Loading...
1998-58111-Ordinance No. 98-090 Recorded 12/18/1998e . TO FORM® (� 4 REVIEWED CODE REVIEW COMM. LEGAL. COIJNSEL BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTFS1YTffF,V An Ordinance Amending PL -20, the Deschutes * MARY I ,JE �s l� `� l L W County Comprehensive Plan, Adopting Text to Allow a Specific Use Through an Exception ftom Goal 3, * 'COUNTY CLL[ -'K Changing the Plan Map Designation for Certain Property, and Declaring an Emergency. ORDINANCE NO. 98-090 WHEREAS, Jim and Linda Wilson and Central Oregon Parks and Recreation District submitted a request for a quasi-judicial amendment to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, PL -20, to change the plan designation on the plan map for certain property from Agriculture to Rural Residential; and WHEREAS, establishment of the Rural Residential plan designation is subject to certain use restrictions to comply with Goal 3, and these restrictions will be fulfilled by use of a Limited Use Combining Zone; and WHEREAS, the adoption of the Rural Residential plan designation requires the adoption of a plan amendment and an irrevocably committed reasons exception from Goal 3; and WHEREAS, the approval of the Limited Use Combining Zone to the Rural Residential Zone sets forth a specific use on the subject property for only: 1) public parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities or community centers owned and operated by a governmental agency or nonprofit community organizations; and 2) recreation -oriented facilities requiring large acreage such as off-road track or race track, but not including a rodeo grounds; and WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Hearings Officer, after review conducted in accordance with applicable law, has recommended denial of a portion of the proposed plan amendment; and WHEREAS, after notice was given and hearing conducted according to applicable law, the Board of County Commissioners has reversed the Hearings Officer's recommendation; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY_, OREGON ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT. PL -20, Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, is amended to add the policy set forth in Exhibit "A," for the subject property described in Exhibit "B" and shown in Exhibit "C," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. This policy shall be added to the Rural Development Chapter in the Residential and Recreational Development section of the Comprehensive Plan. Section 2. ADOPTION. PL -20, the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, is amended by the adoption of an irrevocably committed exception to Goal 3, for the land described in Exhibit "B" and shown in Exhibit "C," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. The Exception Statement is amended by adoption of an exception statement as set forth in Exhibit "D," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Adoption of this ordinance shall have the effect of taking an exception from Goal 3 for the purposes and reasons stated in the Decision of the Deschutes County Commissioners set forth in Exhibit "E," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. t✓slCR IL ED PAGE 1 of 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 98-090 (12/16/1998) DEC lDEe + i 98 1 � 170 - 0748 Section 3. ADOPTION. PL -20, Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan Map, is amended to change the plan map designation for the subject property described in Exhibit "B" and shown in Exhibit "C," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, from Agriculture to Rural Residential. Section 4. FINDINGS. Findings to support this ordinance are set forth in the Decision of Deschutes County Commissioners for File No. PA-98-6/ZC-98-3, attached as Exhibit "E," and by this reference incorporated herein. 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 -/-6 day of 0'1998. ATTEST: ") " -2 Recording Secretary PAGE 2 of 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 98-090 (12/16/1998) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESC14UTES COUNTY, OREGON NANICY PAPE SCHLANGEN.,Chair T L. NIPPER, LINDA L. SWEAVJ3(GEN, Commissioner EXHIBIT "A" COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 170 0749 8. To ensure that the uses in the RR -10 Zone on Tax Lot 15-13-3-1800 and Tax Lot 15-13- 00-123 are limited in nature and scope, the Rural Resideniial zoning on the subject parcels shall be subject to a Limited Use Combining Zone, which shalli limit the uses to: 1) public parks, playgrounds, recreation facilities or community centers owned and operated by a governmental agency or nonprofit community organizations; and 2) recreation -oriented facilities requiring large acreage such as off-road track or race track, but not including a rodeo grounds. I I James L. & Linda A. Wilson Tax Lot 15-13-03 #1800 170 - 0.750 EXH-13-(- 20 A tract of land located in the SE 1/4 SE 1/4 of Section 3, T.15 S., R.13 E., W.M., Deschutes County, Oregon, described as follows: All that certain tract of land described as Exhibit "A", in Volume 472, Page 0085, Deschutes County Deed Records. TOGETHER WITH the following described tract of land: Beginning at the Northeast corner of that tract of land described as Exhibit "A", in Volume 472, Page 0072, Deschutes County Deed Records; thence S 89048'24" W, along the North line of said tract, a distance of 170.75 feet; thence leaving said line S 00°31110" W, 451.66 feet to. a point on the South line of said tract, said point also being on the centerline of NE Maple Avenue; thence along said line and centerline the following bearings and distances: N 86012157" E, 95.69 feet; thence 75.66 feet along the arc of a curve, concave to the South, having a radius of 349.43 feet (the long chord of which bears S 87°34'45" E, 75.51 feet) to the Southeast corner of said tract; thence leaving said line and centerline N 00030101" E, along the East line of said tract, 449.11 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the following described tract of land: Beginning at a point on the West line of the SE 1/4 SE 1/4 of Section 3, T.15 S., R.13 E., W.M., said point also being the most Southerly and Westerly corner of that tract of land described as Exhibit "A", in Volume 472, Page 0085, Deschutes County Deed Records; thence N 00°31'10" E, along the West line of said tract and SE 1/4 SE 1/4, a distance 150.00 feet; thence leaving said line S 77054'01" E, 234.78 feet; thence S 00031110" W, 35.00 feet; thence N 89048'24" E, 259.70 feet; thence S 00031'10" W, 65.01 feet to a point on the South line of said tract; thence S 891148124" W, along said line, 489.72 feet to the point of beginning. SUBJECT TO: The rights of the public in and to that portion of the herein described property lying within the limits of Negus WAX, NE Maple Avenue and NE Thirteenth Street, as shown on CS00912, Deschutes County Records. 17® ® 0751 CENTRAL OREGON PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT Tax Lot 15-13-00 # 123 The Southwest One -Quarter of the Southwest One -Quarter of Section 2, Township 15 South, Range 13 East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon. Subject to: The right of way of Negus Dump Road along the Southerly Line. r EXHIBIT „„ 1® oro 0 70"' 2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP 1513030001800 1513000000123 EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 98-090 Desch- County /!2 sere r e cerdw DISCLAIMER: The information on this map was derived from digital databases on Deschutes County's G.I.S. Cars was taken in the creation of this map, but d is provided "as ie. Deschutes County canna mi accept any responsibdity for errors, omissions. or positional accuracy in the digital data . the undertying records. There are no warranties, express or implied, including the warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, accompanying this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. 