendments, Appeals, and Procedures: -Section 19.116.010, Application -Section 19.116.020, Public Hearing on an Amendment -Section 19.116.030, Standards for Zone Change B. The Bend Area General Plan C. Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660 D. Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 �. CPage 1 W i 0f-di"Ak)C 072 II. FINDINGS OF FACT: 0 `' L 1. LOCATION: The subject property is located at 20309 Hardy Road, Bend, and is further identified as Tax Lot 599 on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 17-12-17D. The property is located adjacent to the new Deschutes County jail. 2. ZONING: The subject property is zoned SR -2 1/2 and designated urban standard density residential (6,000 square foot minimum land area) on the Bend Area General Plan. 3. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property is approximately 7.7 acres in area with a single family dwelling. The northern portion of the property is generally level with 2.4 acres in pasture. The southern portion of the property is a rolling basalt pressure ridge that is approximately 12 feet higher than the northern portion and is unimproved with natural juniper, pine and sage vegetation. A Swalley Irrigation District lateral crosses the northeast corner of the parcel. A private irrigation ditch, delivering Swalley water, crosses the parcel from east to west near the middle of the parcel. An overhead power line runs the full length of the north property line. 4. SURROUNDING LAND USES: Property north, south and west of the subject property consists of large parcels zoned SR -2 1/2 with existing dwellings and irrigated pasture. Property to the east is zoned IL and is developed with the new Deschutes County Jail, the Oregon State Police facility and the State Farm Insurance office, all abutting Highway 20. 5. PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a plan amendment and zone change from residential to light industrial in order to develop a law enforcement/corrections complex adjacent to the new county jail, consisting of a juvenile justice building, adult corrections buildings, the new Deschutes County Sheriff s Office, 911 emergency dispatch services, search and rescue operations, emergency vehicle repair and maintenance facilities and a helipad. The applicant is requesting the plan amendment and zone change because the proposed use is not permitted in the SR -2 1/2 Zone and is permitted in the IL Zone subject site plan review. The applicant has submitted a preliminary site plan showing the proposed locations of buildings, parking and landscape areas, driveways, security fencing, public utilities and locations for possible future development. The burden of proof and preliminary site plan indicate access to the subject property would be provided by extending the existing north - south frontage road paralleling Highways 97 and 20 and constructing a driveway on the southern boundary of the property through a parcel identified as Tax Lot 109 that will connect with a planned north -south connector road (hereafter referred to as the "Empire PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 2 0155-2972 connector") on the western boundary of the subject property.' The Empire connector would roughly bisect the property lying between Highways 97 and 20 on the east and O.B. Riley Road on the west and between Empire Boulevard and Cooley Road. The Highway 97/20 frontage road is a planned arterial on the Bend Urban Area Transportation Plan Map and when completed also will connect between Empire Avenue on the south and Cooley Road on the north. The Burden of Proof indicates vehicles may access the frontage road just west of the intersection of Empire Boulevard and Highway 97 or at the intersection of Highway 20 and the frontage road. The applicant anticipates that most traffic will come to the subject property from the Bend area using the Empire Boulevard intersection and will return to Bend using either the Highway 20 or Empire Boulevard intersection. The planned alignment for Hardy Road is located on the northern boundary of the subject property. However, the burden of proof indicates the proposed development does not require access from Hardy Road. The subject property is proposed to be served by city water and sewer. 6. PUBLIC AGENCY NOTICE AND COMMENTS: The Planning Division sent written notice of the public hearing to several public and private agencies and received comments from the Deschutes County Public Works Department, Environmental Health Division and Property Address Coordinator; the City of Bend Fire Department and Development Services Division; the Oregon Department of Water Resources, District 11; the Swalley Irrigation District; and US West Communications. These comments are set forth verbatim at pages 6-8 of the Staff Report and are incorporated by reference herein. 7. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS: The Planning Division sent individual mailed notice of the public hearing to owners of property located within 100 feet of the subject property. As of the date the record closed in this matter, the Planning Division had received two letters, dated July 26 and July 29, 1996, from Mikel R. and Lynn S.M. Miller and one letter, dated August 2, 1996, from Mikel R. Miller with an attachment. The July 26th and 29th letters bear a Deschutes County "received" stamps indicating they were received prior to the date the record in this matter closed on July 30, 1996. The August 2, 1996, letter bears a Deschutes County "received" stamp indicating it was received on August 2, 1996, after the record closed. Therefore, the Hearings Officer will not consider Mr. Miller's August 2, 1996, letter or attachment. 1 The record indicates the Empire connector has not yet been adopted as part of the Bend Urban Area Transportation Plan, but that its approximate location has been established by City of Bend and Deschutes County transportation officials through a "concept map" implementing a Bend Area General Plan policy identifying the need for this connector. PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 3 III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: A. Bend Area General Plan 01 t-- �G7 Plan Amendments - Procedure (page 69) �l Plan changes shall be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and statements of intent of the plan, or these guidelines shall be first changed or amended to reflect new policies. An individual requesting a change shall demonstrate that the change is warranted due to changed conditions, a mistake or other specific facts that demonstrate a public need and benefit for the change. FINDINGS: 1. Consistency With Plan Goals Objectives Policies and Statements of Intent The Hearings Officer finds the following plan goals, policies, and statements of intent are applicable to the subject proposal: General Policies and Recommendations 1. Urban Development shall be encouraged in areas where urban services can be provided and in a manner which will minimize tax costs related to necessary urban services such as schools, parks, highways, police, garbage disposal, fire protection, libraries, and other facilities and services." (Page 6) FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal to develop a law enforcement/corrections complex constitutes urban development. I further find the proposed plan amendment would permit urban development in an area where urban services can be provided and in a manner that will minimize tax costs related to such services. The subject property lies within the Bend Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), and the record indicates City of Bend water and sewer service are available to serve the property, along with police services from the Deschutes County Sheriff and fire protection from the Bend Fire Department. Moreover, the Hearings Officer finds the proposed plan amendment would allow the development of an specific urban service -- i.e., a law enforcement/corrections complex. As discussed in detail in the findings below, the applicant has submitted evidence that locating the proposed complex adjacent to the Deschutes County jail, which was recently relocated from downtown Bend, would improve the efficiency and reduce the cost to taxpayers of providing the Sheriffs law enforcement and corrections services at a single location. PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal is consistent with this plan policy. 8. Industrial areas of the community shall be located where necessary services can be provided and with good access to transportation facilities. Continuing efforts shall be made to upgrade the quality of existing and future industrial developments as the area grows. (page 7) FINDINGS: As discussed above, the Hearings Officer has found the proposed plan amendment will permit the development of a law enforcement/corrections complex in an area where necessary urban services are available and can be provided. In addition, I find the subject property has good access to transportation facilities through direct access to the Highway 97/20 frontage road which is a planned arterial. This frontage road will provide access to Cooley Road to the north, Empire Boulevard to the south and Highway 20 to the east. In addition, as discussed in detail in the findings below, the applicant has agreed to build a segment of the planned Empire connector on the western boundary of the subject property as part of the proposed development .2 For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal is consistent with this plan policy. The General Plan The availability of community services is usually a strong determinant in the location and intensity of urban land uses. Water and sewer service customarily combine to make development possible at urban densities. (page 8) FINDINGS: As discussed above, city water and sewer services are available to the subject property. The record indicates that sewer and water facilities recently were extended to serve the county jail, thus making development of the jail site and the adjacent subject property at an urban density possible. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal is consistent with this plan policy. Industrial Areas 2. Industrial areas shall be protected from incompatible commercial and residential uses. (page 49) 2 The applicant's supplemental burden of proof material indicates the applicant is in the process of attempting to obtain necessary right-of-way to construct the Empire connector from the subject property to its proposed intersection with Robal Lane to the north. PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 5 FINDINGS: The subject property currently is zoned SR -2 1/2 and abuQ1thl5_i'e 011 oned lands on the north, south and west. It abuts other IL -zoned lands on the east and south, and Highway Commercial (CH) -zoned lands are located east across Highway 20. Presently, there is no buffer between the SR -2 1/2 -zoned and developed lands and the IL -zoned and developed lands. The IL Zone permits outright and conditionally a number of traditional industrial uses as well as "public buildings." Many of the uses permitted in the IL Zone have the potential to be incompatible with adjacent commercial and residential uses, such as manufacturing and processing, truck terminals, automobile, trailer and boat sales and service, and the sale of building materials. However, the applicant has requested a plan amendment and zone change from residential to industrial in order to develop the subject property with public buildings -- i.e., a law enforcement/corrections complex. The Hearings Officer concurs with the applicant that the proposal is substantially different from the typical light industrial use in that it is much less likely to generate noise or pollution more typical of industrial uses. In addition, the proposed building elevations provided by the applicant indicate the complex would be housed in a much more visually attractive setting than more typical industrial uses. The Hearings Officer finds that because of the less industrial character of the applicant's proposed use of the subject property, the proposed change of zoning to light industrial would provide an opportunity to create a buffer between the existing and proposed light industrial and commercial development along Highways 20 and 97 and SR -2 1/2 -zoned property to the west, thus protecting the existing and future industrial uses from incompatible residential development. For these reasons, I find the proposal is consistent with this plan policy. 3. Adequate traffic circulation, off-street parking, loading, and service areas should be considered as essential to industrial development. (page 49) FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed plan amendment and zone change will allow development with adequate traffic circulation. The subject property has access to Highway 20 through the existing county jail site to the planned arterial frontage road that will provide access to Cooley Road and Empire Boulevard. In addition, the applicant has proposed to construct a segment of the planned north -south Empire connector, which will provide adequate traffic circulation for north -south traffic between Cooley Road and Empire Boulevard. The proposed plan amendment and zone change do not include a request for approval of a specific development. Any development of the subject property for the proposed law enforcement/corrections complex would be subject to site plan review which would assure that internal traffic circulation, off-street parking, loading and service areas will be adequate. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the proposed plan amendment is consistent with this plan policy. PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 6 4. Community efforts should be directed toward improving the general appearance of industrial areas so that they make a positive contribution to the environment of the community. (page 48) FINDINGS: As discussed above, the building elevations submitted by the applicant indicate the proposed law enforcement/corrections complex would be housed in buildings similar in appearance and scale to the new Deschutes County Jail, and would look substantially more attractive than more typical light industrial buildings. In addition, development of the proposed complex would be subject to site plan review, at which time the location and appearance of the buildings, parking and landscape areas, driveways, etc., would be evaluated for compliance with site plan criteria. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposed plan amendment and zone change would allow the development that would improve the general appearance of the industrial lands in this part of the Bend Urban Area. 5. Industrial development that will not impair the quality of surface or ground water or air resources is encouraged. (page 49) FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposed plan amendment and zone change would allow the subject property to be developed with a use -- i.e., a law enforcement/corrections complex -- that is not a typically industrial use and is not likely to create emissions or pollution that would impair water or air resources. Rather, it is a use that can easily be accommodated through connection to public sewer and water services. Industrial Areas - Statements of Intent of the Plan 4. New industrial development shall be encouraged to locate in areas where community services can be provided. (page 51) FINDINGS: As discussed above, the Hearings Officer has found the subject property can be served by City of Bend sewer and water services and by Deschutes County and City of Bend police and fire protection, thus meeting this plan policy. 5. Wherever industrial uses abut residential uses or residential zoning, special development standards relating to setbacks, screening, signs, and building height shall be established. (page 51) FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds any proposed development on the subject property following a rezoning to EL will meet this plan policy because the IL Zone contains special requirements and setbacks when the IL -zoned property abuts residential uses as it would here. 7. The sawtooth pattern symbolized on the General Plan indicates a flexible boundary between uses. (page 52) PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 7 FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer concurs with staffs finding that this olL5y slgmie 'the boundary between the residential and industrial zones in this part of the Bend Urban Area was intended to be flexible. The current boundary between IL zoning and the residential zoning to the west -- SR -2 1/2, RS (Urban Standard Density Residential) and UAR-10 (Urban Area Reserve -- 10-Acre Minimum) -- represents a "sawtooth" pattern. I concur with staff s conclusion that the rezoning of the subject property to IL would create another "tooth" in this pattern between Empire Boulevard and Cooley Road, consistent with this policy. Public Facilities Public facilities are those areas and improvements which accommodate or provide various government services to the people of the community. These include schools, parks, fire stations, and other facilities, such as public buildings, shop areas, solid waste disposal sites, sewer and water systems, etc. Adequate public facilities are essential to well ordered community life, sustaining and enhancing the health, safety, educational, and recreational aspects of urban living. In many ways, the adequacy, character, and the quality of public facilities express the community's collective opinion of itself and its environment. (page 52) FINDINGS: As discussed in detail in the findings below concerning need for the proposed plan amendment and zone change, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposed law enforcement/corrections complex is a public facility that is necessary to assure the area's well - ordered community life, and will sustain and enhance the health and safety of the community. Opponent Mikel Miller has argued the proposed complex is not needed at the proposed location and that its proposed size is excessive. These issues also are addressed in the findings below. Transportation Circulation Element ... A series of arterials are shown on the west side of Highway 97/20 extended north to Empire Boulevard across Highway 20 and north to Cooley Road. The purpose is to provide access to the industrial and commercial properties in the area. As the area west of Highway 20 develops, additional major streets will be needed and could take the form shown in Figure 1. (page 6, Transportation Circulation Element) FINDINGS: The record indicates that in 1993 the county designated the Highway 97/20 frontage road as a future arterial street. In addition, the record contains a copy of "Figure 1" referred to in this plan policy which shows the proposed location for the Empire connector roughly bisecting the lands lying between Highway 20 and O.B. Riley Road and between Empire Boulevard and Cooley Road. The record further indicates that the county and the City of Bend have concluded that the best location for this connector road is on the western boundary of the subject property, and accordingly the applicant has proposed to construct that portion of this connector abutting the subject property on the west. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the proposed plan PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 8 0155-29'78 amendment and the applicant's proposed law enforcement/corrections complex will assure that the development contributes to the creation and/or continuation of the arterial streets proposed for this portion of the Bend Urban Area. Empire Boulevard will also provide east -west circulation from 0. B. Riley Road to Deschutes Market Road. (page 6, Transportation Circulation Element) FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the proposed plan amendment and zone change are consistent with this language because the applicant's proposed development will have access to Empire Boulevard via the Highway 20 frontage road and the Empire connector. 