200 0 200 400 600 Feet DATE: DECEMBER 15, 1998 FILE: W:\AVPROJECTS\HEIDI\ORD# A TAX LOTS RURAL RESIDENTIAL 170 -0753 EXHIBIT "D" EXCEPTION STATEMENT In conjunction with approval of PA-98-6/ZC-98-3, a "physically developed" and "irrevocably committed" exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3, Agricultural Lands, was taken to the property identified as tax lot 1800 on Assessor's Map 15-13-3 to allow for a comprehensive plan and zone change on agricultural land. In addition, a "reasons" exception, as outlined in Goal 2, Part 11 and interpreted by OAR 660, Division 4 was taken to allow for the subject comprehensive plan and zone change on agricultural land for tax lot 123 on Assessor's Map 15-13-00. The plan amendment and zone change will allow Rural Residential plan and zoning designation with a Limited Use Combining Zone for the specific uses identified in the proposed exception request; e.g., parks, golf learning facility and accessory uses, recreation facilities only. Reasons justifying why the state policy embodied in Goal 3 should not apply in this situation are set forth in Exhibit "E" to Ordinance 98-090, which findings are incorporated herein. EXHIBIT UE-� L70 " 0 754 DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FILE NUMBERS: HEARING DATE: APPLICANT: PA-98-6/ZC-98-3 November 4, 1998 Jim and Linda Wilson 1686 NE Negus Redmond, Oregon 97756 CO -APPLICANT: Central Oregon Parks and Recreation District PO Box 843 Redmond, OR 97756 AGENT: Sharon R. Smith Bryant, Lovlien & Jarvis, P.C. PO Box 1151 Bend, Oregon 97709-1151 REQUESTS: PA -98-6 An application for a Plan Amendment to amend the Deschutes County Comprehensive plan map designation of the subject property from Agriculture to Rural Residential. ZC-98-3 An application for a Zone Change to amend the Deschutes County Zoning Map to change the zoning on the subject property from Exclusive Farm Use to Rural Residential. STAFF CONTACT: Heidi Kennedy, Associate Planner STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA: I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA A. Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals, Goal 1, Citizen Involvement; Goal 2, Land Use Planning - Part II, Exceptions; Goal 3, Agricultural Lands; Page 1 - PA-98-6/ZC-98-3 170 0755 Goal 14, Urbanization B. Oregon Revised Statutes Chapter 197, Comprehensive Land Use Planning Coordination: ORS 197.732, Goal Exceptions; Criteria; Rules; Review. C. Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660 Division 4, Interpretation of Goal 2 Exception. OAR 660-04-010, Application of the Goal 2 Exception Process to Certain Goals OAR 660-04-015, Inclusions as Part of the Plan OAR 660-04-018, Planning and Zoning for Exception Areas OAR 660-04-020, Exception Requirements OAR 660-04-022, Exception Requirements for a Needed Land Exception OAR 660-04-025, Exception Requirements for Land Physically Developed to Other Uses OAR 660-04-028, Exception Requirements for Land Irrevocably Committed to Other Use OAR 660-04-030, Notice and adoption of an exception OAR 660-04-040, Incorporation of new cites under developed Rural Lands Division 12, Transportation Planning Rule OAR 660-12-060, Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments Division 18 - Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendment Review Rule D. Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan: Rural Lands Section; Rural Industrial E. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code (DCC), the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones Section 18.16.020, Uses permitted outright Section 18.16.030, Conditional uses permitted - High value and nonhigh value farmland. Chapter 18.60, Rural Residential, RR -10 Zone. Section 18.100.020, Uses Permitted Outright Section 18.100.030, Conditional Uses Permitted Section 18.100.040, Use Limitations Section 18.100.050, Dimensional Standards Chapter 18.112, Limited Use Combining Zone. Section 18.112.010, Purpose Section 18.112.020, Combining zone requirements Section 18.112.030, Procedures Section 18.112.040, Use limitations Section 18.112.050, Adoption Page 2 - PA-98-6/ZC-98-3 17® 07 zbi6 Section 18.112.060, Official plan/zoning map Section 18.112.070, Site plan requirement Chapter 18.136.010, Amendments. Section 18.36.010, Amendments Section 18.136.020, Rezoning Standards Section 18.136.030, Resolution of Intent to rezone Section 18.136.040, Record of Amendments F. Title 22 of the DCC, the Deschutes County Procedures Ordinance II. FINDINGS OF FACT A. LOCATION: The subject properties are located at 1686 N.E. Negus Way, Redmond, and are identified as tax lot 1800 on Assessor's Map 15-13-3 (hereinafter the Wilson property), and tax lot 123 on Map 15-13-00 (hereinafter the Park property). B. ZONING: The subject properties are zoned Exclusive Farm Use; tax lot 1800 is within the Tumalo/RedmondBend subzone, while tax lot 123 is within the Alfalfa subzone. Both lots are designated as Agricultural lands on the Comprehensive Plan. Both lots are also within Airport Height and Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zones. The applicants are not proposing any new buildings or noise and dust sensitive uses with this application. Therefore, review against the criteria identified in the Airport Height and Surface Mining Impact Area Combining Zone is not required. C. SITE DESCRIPTION: The Wilson property (tax lot 1800) is currently vacant and undeveloped, and has a vegetative covering of sagebrush and grasses. (Adjacent property owned by applicant Wilson, tax lot 1801, is developed with a residence and is otherwise tree covered.) The Wilson property is bounded on the north, west, and south by developed public roads, and to the east by the developed Park property. The Park property (tax lot 123) is owned by the Central Oregon Parks and Recreation District and is currently developed as the High Desert Sport Complex, which features three softball fields, a snack bar, cinder parking area, and a grass takeoff and landing area for radio control model airplanes. Both properties are generally level, and are located at the western margin of a range fire that devastated several thousand acres of public lands to the east. Surrounding lands to the south, east, and northeast are all under County ownership, and with exception of the Negus solid waste transfer site (formerly a landfill) to the southeast which is zoned Surface Mining (SM), are all undeveloped and zoned Exclusive Farm Use - Alfalfa Subzone. To the north of the Wilson property is undeveloped private land zoned EFU-TRB. To the west of the Wilson property are privately owned parcels zoned EFU- Page 3 - PA-98-6/ZC-98-3 170 0767 TRB and developed as irrigated pastures with residences. The Redmond Urban Growth Boundary is located 1/4 mile to the west of the Wilson Property. D. PROPOSAL: The applicants are seeking approval of a plan amendment and zone change from the present Exclusive Farm Use plan designation and zoning to a Rural Residential - RR -10 Plan and Zone designation. The applicants also seek a Limited Use -LU Combining Zone overlay which would limit uses on the property to the uses identified in this proposed exception request; i.e., parks, golf course, recreation facilities. The amendment is approved in order to allow development of the Wilson property as a pitch and putt golf course, driving range and accessory uses, and to allow the Park property to be further developed and expanded as a sports complex, a use that is not currently allowed in the EFU zones. While both a golf course and an expansion of a public park are permissible uses in the EFU zones, the applicants wish to develop their respective properties with types and intensities of park and golf uses which are beyond the scope contemplated and allowed under Goal 3. The proposed amendments require exceptions to Statewide Planning Goal 3, Agricultural Lands. For the Park property, the applicants have identified the proposed exceptions as "physically developed" and "irrevocably committed" exceptions while the proposed exception for the Wilson property is a "reasons" exception, as outlined in Goal 2, Part II and interpreted by OAR 660, Division 4. E. SOILS: According to the NRCS soils maps, the subject property contains Map #35B — Deschutes — Stukel complex soils, 0-8% slopes. Site capability classification for the Deschutes component is 6E nonirrigated/ 3E irrigated and 6E/4E for the Stukel component. This soil complex is not considered high value soils when irrigated according to the definition of high value farmland in Section 18.04.546 of the DCC. F. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division sent written notice of the July 21, 1998 public hearing on these requests to several affected public agencies on June 3, 1998 and received the transmittal comments noted in the Staff Report. G. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS: Section 22.24.030 of the County Development Procedures Ordinance outlines the requirements for notice on land use actions that will be considered at a public hearing. This section requires that individual notice be mailed to owners of record of property within 500 feet of the property that is the subject of the application for a plan amendment or zone change. Staff identified the owners of record of property within 500 feet of the site and had individual written notice of the July 21, 1998 public hearing mailed on June 3, 1998. The applicants complied with DCC 22.24.030(B) by posting notice of the July 21, 1998 Page 4 - PA-98-6/ZC-98-3 170 - 078 hearing on the site where it was visible from Negus Way on May 14, 1998. The applicant submitted an Affidavit dated May 14 that confirms that the notice was posted of the hearing. The Planning Division complied with DCC 22.24.030(C) by submitting notice of the hearing to the Bend Bulletin newspaper for publishing. The Bend Bulletin submitted an Affidavit of Publication dated June 24, 1998 that shows the notice was published in the June 21, 1998 issue of the newspaper. The Planning Division sent a Notice of Proposed Amendment to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) on May 12, 1998. The Department did not submit any written comments into the record. An additional notice was sent to all parties who were previously sent notice informing them of the hearing scheduled before the County Commissioners for November 4, 1998. H. LOT OF RECORD: The site consists of two legal lots of record. Tax lot 1800 on Assessor's Map 15-13-03 is a lot of record because it was legally created by a minor partition (See County File MP -87-4). Tax lot 123 on Assessor's Map 15-13-00 is a lot of record as per County building permit 4B37907. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY: At the conclusion of the public hearing on July 21, 998, the record was left open to all parties until August 11, 1998, opponents were then given until August 18, 1998 to comment on any new evidence submitted by the applicant after the hearing and the applicant had until August 25, 1998 for rebuttal only. On August 7, 1998, the applicant requested additional time. The request was granted with new time lines as noted in the August 11, 998 decision of the Hearings Officer. By letter dated August 28, 1998, the applicant waived its rebuttal and requested close of the record. An August 24, 1998 letter from Peggy and Michael Fisher is marked as received on August 28, 1998, two days after the close of the record for opponents and thus will not be considered. The hearings officer approved the zone change for the Park's Department, but concluded that the Applicant had not provided sufficient information to support a driving range apart from the pitch and putt golf course, and did not provide adequate information regarding a change in circumstances. The Deschutes County Commission heard the matter de novo on November 4, 1998. Applicant provided additional information to address the issues raised by the Hearings Officer. Additional testimony was taken from the public. The hearing was closed and the County Commissioners voted 3-0 to approve the zone change and plan amendment. J. DECISION SUMMARY: The zone change and plan amendment are APPROVED with a limited use combining zone. III. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS A. STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS: Page 5 - PA-98-6/ZC-98-3 17® � 07 bi9 Goal 1: Citizen Involvement, To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the planning process. FINDING: The proposed goal exception has been processed in accordance with the County's Development Procedures Code. The code requires public notice to be mailed to surrounding property owners and published in a paper of general circulation. At least two public hearings before the Hearings Officer and/or Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners must also be held. The opportunity for appeal is also provided to all parties. Goal 2: Land Use Planning; Part II, Exceptions: A local government may adopt an exception to a goal when: (a) The land subject to the exception is physically developed to the extent that it is no longer available for uses allowed by the applicable goal, (b) The land subject to the exception is irrevocably committed to uses not allowed by the applicable goal because existing adjacent and other relevant factors make uses allowed by the applicable goal impracticable; or (c) The following standards are met. (1) Reasons justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply; (2) Areas which do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use, (3) The long-term environmental, economic, social and energy consequences resulting from the use of the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in areas requiring a goal exception other than the proposed site, and (4) The proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or will be so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. FINDING: As to the Park property, the applicants are seeking a goal exception under the "physically developed" and "irrevocably committed" exceptions criteria outlined under subsections (a) and (b) above. As to the Wilson property, the applicants seek a goal exception under the "reasons" exception criteria outlined in subsection (c) above. Page 6 - PA-98-6/ZC-98-3 170 0760 Further findings are discussed below. Goal 3: Agricultural Lands; To preserve and maintain agricultural lands. FINDING: The subject properties are designated on the Comprehensive Plan for Exclusive Farm Use in accordance with Goal 3. Further findings are discussed below. Goal 14: Urbanization. FINDING: The proposal complies with this goal because the proposed uses are rural in nature and that they are not urban uses. The properties do not have public water or sewer. They are served by on-site septic and wells. Moreover, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, which has been acknowledged, contemplates that recreation oriented uses requiring large acreage are appropriately placed in the RR -10 Zone. Similarly, public parks, recreation facilities, and community centers owned and operated by a government agency or non-profit community organization are conditionally allowed in the RR -10 Zone. (See section 18.60.030 in Title 18) Accordingly, this proposal complies with Goal 14 because the proposed uses are rural in nature and an exception to Goal 14 pursuant to OAR 660-014-030 or 660-014-040 is not required. B. OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES CHAPTER 660: OAR 660, Division 4 - Interpretation of Goal 2 Exception Process: 1. OAR 660-04-018, Planning and Zoning for Exception Areas; (2) "Physically Developed" and "Irrevocably Committed" Exceptions to goals other than Goals 11 and 14. Plan and zone designations shall limit uses to: (a) Uses which are the same as the existing types of land use on the exception site; FINDING: Applicants have met their burden of proof to change the Park property zoning to Rural Residential - RR -10, a zone which allows the type and intensity of uses contemplated by the applicants. The RR -10 zone also allows many other types of uses other than those on the exception site. As such, a Limited Use combining zone designation for the site which would limit uses on the site to parks, recreation facilities, non -regulation golf course, driving range, and accessory uses is appropriate. 2. The existing developed portion of the Park property is physically developed to other uses: Page 7 - PA-98-6/ZC-98-3 17® - 0761 OAR 660-04-025, Exception Requirements for Land Physically Developed to Other Uses; (1) A local government may adopt an exception to a goal when the land subject to the exception is physically developed to the extent that it is no longer available for uses allowed by the applicable goal. (2) Whether land has been physically developed with uses not allowed by an applicable goal, will depend on the situation at the site of the exception. The exact nature and extent of the areas found to be physically developed shall be clearly set forth in the justification for the exception. The specific area(s) must be shown on a map or otherwise described and keyed to the appropriate findings of fact. The findings of fact shall identify the extent and location of the existing physical development on the land and can include information on structures, roads, sewer and water facilities, and utility facilities. Uses allowed by the applicable goal(s) to which an exception is being taken shall not be used to justify a physically developed exception. FINDING: Applicants have submitted evidence supporting a goal exception based in part on the physical developments not allowed under Goal 3 which already exist on the Park property. The physical developments on the park property include four softball fields, maintenance buildings, and a radio control aircraft landing strip. The site is also extensively developed with large expanses of cindered driveways, parking areas, and vehicle storage and maneuvering areas. The record includes an illustration identified as Exhibit "2", aerial photograph of the site and surrounding lands. The use of the site as a sports complex was initiated previous to implementation of House Bill 3661 in 1993, which narrowed the scope and scale of a park as a use allowed in Farm Use zones. As such, the sports complex is no longer a use allowed by Goal 3. The existing development of the site can therefore be used to justify a physically developed exception. The remaining area of the proposed Park property, approximately 25 acres of land located around the physically developed portion of the Parks property exceptions area, which is not physically developed will be discussed below. The remaining area of the proposed Park property is irrevocably committed to uses not allowed by Goal 3. 