25. Prior to or concurrent with rezoning of the area designated for standard and medium density residential between 0. B. Riley Road, Hardy Road, and Anderson Road (Norwood Road) [Empire Boulevard], a system of through roads like Illustration A or equivalent to it, shall be planned and, as development takes place, the roads or portions thereof shall be improved to handle the traffic from the area. (page 13, Transportation Circulation Element) FINDINGS: As discussed above, the Hearings Officer has found that the applicant's proposed law enforcement/corrections complex will use Empire connector and the Highway 20 frontage road for access to Empire Boulevard, and the applicant has proposed to build a segment of this road network by constructing a driveway through the Deschutes County Jail property from the Highway 20 frontage road to the proposed Empire connector and the segment of the Empire connector abutting the subject property's western property boundary? For these reasons, I find the applicant's proposal is consistent with this plan policy. PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT Urban Sewer Policies 2. The City and County shall encourage development of serviced land prior to unserviced or require the extension of sewer lines as part of any development within the IUGB. 3 The applicant has argued in supplemental burden of proof material that this plan policy does not apply to the subject property because it is not actually located within the geographic area described in the policy since Hardy Road currently dead -ends at the western boundary of the subject property. The Hearings Officer disagrees and finds that the intent of this plan policy was to include all of the land lying between Highways 97 and 20 and O.B. Riley Road and between Empire Boulevard and Cooley Road. PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 9 X155-29'79 5. All development within the IUGB shall be sewered or provide for sewers through a binding sewer service agreement with the City. (page 4, Public Facilities Element, Bend Area General Plan) FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposed plan amendment and zone change would allow development on land served by City of Bend sewer facilities, consistent with this plan policy. In addition, development of the subject property for the proposed law enforcement/corrections complex would require connection to the city's sewer facilities in accordance with city standards and specifications. I find the applicant will be required to execute a sewer and water agreement with the City of Bend to obtain sewer service, thus meeting this plan policy. Public Buildings and Facilities The City acquired new public works shop facilities that will be adequate for many years. Deschutes County constructed a new public works complex on SE 27th Street to serve the urban and rural parts of the county. (page 12, Public Facilities Element) The County Courthouse and various administrative offices are located in several buildings at the north end of the downtown area. The county owns land in this area to expand its facilities. The Bend Metro Parks and Recreation District offices are also located in the north end of downtown adjacent to the river. Maintaining the City, County, and Park District administrative functions downtown will help the community focus on the enhancement of downtown. In 1991 Deschutes County received approval from the voters to construct a new correctional facility for minimum and medium security inmates. The facility will be located near Hwy. 20 in the north part of the urban area. (page 13, Public Facilities Element) Public Building Policy 1. The City and County shall encourage governmental offices to locate in downtown. (page 13, Public Facilities Element) FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer concurs with the applicant's observation that the above policies reflect the city's and county's intention to maintain the county's administrative functions in downtown Bend but that the county's correctional facilities may be located in a new part of the urban area where sufficient land is available. I further find the applicant's proposed plan amendment and zone change are consistent with these policies by allowing the addition of a juvenile justice/correctional facility and additional adult correctional facilities adjacent to the county jail. PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 10 0155-2980 Although it could be argued that the county's "administrative functions" and "governmental offices" which were intended by this plan policy to be located in downtown Bend should include the Sheriffs Office which is proposed to be moved to the subject property, the Hearings Officer finds -- as discussed in detail in the findings below -- that the applicant has demonstrated a public need to site the Sheriffs Office within the proposed law enforcement/corrections complex in order to improve the efficiency of delivery of the Sheriff s law enforcement and corrections services.4 Urbanization Policies Within the IUGB, the following policies will apply to the conversion of urbanizable land to urban land. 1. New development should locate in areas where facilities are available or can be provided at least cost. (page 19) FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal is consistent with this plan policy because the subject property is located in an area where public sewer and water services are available and can be provided at least cost through the applicant's construction of and connection to them. In addition, the record indicates the subject property is served by the Deschutes County Sheriffs Office for police protection and by the Bend Fire Department for fire protection. 2. New developments shall pay the full cost of providing urban service if the development occurs prior to the City's or County's planned capital improvements. (page 19) FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal can be consistent with this plan policy if the applicant is required to provide and/or pay for all needed public services and improvements to serve the subject property as a condition of development. 3. Within the IUGB, vacant lands passed over by development shall be encouraged to develop prior to other lands within the boundary. (page 20) FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds that this policy is not applicable because the subject property is not vacant, having an existing residence located on it. " The Hearings Officer notes that the 911 emergency dispatch center currently is located away from the downtown Bend area, as is the Sheriffs vehicle maintenance facility which is located at the county's public works complex on S.E. 27th Street. Thus, the proposed plan amendment and zone change would allow development of the subject property to consolidate all of these related law enforcement and corrections services in one centralized location. PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 11 155-2981 4. Growth in the Bend Area shall be managed through the cooperative efforts of the City of Bend and Deschutes County, and shall be in accordance with the plans, timing, phasing, and financing of public facilities and services. (page 20) FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this policy directs the City of Bend and Deschutes County to coordinate efforts in the planning, timing, phasing, and financing of public facilities and services. I further find this cooperation and coordination has been and will be assured through joint review of the applicant's proposed plan amendment and zone change by both the city and the county, as well as the requirement that the subject property be developed concurrently with the provision of adequate water and sewer facilities and with the extensions of planned road facilities to serve the subject property. 5. Future urban development shall be contained within the geographic limits of the IUGB. (page 20) FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer find the applicant's proposal is consistent with this plan policy because the subject property lies within the acknowledged urban growth boundary of the City of Bend -- the "IUGB." 6. The City, County, and special districts shall work toward the most efficient and economical method for providing specific urban services to the area within the IUGB. In the long run, the City is the logical provider of such services. (page 20) FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with this plan policy because it proposes a change of zoning and plan designation that would allow development of a county facility served by city water and sewer service. 7. The Plan shall encourage the development of vacant lands that have urban services before the extension of services beyond presently served areas. (page 20) FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal is consistent with this policy because the applicant proposes the change of zoning and plan designation in order to redevelop the subject property with a juvenile correctional facility which will be served by city sewer and water services recently extended to the adjacent Deschutes County Jail. 8. No new service districts shall be created within the IUGB to provide sewer or water service without the concurrence of the City and County. (page 20) FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal is consistent with this plan policy because no new service districts are proposed. PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 12 2. Changed Conditions. 