3. The remainder of the Park Property is irrevocably committed to other uses: OAR 660-04-028, Exception Requirements for Land Irrevocably Committed to Other Uses; (1) A local government may adopt an exception to a goal when the land subject to the Page 8 - PA-98-6/ZC-98-3 17� 0762 exception is irrevocably committed to uses not allowed by the applicable goal because existing adjacent uses and other relevant factors make uses allowed by the applicable goal impracticable. (2) Whether land is irrevocably committed depends on the relationship between the exception area and the lands adjacent to it. The findings for a committed exception therefore must address the following: (a) The characteristics of the exception area; FINDING: The proposed exception area includes a substantial amount of development with facilities for uses not allowed by Goal 3, including four softball fields, maintenance buildings, a radio contr,�l aircraft landing strip, cindered driveways, parking areas, vehicle storage areas and maneuvering areas. The developed portion of the site comprises approximately 15 acres leaving approximately 25 acres of the site currently undeveloped. The undeveloped portion of the Park property within the proposed exception area is located around the perimeter of the developed area. This undeveloped area has a generally level topography, and is vegetated with scattered junipers, sagebrush, and grasses. The property does not have any irrigation water and has never been used for agricultural use. Because of this isolation from other uses, the proximity to existing development on the subject property, and the unsuitability of the soils, this portion of the Park property is practicably unavailable for any other use besides as an expansion area needed by the Park District. (b) The characteristics of the adjacent lands; FINDING: Adjacent lands are very similar to the exceptions area in terms of topography and native vegetation. Lands to the north, south and east are in county ownership, with the Negus Solid Waste Transfer Station, located to the southeast, the only use on the otherwise vacant several hundred acres. The property was burned over by a range fire in the late 1980's. None of the lands directly adjacent to the Park property are in any sort of agricultural resource use. (c) The relationship between the exception area and the lands adjacent to it, and FINDING: The developed portion of the exception area is adjacent to and physically and visually related to the developed portions of the Park property which it surrounds. Surrounding lands to the north and east are vacant county owned land. To the south is Maple Avenue, which leads to the Negus Transfer Station to the southeast. To the south Page 9 - PA-98-6/ZC-98-3 1'70 0_x63 of Maple Avenue is additional vacant county land. To the west is the Wilson property, which the applicants claim is suitable for recreational uses similar in type and intensity of use to the softball fields on the Park property. (d) The other relevant factors set forth in OAR 660-04-028(6). FINDING: The factors set forth in OAR 660-04-028(6) are addressed below. (3) For exceptions to Goal 3 or 4, local governments are required to demonstrate that only the following uses or activities are impracticable: (a) Farm use as defined in ORS 215.203; (b) Propagation or harvesting of a forest product as specified in OAR 660-33- 120, and (c) Forest operations or forest practices specified in OAR 660-06-025 (2) (A). FINDING: The appropriate standard for determining whether farm use is practicable is whether the subject property is capable, now or in the future, of being currently employed for agricultural production for the purpose of obtaining a profit in money or gross income. Brown v. Jefferson County, 33 Or. LUBA 96 (1997). The Park property has never been farmed, has no irrigation water rights and poor soils. The property is surrounded on three sides by county owned property that is not in farm use. The site is not suitable for a livestock operation for the same reasons as described above. In addition, the existing sports complex can produce substantial noise, dust and traffic that could spook and unsettle livestock. With regard to the impracticability of propagation or harvesting of a forest product or forest operations, the same factors as described above make the site impracticable for such use. In particular, the access limitation, the isolation of the parcel, and the inability to combine it with other properties render the property unsuitable for forest products or operations. Also, the property has no merchantable timber or any proximity to merchantable timber or forest products. Accordingly, the site is not practicable for any forest uses. (4) A conclusion that an exception area is irrevocably committed shall be supported by findings offact which address all applicable factors of section (6) of this rule and by a statement of reasons explaining why the facts support the conclusion that uses allowed by the applicable goal are impracticable in the exception area. FINDING: The applicable factors of section (6) of OAR 660-04-028 are addressed Page 10 - PA-98-6/ZC-98-3 170 -- 0764 below by findings of fact and a statement of reasons explaining why the uses allowed by Goal 3 are impracticable in the proposed exception area. The uses allowed by Goal 3 are outlined in the finding above. (5) Findings of fact and a statement of reasons that land subject to an exception is irrevocably committed need not be prepared for each individual parcel in the exception area. Lands which are found to be irrevocably committed under this rule may include physically developed lands. FINDING: There are two adjacent parcels subject to the proposed exception, but only a 15 -acre portion of the Park property is proposed as an "irrevocably committed" exception. The developed portion of the Park property has been proposed as a "physically developed" exception above. (6) Findings of fact for a committed exception shall address the following factors: (a) Existing adjacent uses; FINDING: Existing adjacent uses have been discussed above. (b) Existing public facilities and services (water and sewer lines, etc.); FINDING: Overhead electric and telephone are located in the Maple and Negus Avenue rights of way along the entire property frontage. (c) Parcel size and ownership patterns of the exception area and adjacent lands: (A) Consideration of parcel size and ownership patterns under subsection (6)(c) of this rule shall include an analysis of how the existing development pattern came about and whether findings against the Goals were made at the time of partitioning or subdivision. Past land divisions made without application of the Goals do not in themselves demonstrate irrevocable commitment of the exception area. Only if development (e.g., physical improvements such as roads and underground facilities) on the resulting parcels or other factors make unsuitable their resource use or the resource use of nearby lands can the parcels be considered to be irrevocably committed Resource and nonresource parcels created pursuant to the applicable goals shall not be used to justify a committed exception... FINDING: The Park property is approximately 40 acres in size, and at least 25 acres are physically developed with softball fields, a radio control aircraft landing area, and parking area. The remaining 15+/- acres are located around the perimeter of the developed acres, and are not suitable for any other type of development or use besides an expansion of the existing facility. The Park property was developed as a complex of softball fields in the early 1980's by Ed Heath as a for-profit enterprise. The Parks Page 11 - PA-98-6/ZC-98-3 1'70 - 0765 Department took the property over and refurbished the development in the early 1990's. Amendments to the EFU zones contained in