0155-2982 FINDINGS: At the outset, the applicant has raised the issue of whether the comprehensive plan's requirement that a plan amendment be warranted by "changed conditions" contemplates proof of changed conditions since the plan was adopted. The applicant correctly notes that the plan language identifying the circumstances under which plan amendments are appropriate contains no such limitation. The applicant also relies on the following language in the preamble to the plan's amendment provisions: "Plan amendments will be necessary as time passes and conditions change. As stated at the outset, this plan is intended to be a guide for the future growth of the community. It should be subject to periodic review and should be flexible, but not so flexible as to be meaningless as a statement of community policy. Changes in the Plan should be made in light of considerations relating to all or part of the community, rather than to who owns the property and is he a `good' guy or a `bad' guy." (Italicized emphasis added.) The applicant also correctly notes that recent hearings officer decisions on plan amendment requests in the Bend Urban Area have not consistently required that applicants demonstrate unanticipated changed circumstances in order to justify a plan amendment. The Hearings Officer concurs that the above -quoted plan amendment language contemplates flexibility in revising the plan as conditions warrant. However, I find that limiting the "changed conditions" warranting a plan amendment to those not anticipated when the plan was adopted is necessary to assure that the plan map's designations do not become meaningless in periods of rapid population growth and development pressure.' Consequently, I find that I must evaluate the "changed conditions" identified by the applicant as warranting the proposed plan amendment to determine whether or not they were contemplated by the plan's designation of the subject property. The applicant has listed the following circumstances as "changed conditions" warranting the requested plan amendment from standard density residential to light industry: 1. the legislative amendment to the plan to include the Empire connector road to serve lands located between Highways 97 and 20 and O.B. Riley Road, separating and isolating the subject property from other SR -2 1/2 -zoned property to the west and improving access to the subject property; 5 The Hearings Officer is aware that a number of lands within the Bend UGB have plan map designations allowing greater density or intensity of development than the property's current zoning allows. This divergent map designation/zoning illustrates the plan's recognition that certain changes in land use type and intensity will be needed on these lands as the community grows. However, I find their existence also strongly suggests that any changes to the plan should be based upon growth or other circumstances not anticipated by the plan. PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 13 0155-2983 2. the legislative amendments to the plan for the Bend Parkway and the Highway 20 frontage road, locating the northern terminus of the Parkway close to the subject property and likely requiring an extension of the Empire connector road to the intersection of Highway 20 and Robal Lane; 3. the legislative amendments to the plan to change the street network for the part of the northern Bend Urban Area surrounding the intersection of Highways 97 and 20, including the designation of the Highway 20/97 frontage road that adjoins the new county jail as a future arterial which, in combination with the Empire connector, will allow access to the subject property consistent with development at urban densities; 4. the legislative amendments to the Bend Urban Area Zoning Ordinance to allow public buildings as uses permitted in the IL Zone subject to the site plan review; 5. recommendations of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) for the Bend Urban Area General Plan update that the part of the Bend urban area in which the subject property is located should be developed as a mixed-use zoning district, contemplating a mix of industrial, commercial and residential uses; 6. extension of the city's sewer system to serve the northern part of the Bend Urban Area in which the subject property is located, and the related legislative amendment to the plan and zoning ordinance requiring connection to sewer for SR -2 1/2 and RL -zoned properties within the urban area which are subdivided into three or more lots or are developed for urban density uses, thus making uneconomical low density development of lands zoned SR -2 1/2; 7. rapid increase in the population of the Bend Urban Area creating an increased need for law enforcement and corrections services; 8. rapid increase in juvenile crime rate creating an increased need for secure juvenile correctional facilities; 9. the cessation of residential use on the subject property; 10. increase in traffic on Highway 20 east of the subject property as the result of the development of large commercial retail facilities, making the subject property no longer suitable for residential development; 11. the partitioning of the original split -zoned (SR -2 1/2 and IL) parcel of which the subject property was a part, separating the IL -zoned fire district property to the north from the subject property; and 12. the development of the county jail on property adjacent to the subject property. PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 14 0155-2984 Opponent Mikel Miller argues that none of these circumstances constitutes "changed conditions" justifying the proposed plan amendment. Specifically, he argues: 1) the changes to the transportation network in this part of the Bend Urban Area were contemplated; 2) the designation of the Empire connector is not inconsistent with low-density residential development of the subject property and surrounding lands; 3) the addition of "public buildings" to the list of uses permitted in the EL zone and the CAC's recommendations are irrelevant; and 4) the extension of sewer service to the vicinity of the subject property and the requirement that urban -density development connect to sewer do not justify a plan amendment from residential to industrial. The Hearings Officer concurs with Mr. Miller that not all of the circumstances cited by the applicant constitute "changed conditions" warranting a plan amendment. I agree that the CAC's recommendation, not yet formalized by an amendment to the plan designation for the subject property, does not constitute a changed condition. I find that the increase in population and crime rates, as well as the increase in traffic on Highway 20 due to the development of the Mountain View Mall, the Target store and other highway commercial centers, was not unanticipated when the plan was adopted. I further find the cessation of the residential use of the subject property is not a changed condition since the residence is still located on the property and its use as a residence could resume at any time. Finally, I fail to see how the partition of the subject property from the IL - zoned fire district property to the north represents a changed condition justifying the proposed plan amendment for the subject property. However, the Hearings Officer finds that three factors cited by the applicant do constitute changed conditions warranting the proposed plan amendment. The addition of "public buildings" to the uses permitted in the IL Zone in order to allow construction of the county jail adjacent to the subject property occurred after the plan was adopted and has facilitated the creation of a law enforcement/corrections complex in this part of the Bend Urban Area. In addition, the changes to the transportation network in this part of the Bend Urban Area coupled with the extension of city sewer service -- circumstances that were not contemplated when the plan was adopted -- have contributed to and precipitated a significant change in the character of this part of the Bend Urban Area. What once was relatively rural land undeveloped or developed with low- density, non -urban uses has begun to emerge as a major commercial and light industrial area. I concur with the applicant and staff that the SR -2 1/2 -zoned lands in the Bend Urban Area in general, and in the area of the subject property in particular, are no longer suitable for low-density residential development due to these changes and to the expense of connecting required sewer service for large -lot subdivisions. I find these changes warrant the development of the subject property for urban uses at urban densities. I also concur that the identification of the need for and location of the Empire connector between Highway 97 and 20 and O.B. Riley Road and its ultimate construction will have the effect creating a logical division between lands to the east of the connector developing with commercial and light industrial uses and lands to the west of the connector which ultimately may be developed for urban -density residential use. PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 15 61155-2985 The question remains whether these changed conditions warrant a plan amendment from urban standard density residential to the requested light industry. For the following reasons, the Hearings Officer finds that they do. Virtually all of the land lying north of Empire Boulevard, east of the proposed Empire connector and west of Highways 97 and 20 currently has plan designations and zoning for either highway commercial or light industry. The commercial zoning and designation is along the highways due to the high visibility and easy access required for commercial uses. Lands to the west of the proposed Empire connector have plan designations and zoning of either low- density residential or urban reserve. The subject property will have good access to Highway 20 from the frontage road and driveway proposed to be constructed on the southern property boundary, as well as from the Empire connector when it is constructed and connected between Empire Boulevard and Robal Lane. However, it will not have the highway visibility necessary for highway commercial -type development. Given the existing and proposed development of lands to the east of the subject property for light industrial uses, the Hearings Officer finds the appropriate urban -use plan designation for the property is light industry. In addition, as discussed in the findings above, the proposed Empire connector provides a logical division between light industrial and residential lands. And, as discussed in the findings below, the proposed law enforcement/corrections complex will have significantly less impact on surrounding lands than would a large commercial use on the property or more typical light industrial uses. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant has met the burden of proving changed conditions warranting the proposed plan amendment from urban standard density residential to light industry. 