House Bill 3661 in 1993 have made the sports facility a nonconforming use. (B) Existing parcel sizes and contiguous ownerships shall be considered together in relation to the land's actual use... FINDING: The Park property is surrounded on three sides by a large county ownership to the north, east, and south. The surrounding county lands, with exception of the Negus Transfer Station to the southeast, are vacant. Adjacent land to the west is owned by Co - Applicant Jim Wilson and is proposed as an exception area to be developed with a pitch and putt golf course, driving range and accessory uses. There are no farm or forest uses occurring on any adjoining lands. (d) Neighborhood and regional characteristics, FINDING: The "neighborhood" in which the property is located is on the northeast fringe of the Redmond urban area. Beyond the subject properties to the east is a large undeveloped county parcel, with an even larger expanse of undeveloped BLM land beyond to the east. The nearest residential uses are to the west across Maple Avenue. The primary regional characteristic of Deschutes County which impacts resource land is availability of irrigation water. The and climate makes it virtually impossible without such water to grow any sort of commercial crop or to raise livestock without vast amounts of rangeland. The Park property is not within an irrigation district. There are adjacent properties to the west of the Wilson property which are within the Central Oregon Irrigation District and have some irrigated land. These adjacent properties are all less than 20 acres in size and appear to be utilized as pasture for cattle. The applicants note that the developed pastures are all on a different soil type than that found on the subject property. The Deschutes-Stukel complex soils found on the subject properties are not utilized for agricultural use on any of the nearby parcels. (e) Natural or man-made features or other impediments separating the exception area from adjacent resource land Such features or impediments include but are not limited to roads, watercourses, utility lines, easements, or rights-of-way that effectively impede practicable resource use of all or part of the exception area. FINDING: As discussed previously, there are no lands adjacent to the Park property employed in any sort of resource use for agriculture or forestry. The adjacent BLM land to the north and County property to the east at best could be considered open -space. To the west is the Wilson property, which is surrounded on its north, west, and south boundaries by paved public roads. The paved roads isolate the Wilson property from an area of agricultural land to the west. These barriers effectively impede practicable Page 12 - PA-98-6/ZC-98-3 178 - 0766 resource use of the exception area in conjunction with the farm land to the west. (/) Physical development according to OAR 660-04-025; and FINDING: The physical development on the site has been discussed above. (g) Other relevant factors. FINDING: The applicant's proposal will not have a significant impact on any resource use and will not set a precedent for other uses. The proposed exception will take in only enough area to encompass the existing physically developed portion of the site and the committed lands on the Park property. (7) The evidence submitted to support any committed exception shall, at a minimum, include a current map, or aerial photograph which shows the exception area and adjoining lands, and any other means needed to convey information about the factors set forth in this rule. For example, a local government may use tables, charts, summaries, or narratives to supplement the maps or photos. The applicable factors set forth in section (6) of this rule shall be shown on the map or aerial photograph. FINDING: The applicants submitted sufficient evidence into the record to support a committed exception, including an aerial photograph of the property and adjoining lands and a tax map illustrating the surrounding area. (8) The requirement for a map or aerial photograph in section 7 of this rule only applies to the following committed exceptions: (a) Those adopted or amended as required by a Continuance Order dated after the effective date of section (7) of this rule, and (b) Those adopted or amended after the effective date of section 7 of this rule by a jurisdiction with an acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations. FINDING: The proposed exception is in a jurisdiction with an acknowledged comprehensive plan and land use regulations, Deschutes County. 4. There are reasons to develop the Wilson property to uses other than agriculture: OAR 660-004-018 (3) "Reasons" Exceptions: (a) When a local government takes an exception under the "Reasons " section of Page 13 - PA-98-6/ZC-98-3 170 - 0767 ORS 197.732(1)(c) and OAR 660-04-020 through 660-04-022, plan and zone designations must limit the uses and activities to only those uses and activities which are justified in the exception. FINDING: The proposed exception for the Wilson property will be justified for the purpose of allowing the subject properties to be developed with park, recreation and non - regulation golf course, driving range and golf accessory uses. The proposed Rural Residential exception area zoning allows development consistent with the reasons for the exception. However, the RR -l0 zone also allows many other types of development which would not be permissible under Goal 3 and which will not be justified by this exception statement. As such, development of the property be limited to those uses justified in the exception through the imposition of a Limited Use (LU) Combining Zone. The LU zone would limit the allowed uses on the site to park, recreational facilities, and non -regulation golf course, driving range and accessory uses. OAR 660-04-020, Goal 2, Part II(c), Exception Requirements; (1) If a jurisdiction determines there are reasons consistent with OAR 660-04-022 to use resource lands for uses not allowed by the applicable Goal, the justification shall be set forth in the comprehensive plan as an exception. (2) The four factors of Goal 2 Part II(c) required to be addressed when taking an exception to a Goal are: (a) "Reasons juste why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply": The exception shall set forth the facts and assumptions used as the basis for determining that a state policy embodied in a goal should not apply to specific properties or situations including the amount of land for the use being planned and why the use requires a location on resource land. FINDING: The proposed exception is based on the general unsuitability of the property for farm use as well as a need for the types of facilities proposed by the applicants. The use requires a location on resource land because the amount of land required makes the cost to acquire non -resource land (e.g., commercial land) prohibitive. (b) "Areas which do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use": A. The exception shall indicate on a map or otherwise describe the location of possible alternative areas considered for the use, which do not require a new exception. The area for which the exception is taken shall be identified, FINDING: Described below are research inventories completed by the applicants in looking for a suitable site for the proposed pitch and putt golf course, driving range and accessory uses. They establish that there are no alternative areas which do not require a new exception. Page 14 - PA-98=6/ZC-98-3 170 m 0768 B. To show why the particular site is justified, it is necessary to discuss why other areas which do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed use. Economic factors can be considered along with other relevant factors in determining that the use cannot reasonably be accommodated in other areas. Under the alternative factor the following questions shall be addressed.- (i) ddressed. (i) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated on nonresource land that would not require an exception, including increasing the density of uses on nonresource land? If not, why not? FINDING: The physical requirements and market considerations require at least 25-30 acres of land. Applicants provided substantial evidence to demonstrate that a driving range requires a minimum of 15-20 acres and a pitch and putt requires 5-6 acres. The site is best located in the northeast portion of the county in the vicinity of Redmond, as the milder winters in this area will allow for the year round play necessary to sustain the business. The Redmond vicinity is also the area in need of additional recreational opportunities as established by testimony before the County Commission. The applicants initially searched for suitably zoned and situated lands before choosing the subject site. The County's definition of "golf course" found at DCC 18.04.531 mirrors the definition for golf course in agricultural zones found in OAR 660-33-0130, and includes only regulation golf courses, with a playable distance of 5,000 to 7,000 yards for 18 holes. Specifically excluded from the county's definition of golf course is such nonregulation development as executive courses, par 3 courses, pitch and putt and miniature golf courses. The definition of golf course in Title 18 restricts any new development in the rural county proposed under the use "golf course" to being developed as a regulation course. The applicants concluded, and staff concurred, that a pitch and putt course could only be developed as a conditional use in the RR -10 zone under the use "recreation oriented facility requiring large acreage such as off-road vehicle track or race track, but not including rodeo grounds" (DCC 18.60.030[G]). The applicants next attempted to find a parcel of land zoned RR -10 of adequate size to accommodate the proposed pitch and putt course and driving range. The results of that inventory are provided in the record. The only lands zoned RR -10 within a 5 -mile radius of Redmond are platted and developed residential subdivisions. There are no undeveloped lands zoned RR -10 which approach the acreage required for the applicants' proposed use. The evidence submitted by the Applicant supports our finding that no suitable other lands are available. (ii) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated on resource land that is already irrevocably committed to nonresource uses, not allowed by the applicable Goal, including resource land in existing rural centers, or by increasing the density of uses on committed lands? If not, why not? Page 15 - PA-98-6lZC-98-3 170 -.0769 FINDING: A golf course, even a short pitch and putt course such as proposed by the applicants, requires land characteristics inherent in many rural farm properties: open space, soil capable of supporting turf, and an irrigation water source. The additional needs of the proposed golf facility (pitch & putt course plus driving range) are at least 25- 30 developable acres, good road access, visibility, proximity to a population center, and reasonable land acquisition costs. Applicants provided evidence to demonstrate that the pitch and putt golf course and a driving range are both essential to create a "golf learning center". Over the last three years, nearly 100 stand alone ranges have gone out of business. The total number of stand alone ranges in the U.S. has grown by less than 100 since 1994. This compares with the net gain of 1,500 golf courses over the same period. A trend that began 15 years ago is toward ranges that are designed as golf learning center facilities. A recent study showed that there are less than 1000 stand alone golf courses in the U.S. as compared to 13,000 golf facilities. In order for a golfer to practice every shot, a driving range is necessary to practice the long shots, and a pitch and putt course offers the opportunity to practice the short game and putting. If you have one but not the other, it does not provide for a comprehensive practice opportunity. The other advantage of the learning center is that it creates an environment which breaks down the often intimidating barriers of entry that every beginning golfer faces. The range is the primary feature that is common to all learning centers. Based on the evidence submitted we find, there is no available resource land within a rural center, and increasing density on committed land would not be applicable to the proposed golf facility. (iii) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated inside an urban growth boundary? If not, why not? FINDING: The applicants researched zoning restrictions within the Redmond UGB to determine which zones would allow a pitch and putt golf and driving range facility, then looked for vacant parcels in sufficient quantities to accommodate the use. The research revealed that "pitch and putt" golf courses are listed only in the C-1 and C-4 zones as a conditional use. According to the applicants, the City of Redmond Planning Staff stated that since "pitch and putt" golf course is listed specifically in a commercial zone, they would not allow one to be developed under the use "golf course," which is listed in several other zones in the UGB, including R-4 and OSP&R. The applicants have provided an inventory of C-1 and C-4 zoned properties within the Redmond UGB. While there are several vacant and underdeveloped C-1 zoned properties in the Redmond UGB, all located in the northeast portion of the UGB, there are no single ownership of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed pitch and putt and driving range. Thus, the Applicant would have to acquire several adjacent commercially zoned parcels. The applicants have provided cost information which illustrate the cost per acre of the Page 16 - PA-98-6/ZC-98-3 170 -0770 "available" commercially zoned lands ranges from $50,000 to $130,000 per acre. Accordingly, 30 acres would cost between $1,500,000 and $3,900,000. This cost would preclude development with a pitch and putt golf course and driving range. The land acquisition costs would be much too high to allow for a return on the investment for a pitch and putt facility. Further, even if the golf learning center could be financially feasible on commercial zoned property in the UGB, it would take a large amount of acreage out of the available inventory for commercial development. We find that the pitch and putt golf course and driving range should be considered a rural use. To site it on urban land zoned for intensive highway commercial development would only hasten the need to expand the Redmond UGB in the future to accommodate additional commercial development. C. The alternative areas standard can be met by a broad review of similar types of areas rather than a review of specific alternative sites. Initially, a local government adopting an exception need assess only whether those similar types of areas in the vicinity could not reasonably accommodate the proposed use. Site specific comparisons are not required of a local government taking an exception, unless another party to the local proceeding can describe why there are specific sites that can more reasonably accommodate the proposed use. A detailed evaluation of specific alternative sites is thus not required unless such sites are specifically described with facts to support to support the assertion that the sites are more reasonable by another party during the local exceptions proceeding. FINDING: The applicants have described above other areas that were reviewed in arriving at the conclusion that the subject property was the best alternative. As mentioned above, the subject property is situated in a small area of EFU zoning wedged between the Redmond Urban Growth Boundary and public lands to the east owned by Deschutes County, and the Bureau of Land Management. The Park property is already developed as the High Desert Sports Complex with softball fields and other improvements, while the Wilson property is just west of the park. County property to the east is primarily developed as the Negus Solid Waste Transfer station., but also includes, along with the BLM property, large expanses of vacant land burned over in a range fire in the 1980's. We find that the site is well situated as a recreation center for park and golf course development, with existing development, few immediate residential and farm -use neighbors, proximity to the Redmond urban area, and good access from improved streets. (c) The long-term environmental, economic, social and energy consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce the adverse impacts are significantly more adverse than would typically resultfrom the same proposal being located in areas requiring a Goal exception. The exception shall describe the characteristics of each alternative areas considered by the jurisdiction for which an exception might be taken, the typical advantages and disadvantages of using the area for a use not allowed by the Goal, and the typical positive and negative Page 17 - PA-98-6/ZC-98-3 17� 0771 consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. A detailed evaluation of specific alternative sites is not required unless such sites are specifically described with facts to support the assertion that the sites have significantly fewer adverse