3. Mistake. FINDINGS: In supplemental burden of proof material, the applicant argues the proposed plan amendment also is justified by a mistake in the original SR -2 1/2 zoning. This argument is based upon plan language to the effect that this zone was intended to cover lands within the Bend UGB but outside the "RJGB" -- i.e., the acknowledged Bend UGB. The applicant correctly notes that the subject property is within the "IUGB." The Hearings Officer finds this argument does not support a finding that the plan designation of the subject property for urban standard density residential development was a mistake. The plan indicates this plan designation was designed for lands which can be served by community water and sewer systems. Although city sewer and water were not available to the subject property when the plan was developed, the plan designation of urban standard density residential contemplates that such services would eventually be available, probably due to the subject property's proximity to Highways 20 and 97. PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 16 4. Public Need for and Benefit of the Change. FINDINGS: The applicant's argument that there is a public need for and benefit from the proposed plan amendment is two-pronged: 1) the community needs and will benefit from the centralized law enforcement/corrections complex proposed to be developed on the subject property; and 2) there is a need for additional industrial -zoned land in the Bend Urban Area. Each of these arguments is addressed separately below. a. Centralized Law Enforcement/Corrections Complex. Following is a discussion of each of the identified needs for and benefits from developing the proposed law enforcement/correctional facility adjacent to the existing county jail and the evidence in the record addressing those needs/benefits: 1) the community needs additional juvenile correctional facilities to house juvenile offenders and to provide a courtroom for adjudication of juvenile law violation and dependency matters; The applicant's evidence indicates that presently the county has seven juvenile beds in its existing juvenile correctional facility, that seven beds are often an insufficient number, and that when the population exceeds the seven available beds Deschutes County juvenile offenders must be transported 135 miles to the Klamath County juvenile facility. Deschutes County juvenile offenders housed in Klamath Falls must then be transported back to Bend for court appearances. Lt. Greg Brown of the Deschutes County Sheriff's office testified that he was involved in the planning for and development of the existing juvenile correctional facility in downtown Bend. According to Lt. Brown, the proposed 72 -bed juvenile facility was planned to accommodate future growth and would be at fifty percent capacity -- 36 juvenile offenders -- within its first year of operation. He stated that until the 72 -bed capacity is filled with Deschutes County juvenile offenders, the available beds could be leased to other jurisdictions, providing revenue to the county. The applicant's evidence also indicates that presently the county does not have a juvenile courtroom and uses the Board of County Commissioners' hearing room for juvenile proceedings, often presenting scheduling conflicts. Opponent Mikel Miller testified at the public hearing that based upon his experience appearing in circuit and juvenile court matters in Deschutes County during the last two years, he does not believe there is a need for additional juvenile corrections facility beds and that a twenty -bed facility built on the site of the existing juvenile correctional facility would be sufficient. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's evidence concerning the need for additional juvenile correctional facility beds and for a juvenile courtroom is more persuasive than Mr. Miller's evidence. The record indicates Lt. Brown has been involved with juvenile corrections in the county PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 17 01 55-4 9 at least since the existing juvenile corrections facility was constructed in the mid -1980's and that he is very familiar with the population of juvenile offenders requiring secure custody and the cost to the county of transporting to and housing juvenile offenders in Klamath County. Accordingly, I find the applicant has met the burden of showing a need for additional juvenile correctional facility space and for a juvenile courtroom. 2) the community will beneftt from providing a single public law enforcement/corrections complex that will facilitate sharing a single, central secure area, using shared transpor- tation and support facilities such as kitchen and laundry facilities, and coordinating juvenile and adult services such as corrections, probation, and work release. The applicant's evidence, including its burden of proof and Lt. Brown's testimony, indicates the county can provide more efficient and less costly corrections services by locating the juvenile correctional facility adjacent to the existing adult jail. For example, placing the two facilities at the same location would allow the use of shared kitchen, laundry and office and technical support facilities, and physical plant. The applicant's evidence also indicates the Sheriff s Office is responsible for staffing both the county jail and the juvenile facility. Therefore, the Sheriff would be able to use Sheriff s Office personnel assigned to work at the county jail to provide supervision and care for juvenile offenders at the adjacent juvenile facility. Mr. Miller has argued that there is no need for or benefit from placing the juvenile facility adjacent to the adult jail because there is no connection between the two facilities and they will not share staff. Again, because of Lt. Brown's expertise and history of involvement with juvenile and adult corrections in Deschutes County, and his familiarity with current county corrections operations and costs, the Hearings Officer finds his testimony and the evidence presented by the applicant more persuasive. Therefore, I find that the applicant has met the burden of proving that there is need for and benefit from providing juvenile and adult correctional facilities at a central location. 3) the community needs a new courtroom to accommodate the new judicial position created by the State of Oregon, and moving the Sheriff's Office out of its present location in the Justice Building and onto the subject property will allow an additional courtroom to be constructed in the Justice Building. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposed plan amendment will provide a benefit to the community by allowing the development of an additional courtroom in the Justice Building for the new judge. 4) the community will benefit from having the Sheriff's Office functions located in a central location. The applicant's evidence indicates that presently the functions of the Sheriffs Office corrections staff are divided between the Justice Building in downtown Bend and the county jail adjacent to the PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 18 subject property, and consequently this is not the most efficient operation. In response, Mr. Miller argues that the Sheriffs Office will not in fact be sited on the subject property but rather on the adjacent IL -zoned parcel on which the jail is located. He also argues that in any event Sheriffs Office personnel will continue to be split between the county jail site and the Justice Building due to the need for security for adult criminal defendants required to appear in the downtown courtrooms. He therefore argues that moving the Sheriffs Office to the parcel adjacent to the subject property is not a benefit to the community justifying the proposed plan amendment. The Hearings Officer is aware that Sheriffs Office staff consists of patrol officers, corrections officers, detectives, civil officers and support staff. The patrol officers spend the vast majority of their time in their vehicles. The remaining staff spend the majority of their time either in the jail or in the Sheriffs Office. I am also aware that a considerable number of adult offender court appearances are related to arraignments rather than trials. As discussed in the findings below, the county jail now has a video arraignment room which permits arraignments at the jail without the need to transport inmates downtown. Consequently, I find that while Sheriffs Office personnel will continue to be required to transport inmates to the Justice Building downtown, the number of trips will be reduced by the presence of the video arraignment room. Therefore, I concur with the applicant that locating the Sheriffs Office adjacent to the county jail and the proposed juvenile corrections facility will improve the efficiency of the Sheriffs Office operation by allowing the majority of Sheriffs Office personnel to spend the majority of their work time in a central location, thereby conferring a public benefit. 5) the subject property will provide a location for a video arraignment room for adult jail prisoners, as well as cashier facilities for the payment of fines and bail, saving the costs of transporting prisoners to the Justice Building in downtown Bend and eliminating the need for customers to travel to the Justice Building to transact business there. Mr. Miller argues that the adult jail already has a video arraignment room and that any cost -savings achieved by not having to transport jail inmates to arraignments at the Justice Building downtown would be made up by the additional cost of attorneys, court staff and witnesses having to travel to the jail for arraignments. As discussed in the findings above, the Hearings Officer finds that the provision of a video arraignment room at the jail, coupled with locating the Sheriffs Office adjacent to the jail and video arraigment room, will allow more efficient use of Sheriffs Officer personnel time. Although Mr. Miller makes a good point concerning the inconvenience and cost to other persons having to travel to the proposed law enforcement/corrections complex from downtown Bend, I find that inconvenience is balanced by the public convenience provided by locating all Sheriffs Office and corrections functions in one central location with good traffic circulation and adequate parking. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds that the applicant has met the burden of proving a public need for and benefit from the proposed plan amendment by providing additional PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 19 juvenile corrections beds, a juvenile courtroom, space downtown for a new judicial courtroom, and cost savings and operational efficiencies in locating the juvenile and adult correctional facilities at a central location. b. Need for Additional Industrial -Zoned Land. The applicant argues the proposed plan amendment is warranted by a demonstrated shortage of industrial -zoned lands in the Bend Urban Area available and suitable for the applicant's proposed use. The Hearings Officer agrees. In determining whether there is a need for additional industrial -zoned lands, the Hearings Officer finds it is appropriate to examine several factors, including: 1) the current inventory of industrial - zoned lands; 2) the current and/or historic rate of absorption of those lands through development; 3) the availability of industrial -zoned lands for development generally; and 4) the suitability of such lands for development of the particular use proposed by the applicant, considering its particular site and locational requirements and operating characteristics.6 The applicant submitted an analysis of industrial lands in the Bend Urban Area, included in Exhibits B and C to the application. These exhibits indicate that as of August, 1995, there were 774 acres of industrial -zoned land in the urban area, but that with the removal of approximately 254 acres of land the applicant believes are neither suitable nor available for industrial development, the total amount of available industrial -zoned lands is approximately 520 acres. The record indicates that the absorption rate for industrial lands between 1984 and 1995 was approximately 30 acres per year. Thus, assuming that all of the industrial -zoned lands identified by the applicant as not available or suitable for development were properly excluded from the inventory and further assuming the rate of absorption remains the same, the current industrial lands inventory would be absorbed in a little over 17 years -- slightly less than the twenty-year supply of industrial lands required by OAR 660- 09-025. The Hearings Officer finds this evidence, while showing a potential long-term shortage of industrial -zoned lands, does not in and of itself provide a compelling argument for rezoning the subject property. 6 I concur with the applicant that, where, as here, the record indicates there are compelling reasons to believe the subject property, if redesignated and rezoned for industrial uses, will be developed with the proposed law enforcement/corrections complex, it is neither necessary nor appropriate for me to analyze the proposed plan amendment and zone change from the perspective of the need for lands suitable for more intensive industrial uses which would be permitted in the IL Zone. See Brown v Cole Inc v. City of Estacada. 21 Or LUBA 392 (1991). PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 20 In addition, the Hearings Officer finds that "public buildings" are permitted uses in several zones other than the IL Zone, including the CC (Convenience Commercial), CH (Highway Commercial), CG (General Commercial), IP (Industrial Park), and newly -created PF (Public Facilities) Zones. ' Nevertheless, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed law enforcement/corrections complex has rather unique site requirements and operational characteristics necessitating the rezoning and redesignation of the subject property to IL to accommodate the proposed use. As discussed in detail in the findings above, I have found that the applicant has demonstrated a public need for a larger juvenile corrections facility, and in particular a public need to place that facility in proximity to the existing adult jail to improve the efficiency and reduce the costs of providing county correctional services. Because of this demonstrated need, I find that, based upon the industrial lands inventory and analysis submitted by the applicant, there are no industrial -zoned lands within the Bend Urban Area, that are suitable for the applicant's proposed use in light of its unique locational requirements. Therefore, I find the applicant has demonstrated a public need to redesignate and rezone the subject property to IL. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant has met the burden of proving a public need for the proposed plan amendment on the basis of a shortage of industrial -zoned lands available and suitable for the applicant's proposed use. B. Title 19 of the Deschutes County Code, the Bend Urban Area Zoning Ordinance 1. Chapter 19.116, Amendments, Appeals and Procedures. This Ordinance may be amended by changing the boundaries of zones or by changing any other provisions thereof, whenever the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare requires such an amendment. Such a change may be proposed by the County Commission on its own motion, or by motion of the Planning Commission or by petition set forth in ORS 254.310. Any proposed quasi-judicial amendment or change shall first be submitted to the Hearings Officer and the Hearings Officer shall, with 40 days after a hearing, recommend to the County Commissioner's approval, disapproval or modifications of the proposed amendment. All legislative changes shall be made to ORS 215.110 and 215.060. 7 The record indicates the new Public Facilities Zone was adopted, and "correctional facilities" were included in the list of uses permitted in that zone, after this application was submitted and the day after the public hearing in this matter. While a redesignation and rezoning of the subject property to the Public Facilities Zone would allow the same type of development contemplated by the applicant, the Hearings Officer finds there is no reason to deny this application on the basis of the newly -created zone inasmuch as the proposed use also is allowed in the proposed IL Zone. PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 21 a. Section 19.116.030, Standards for Change. The burden of proof is upon the one seeking change. The degree of that burden increases proportionately with the degree of impact of the change which is sought. The applicant shall in all cases establish: A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan. Speci- fically, the change is consistent with the plan's intent to promote an orderly pattern and sequence of growth. FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found that the applicant's proposed plan amendment from urban standard density residential to light industry is consistent with the comprehensive plan. For the same reasons, I find the applicant's proposal to change the zoning of the subject property from SR -2 1/2 to EL is consistent with the plan. I find the applicant has demonstrated the proposed zone change will promote an orderly pattern and sequence of growth by allowing the subject property to develop with an urban use -- a law enforcement/corrections complex -- served by urban services including city water and sewer and adequate transportation facilities. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal meets this criterion. B. That the change will not interfere with existing development, development potential or value of other land in the vicinity of the proposed action. FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, lands in the vicinity of the subject property include those to the east developed with light industrial and commercial uses, and lands to the north, west and south that are either undeveloped or are developed with very low-density residential uses. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal to rezone the subject property from SR -2 1/2 to IL will not interfere with the existing or potential development or value of lands to the east along Highway 20. That is because these lands are already developed with uses to which the proposed law enforcement/corrections complex will be comparable in scale and operating characteristics and which will be consistent with the existing uses. The Hearings Officer finds the primary issues raised by the applicant's proposed zone change concern whether the proposed law enforcement/corrections complex will interfere with the existing development, development potential and value of the low-density residential lands to the west. Specifically, opponents Mikel and Lynn Miller have raised three objections, discussed below. 1. Buffering. The Millers have argued the applicant's proposed development will remove the existing buffer created by the subject property between their property and other residential lands west of the subject property and the industrial uses along Highways 20 and 97. There is no question the subject property as currently developed provides a buffer of relatively undeveloped land. PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 22 However, as discussed above, the subject property has a plan designation for urban standard density residential, indicating it is planned for development at urban densities and will not remain in its current state indefinitely. Moreover, as discussed above, the Hearings Officer concurs with staffis and the applicant's analysis that once the north -south Empire connector is constructed between Highways 20 and 97 and O.B. Riley Road, it will create a logical division between the industrial- and commercial -zoned lands adjacent to Highway 20 and the low-density residential land to the west. I also find that the proposed law enforcement/corrections complex, if developed as proposed in the applicant's preliminary site plan and burden of proof, will look more like a business campus and will serve as a a physical and visual buffer between future residential development on the SR -2 1/2 land and the existing and the future industrial and commercial uses along Highway 20. The Hearings Officer understands the Millers' concerns about the presence of a law enforcment/correctional facility complex and its clients and visitors near their residential neighborhood. However, this situation currently exists between the county jail and the SR -2 1/2 - zoned subject property. If the subject property were to develop with urban density residences, as contemplated by the plan, many of those residences would literally back up to the existing fenced jail yard with no buffer except a security fence. I find it would be much more appropriate to buffer the existing and proposed correctional facilities from the existing and future residential uses to the west by moving the boundary of the industrial -zoned land west to the Empire connector and using this future arterial and the proposed law enforcement/corrections complex as physical and visual barriers between the commercial and industrial uses along Highway 20 and the existing residential uses. 8 2. Property Values. With respect to the impact on property values from the proposed plan amendment and zone change and development of the subject property for a law enforcement/corrections complex, the applicant argues that land in the vicinity of the subject property will increase in value as it redevelops at the urban standard residential density contemplated in the comprehensive plan designation when sewer and water are available, and that the applicant's extension of sewer and water to the area will make such urban -density development feasible. Opponents Mikel and Lynn Miller respond that: "[t]he value of the land as presently zoned exceeds the possible value from redevelopment as RS, so there is little potential for redevelopment until the Bend price structure alters significantly. Land which is already zoned RS can be purchased cheaper than the land around this parcel... The value of the surrounding land will be seriously damaged." 