impacts during the local exceptions proceeding. The exception shall include the reasons why the consequences of the use at the chosen site are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in areas requiring a goal exception other than the proposed site. Such reasons shall include but are not limited to, the facts used to determine which resource land is last productive; the ability to sustain resource uses near the proposed use; and the long-term economic impact on the general area caused by irreversible removal of the land from the resource base. Other possible impacts include the effects of the proposed use on the water table, on the costs of improving roads and on the costs to special service districts. FINDING: The applicants have searched the entire northeast quadrant of Deschutes County, including within the Redmond UGB, and found no suitably zoned, situated, and sized parcels which are available to accommodate the proposed uses. The inventories of lands within the Redmond UGB and of rural lands zoned RR -10 outside the UGB respectively are in the record. We find that there simply are no other parcels in the study area which meet the minimum requirements to accommodate the proposed pitch and putt golf course and driving range without a goal exception. We find that the characteristic requirements needed for the proposal are: 1) A zoning designation which allows non -regulation golf course development such as a pitch & putt or executive course. The Redmond UGB zoning ordinances do not define "golf course", so a pitch and putt course could reasonably be considered as allowable in any zone which lists golf course as a use. The county zoning ordinance applicable outside the UGB defines "golf course" as regulation only, and specifically prohibits developments such as pitch and putt courses. The only zone outside the UGB which would appear to allow development of a pitch and putt course is the RR -10 zone, which allows a "recreation facility requiring large acreage".. 2) The site needs to be situated near a population center and have good access from a developed principal street. It is also important that the site not have too many close residential neighbors, as traffic concerns and lighting could conflict with residential uses located very near the site. The proximity to a population center eliminates many rural sites, and the compatibility issue could hamper development of an urban site or one within a developed residential subdivision. 3) An 18 -hole pitch and putt course requires at least 25-30 acres to accommodate the course, driving range, clubhouse and parking area. This size consideration alone eliminated almost all other potential sites. 4) The property needed to be reasonably obtainable and developable. Properties that were already developed were not considered as "available". Commercially zoned land Page 18 - PA-98-6/ZC-98-3 170 - 07*12 within the Redmond UGB should not be considered as "available" due to its extremely high acquisition costs. The acquisition costs of the commercial zoned lands dictate that it must be developed with intensive commercial uses to generate enough revenue for a return on investment. A rural use such as the pitch and putt golf course and driving range cannot generate enough revenue to justify acquisition of commercially zoned property. (d) "The proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or will be so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. " The exception shall describe how the proposed use will be rendered compatible with adjacent land uses. The exception shall demonstrate that the proposed use is situated in such a manner as to be compatible with surrounding natural resource and resource management or production practices. "Compatible" is not intended as an absolute term meaning no interference or adverse impacts of any type with adjacent uses. FINDING: The Wilson property is surrounded on its north, west, and south boundaries by paved public roads. These physical barriers will serve as an adequate buffer between the proposed pitch and putt and the nearby farm uses to the west. The proposed pitch and putt is located adjacent to the Park property on its east boundary, which is developed with softball fields adjacent to the Wilson property. The pitch and putt would be a compatible and complimentary use with the High Desert Sports Complex. Neighboring properties could be impacted by lights, noise, stray golf balls, traffic and pesticide/herbicide. Applicants have submitted a traffic study to show that traffic impacts will be addressed. Applicants also submitted evidence showing that the golf course design provides buffers to minimize stray golf balls. Applicants submitted evidence that they will minimize fertilizer and water use to less than would be present for agricultural use. The Applicants would be required to meet the Deschutes County lighting ordinance, which is designed to prevent light from spilling off site. Accordingly, Applicant have established measures to be implemented to reduce or eliminate these impacts. 660-04-022, Reasons Necessary to Justify an Exception Under Goal 2, Part II(c) An exception under Goal 2, Part II(c) can be taken for any use not allowed by the applicable goal(s). The types of reasons that mayor may not be used to juste certain types of uses not allowed on resource lands are set forth in the following sections of this rule: (1) For uses not specifically provided for in subsequent sections of this rule or OAR 660, Division 14, the reasons shall justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply. Such reasons include, but are not limited to the following: (a) There is a demonstrated need for the proposed use or activity based on one or more of the requirements of Statewide Goals 2 to 19; and either FINDING: The applicants are proposing a driving range and a pitch & putt course with Page 19 - PA-98-6/ZC-98-3 170 0773 accessory uses. The record shows a demonstrated need for such a golf learning center. There is no other golf learning center within the Redmond Area. The learning center allows families to participate in the game in a wholesome family environment. There is a growing number of older golfers, juniors and new golfers who may not be able to afford to spend 5 hours on a regulation golf course, but could play less expensive, shorter courses. The family oriented atmosphere may also introduce children to golf and provide families with a low cost recreational opportunity. This coupled with the adjacent Parks Department development will provide an ideal safe and inexpensive recreational opportunity for our youth. There is a need to have both the driving range and short course in order to provide the entire golf learning experience. GOAL 8: RECREATION. To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. RECREATION PLANNING The requirements for meeting such needs, now and in the future, shall be planned for by governmental agencies having responsibility for recreation areas, facilities and opportunities: (1) in coordination with private enterprise, (2) in appropriate proportions; and (3) in such quantity, quality and locations as is consistent with the resources to meet such requirements. State and federal agency recreation plans shall be coordinated with local and regional recreational needs and plans. FINDING: The applicants have submitted in the record numerous letters supporting development of the proposed facility. At least 20 community members testified at the November 4, 1998 hearing that there is a community need for a reasonably priced recreational opportunity to learn golf and to have a recreational facility for families, children and the disabled. (c) The proposed use or activity has special features or qualities that necessitate its location on or near the proposed exception site. FINDING: The proposed pitch and putt facility needs to be located in the vicinity of Redmond, in part, to take advantage of milder winters, which allow for year round play. More importantly, the testimony from the community members establishes there is a need in the Redmond area for this types of recreational facility and the proposed use requires a larger acreage commonly found in rural areas. B. OAR 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: Page 20 - PA-98-6/ZC-98-3 170 m 0"174 (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. (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; (b) Changes standards implementing a functional classification system; (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 (d) Would reduce the level of service of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP. FINDING: According to the County Road Department, Negus Road is a two lane oil mat surfaced road which is classified as a rural collector is currently well below their design capacities. The existing High Desert Sports Complex and the Negus Transfer Station are the only major land uses on Maple Avenue, which would also provide access to the proposed golf learning center. A traffic analysis study prepared by Hickman, Williams & Associates, Inc. establishes that the proposed zone change and plan amendment would not significantly affect a transportation facility as defined above. 