8 However, the Hearings Officer does concur with the Millers that placing a helipad in the proposed location at the northeastern corner of the subject property may create unnecessary conflicts with neighboring residences. I find that the appropriateness of the proposed helipad location should be carefully examined at the time of site plan review. PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 23 0155-2993 The Millers have offered no evidence from a professional appraiser to substantiate their claims that there is no economic potential for redevelopment of the subject property at standard residential density, that 7.7 acres of RS -zoned property is less valuable than an equal amount of RS -zoned property, or that the presence of the proposed law enforcement/corrections complex will lower the value of property in their neighborhood. 9 Notwithstanding Mr. Miller's description of the subject property and surrounding properties as a "unique rural environment existing within the urban growth boundary," the property is planned for urban -density development. The Hearings Officer finds that in light of the availability of city water and sewer to the SR -2 1/2 -zoned lands in the vicinity of the subject property, and their plan designation as urban standard density residential, their future redevelopment at urban densities is inevitable. And based upon the preliminary site plan and building elevation drawings submitted by the applicant, I further find the appearance of the proposed law enforcement and correctional facility structures and their associated parking and landscape area will resemble an office building complex similar to many such developments adjacent to residential uses throughout the Bend Urban Area. Therefore, I am persuaded that the applicant's proposal will not interfere with existing or future development or the value of neighboring SR -2 1/2 -zoned properties. 3. Traffic Impacts. The applicant has submitted a traffic study (Exhibit D to the land use application) that indicates the proposed law enforcement/correctional facility will generate approximately the same number of vehicle trips and will have about the same impact on public road facilities as an urban -density subdivision with approximately five units per acre developed on the subject property as contemplated by its urban standard density residential plan designation. The traffic study indicates that if the subject property were developed with a residential subdivision at the maximum density allowed under its plan designation, and reducing the gross acreage by lands customarily removed for streets, the subject property could be developed with approximately thirty- six standard 6,000 square foot residential lots. The Institute of raffic Engineer's (ITE) Manual projects that each single-family dwelling generates approximately 11 daily vehicle trips, for a total of approximately 403 average daily vehicle trips (ADT's) on weekdays and 566 ADT's on Saturdays. The ITE Manual projects that the same property developed with a light -industrial facility would generate approximately 474 ADT's on weekdays and 226 ADT's on Saturdays. The traffic study indicates that comparing combined weekly ADT's from development of the subject property for single-family residences (2875 ADT's) and light -industrial uses (2800 ADT's), there would be virtually no difference in traffic impacts 9 Mr. Miller submitted a letter from Ron Ross, an associate broker with Re/Max Manzanita Properties, expressing Mr. Ross' opinion concerning the effect of industrial uses on adjoining residential properties. However, that letter was submitted after the record in this matter closed and therefore is it not a part of this record. In any event, state law provides that no one other than a certified real estate appraiser may offer an opinion about real property value except in tax assessment cases. ORS 674.100. PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 24 0155-2994 between the development permitted under the current plan designation and that proposed by the applicant. The Millers have responded to the applicant's evidence with two arguments. First, Mr. Miller asserts that the subject property is unlikely to develop at RS density because of current market conditions. However, as discussed in the findings above, he has submitted no expert testimony or evidence supporting his claims concerning the relative valuation of the subject property for low - and standard -density development. In addition, the Millers have expressed concerns about potential traffic impacts from the applicant's proposal on Hardy Road and its intersection with O.B. Riley Road, which they assert is dangerous. However, the applicant's traffic study and burden of proof indicate the applicant's proposal would not require access from Hardy Road. Rather, it would have its primary access from Highway 20 via the driveway the Empio be re the -southern pars of which the of the subject property, and a secondary access Pire connector applicant proposes to construct as part of any development of the property. Based on the evidence in the record, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal will not unduly burden the affected transportation facilities, and that the traffic impacts generated by the proposed development will not interfere with existing or potential development of adjacent lands. To the contrary, I find the construction of streets proposed by the applicant will benefit surrounding properties. For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal meet this criterion. C. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone classification. FINDINGS: Section 19.64.010 provides the following purpose statement for the IL Zone: "This zone is intended to provide for those heavier commercial and light industrial uses located in existing built-up areas of the City." As discussed in the findings above, the vicinity of the subject property includes undeveloped lands and lands developed with low-density residences, as well as commercial and industrial uses along Highways 20 and 97, including the existing county jail, the State Police Office, the State Farm Insurance Office and a number of other commercial and light industrial south and east of the subject property along the two state highways. The Hearings Officer therefore finds the area surrounding the subject property is a "built-up" area within the Bend Urban Area. The applicant has proposed a use that is permitted in the IL Zone -- "public buildings." The Hearings Officer finds the buildings and uses proposed by the applicant -- correctional facilities, courts, offices, and accessory uses -- are similar in size, scale and operating characteristics to the PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 25 0155-2995 commercial and the light industrial uses intended for the EL Zone. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal meets this criterion. D. That the change will result in the orderly and efficient extension or provision of public services. Also, that the change is consistent with the County's policy for provision of public facilities. FINDINGS: The record indicates city water and sewer service have been extended to the boundary of the subject property as a result of development of the adjacent county jail, and thus are available for connection to the subject property. The applicant proposes primary access for the subject property from Highway 20 via the frontage road and the driveway to be constructed along the southern property boundary. In addition, the applicant proposes a secondary access from the Empire connector once it is completed between Empire Boulevard and Robal Lane. The applicant has proposed to dedicate the necessary right-of-way and to construct the portion of the Empire connector abutting the western boundary of the subject property with development of the property. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal meets this criterion. E. That there is a proof of a change of circumstances or a mistake in the original zoning. FINDINGS: 1. Mistake. As discussed in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found that the original plan designation of the subject property for urban standard density residential was not a mistake. The applicant has argued the current SR -2 1/2 zoning was a mistake because language in the comprehensive plan's urbanization policies states the SR -2 1/2 Zone was intended for land within the Bend UGB but outside the "IUGB" (the acknowledged urban growth boundary), and the subject property is within the IUGB. The applicant notes the subject property and the adjacent parcel to the south and west are the only parcels within the IUGB that are zoned SR -2 1/2. The record does not indicate why the subject property and other parcels in the vicinity were zoned SR -2 1/2 rather than, for example, RL (Urban Low Density Residential) while the parcels awaited city sewer and water services. However, since city sewer and water were not available to the subject property when the plan was adopted, and since the property's RS plan designation contemplated future urban density residential development, the Hearings Officer cannot find that the property's SR -2 1/2 zoning was a mistake. 2. Change of Circumstances. As discussed in the findings above, the Hearings Officer has found that the applicant has demonstrated changed conditions warranting the proposed plan amendment from urban standard density residential to light industry. Specifically, I have found the change in the transportation network in this part of the Bend Urban Area, coupled with the availability of city water and sewer service and the text amendment to the IL zone allowing the adjacent property to PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 26 0155--2996 be developed with the county jail, have made the subject property no longer suitable for residential development. I have further found that amending the plan designation of the subject property to light industry is appropriate in light of the surrounding EL -zoned parcels, the nature of the commercial and industrial uses east of the subject property, the property's proximity to the existing county jail, and the effect of the proposed Empire connector in providing a division between the IL - and SR- 2 1/2 -zoned parcels in this area. I find that these same changed conditions justify the proposed zone change from SR -2 1/2 to 1L for the subject property. C. Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660-12, Transportation Planning 1. Section 660-12-060, Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments (1) Amendments to functional plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans, and land use regulations which significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and level of service of the facility. This shall be accomplished by either: (a) Limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the planned function, capacity and level of service of the transportation facility; (b) Amending the TSP to provide transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed land uses consistent with the requirements of this division; or (c) Altering land use designations, densities, or design requirements to reduce demand for automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes. FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this administrative rule applies to the applicant's proposal because the applicant is proposing an amendment to Bend Area General Plan. However, as discussed in the findings below, I find the applicant's proposal will not "significantly affect a transportation facility." (2) A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it: (a) Changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal will not change the functional classification of any existing or planned transportation facility. The subject property will be served PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 27 by Empire Boulevard, the Highway 20 frontage road, Highways 97 and 20, Hardy Road and the planned Empire connector on the western boundary of the subject property. The applicant has proposed to construct the segment of this planned minor arterial adjoining the subject property at the time of development. (b) Changes standards implementing a functional classification plan; FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal will not change the standards implementing a functional road classification plan. The applicant's proposal does not include proposed changes to traffic speeds, access control, or function that would constitute a change in a standard implementing a functional classification. (c) Allows types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility; or FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal will not result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional classifications of the affected transportation facilities, which include existing and future arterials and state highways that are designed and constructed to handle large volumes of traffic. The applicant's traffic study indicates traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed law enforcement/correctional facility will be comparable to that generated by a subdivision at the planned density of 4.8 units per acre. (d) Would reduce the level of service of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP. FINDINGS: The record indicates the county has not yet adopted standards for level of service associated with certain road classifications. However, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's traffic study demonstrates that traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed law enforcement/corrections complex will not reduce the function of Highway 20 or the frontage road below minimum levels of service acceptable to the Oregon Department of Transportation which owns the facility. C. Statewide Land Use Planning Goals FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the following statewide land use planning goals are applicable to the applicant's proposed plan amendment, and that these goals are met as follows: Goal 1, Citizen Involvement. The proposed zone change and plan amendment are consistent with this goal because the applicant has requested a quasi-judicial review of this proposal that requires individual notice to affected property owners, notice in a local newspaper, and posted notice. Such quasi-judicial review provides citizen involvement by holding at least one public hearing each PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 28 before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer and the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners before final adoption. Goal 2, Land Use Planning. The proposed zone change and plan amendment will be consistent with this goal because Goal 2 requires that at least one public hearing be held prior to adoption of comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance amendments. This requirement has been met through the public hearing held on July 23, 1996. Additionally, this goal has been met by the Hearings Officer's findings that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the applicable policies in the Bend Area General Plan and the applicable criteria in the implementing zoning ordinances for the Bend Urban Area. Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. This goal requires maintenance and the improvement of the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the state. The applicant has demonstrated that this proposal will be consistent with this goal in two ways. First, the applicant has shown the proposed change in zoning will not impact the Bend airshed because the law enforcement and corrections uses proposed under the requested EL Zone will generate less traffic than the residential uses currently planned for under the SR -2 1/2 Zone and the subject property's plan designation for urban standard density residential. The subject property is adjacent to several road facilities. In addition, the subject property does not include any bodies of water that are part of the Deschutes River Basin or that flow into the Deschutes River. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural disasters and Hazards. The subject property is not within a mapped flood plain and does not have soils or topography subject to slides. Goal 9, Economic Development. The applicant has proposed a zone change from residential to industrial. Although the intended use of the property -- a law enforcement/corrections complex -- is not commercial in nature, the applicant has demonstrated this use is needed and that it is allowed in a light industrial zone. Goal 10, Housing. The applicant has proposed a plan amendment and zone change that will remove approximately 7.7 gross acres (approximately 5 net acres) of land from the inventory of residential -zoned land designated for housing. At the subject property's current zone density it could only be developed with three single-family dwellings. At its plan designation density, it could be developed for no more than 36 houses. The Hearings Officer finds this minimal reduction in the inventory of available residential -zoned lands does not violate the goal. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services. The applicant has proposed a plan amendment and zone change on property for which public water, sewer, and transportation facilities are adequate for the proposed use. Goal 12, Transportation Planning. The applicant's proposal is consistent with OAR Chapter 660, Division 12, thus demonstrating consistency with this goal. PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 29 OILS --999 Goal 13, Energy Conservation. This goal requires that land uses be managed so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy based upon sound economic principles. The applicant's proposal is consistent with this goal by proposing a change of zoning for land which can be served by urban public facilities, thus ensuring development of the property will benefit from energy savings through available facilities. In addition, the applicant's proposal to establish a law enforcement/corrections complex adjacent to the existing county jail will allow energy conservation through reduced trips between facilities, and shared used of court, correctional, and support facilities. Goal 14, Urbanization. The applicant's proposal is consistent with this goal because it will allow development of the subject property with urban uses permitted in the II, Zone. IV. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS: In order to obtain approval for the proposed plan amendment and zone change, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed changes are warranted by either a change of conditions, a mistake in the original plan designation and zoning or a public need for and benefit from the proposed changes. The Hearings Officer has found that the applicant has met the burden of proving the proposed plan amendment and zone change are warranted by changed conditions and by a public need for and benefit from the proposal. The Hearings Officer has found the subject property's original plan designation and zoning were not a mistake. In addition, the Hearings Officer has found the proposed plan amendment and zone change are consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies and that the proposed zone change meets all required approval criteria. V. DECISION: Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearings Officer hereby APPROVES the proposed plan amendment and zone change. L % Mailed this L / day of September, 1996. Karen H. Green, Hearings Officer THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL TEN DAYS AFTER MAILING, UNLESS APPEALED. PA-96-5/ZC-96-6 Page 30