3. DESCHUTES COUNTY YEAR 2000 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Development Section. Goals and Policies. GOALS. 1. To preserve and enhance the open spaces, rural character, scenic values and natural resources of the County. Z To guide the location and design of rural development so as to minimize the public costs offacilities and services, to avoid unnecessary expansion of service boundaries, and to preserve and enhance the safety and viability of rural land uses. Page 21 - PA-98-6/ZC-98-3 1 *7 ® --- 0-77 5 3. To provide for the possible long term expansion of urban areas while protecting the distinction between urban (urbanizing) land and rural lands. POLICIES: Rural Development policies are meant to pertain to all non -urban (areas outside urban growth boundaries) and are the basic policies to be followed in guiding rural growth. Specific resource or management policies from other chapters shall augment these policies so that the plan must be viewed as an integrated whole rather than a series of individual chapters. 12. Because large scale recreation facilities cannot normally be accommodated in urban areas, uses such as motorcross tracks, rodeo grounds and livestock arenas shall be conditional uses which may be approved in rural areas adjacent to existing highways and other public facilities. 2. Recreation Section. GOALS: 1. To satisfy the recreational needs of the residents of and visitors to Deschutes County. Z To maximize utilization of economic and personnel resources through increasing intergovernmental and public-private cooperation in the provision of recreation facilities and services. 3. To provide, concomitant with growth, sufficient uniformly distributed land and facilities for park purposes throughout the County. 3. Agricultural Lands Section. GOAL: To preserve and maintain agricultural land FINDING: The proposal would allow the location of needed recreational facilities and require such property that can not normally be accommodated in urban areas. Both the Parks property and the Wilson property are located near enough to the existing public services so as to minimize public costs. The subject properties are close to arterial streets and highways for good traffic circulation. Both the Park's development and the golf complex will satisfy the recreational needs of the residents and visitors to the area. The proximity of the publicly owned Park property and a private golf facility promotes public/private cooperation in the provisions of recreation facilities and services. With the exception of the driving range, the proposals will provide needed recreational facilities to Page 22 - PA-98-6/ZC-98-3 170 - 01"16 the residents of the Redmond area. 4. Conformance with Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance: A. Chapter 18.136, Amendments: 1. The applicant for a quasi-judicial rezoning must establish that the public interest is best served by rezoning the property. Factors to be demonstrated by the applicant are: A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, and the change is consistent with the Plan's introductory statements and goals. FINDING: Conformance with the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan has been discussed above. B. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone classification. FINDING: The applicants are proposing to change the zoning of the property to RR -10, with an additional Limited Use Combining zone overlay to restrict uses to expanded park development and pitch and putt golf course, driving range and accessory uses. C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public health, safety and welfare considering the following factors: a. The availability and efficiency of providing necessary public services and facilities. FINDING: As discussed previously, all necessary public facilities and services are available to the site and/or can be efficiently provided to the use. b. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan. FINDING: As discussed previously in this statement, there will be minimal impacts on surrounding land use. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan is addressed above. D. That there has been a change in circumstances since the property was last zoned, or a mistake was made in the zoning of the property in question. FINDING: The Park property was designated as Exclusive Farm Use in 1979 at the time the entire County was zoned in conformance with the statewide land use goals. At that time, and up until 1993, the park facility was permitted in the EFU zones. In order to conform with House Bill 3661 in 1993, the County eliminated the use from the EFU zones. Thus, the facility became a non conforming use, unable to expand under the County's ordinances. This is a change of circumstance which justifies the proposed zone Page 23 - PA-98-6/ZC-98-3 170 -- 0777 change. Similarly, the Wilson property was also designated as EFU in 1979. At that time, and up until August 7, 1993, a non -regulation golf course was permitted in the EFU zones. In 1993, the Department of Land Conservation and Development Commission adopted Administrative Rules defining "golf course" to mean only regulation courses. See LCDC 6-1992, f, 12-10-42, cert. ef. 8-7-93. In order to conform with this revision, the County also adopted the restrictive language prohibiting all but regulation courses to be constructed in the County. Accordingly, before this change, Applicant Wilson could construct a nonregulation golf course and accessory uses, which is no longer feasible. This is a change of circumstances, similar to the change affecting the Parks Department property, which justifies the proposed Zone Change. The population of Deschutes County has doubled since 1979. The additional population as well as the tremendous increase in the popularity of golf in this same time period has created the need for a variety of golf facilities. Deschutes County has emerged as a premier golf vacation destination with the development of many high caliber regulation courses. This has led to very high greens fees, effectively pricing beginning golfers and young families out of the game. Pitch and putt golf as a family learning opportunity is a recent development, which did not exist when the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances were adopted. A golf learning center such as proposed by applicant Wilson will fill this large, unserved market niche which has developed in the last 20 years since the Comprehensive Plan and original zoning were established. This provides an additional change in circumstances. B. Chapter 18.60. Rural Residential - RR -10 Zone. 1. 18.60.030. Conditional uses permitted A. Public park, playground, recreation facility or community center owned and operated by a government agency or nonprofit community organization. G. Recreation -oriented facility requiring large acreage such as off-road track or race track, but not including a rodeo grounds. FINDING: The existing park recreation facilities and expansion would fall into category "A". The golf learning center fits into category (B) as a "recreation oriented facility requiring large acreage." A pitch and putt is explicitly excluded from the county's definition of "golf course." A pitch and putt golf course with driving range would be similar in terms of characteristics and impacts to a recreation facility such as a race track. The Board finds that the Wilson proposal for a pitch and putt golf course, driving range and accessory uses (including, but not limited to: storage and maintenance facilities, parking, proshop, food and beverage services) are uses allowed under 18-60-030 G. Page 24 - PA-98-6/ZC-98-3 -1 1, ~ ! 1 7 0 -m 0778 C. Chapter 18.112. Limited Use Combining Zone. 1. 18.112.010. Purpose. A. The purpose of the LUZone is to limit the list of permitted uses and general activities allowed in the underlying zone, when a plan amendment and zone change rezones a parcel to that underlying zone through the taking of an exception to a statewide land use planning goal under Oregon Revised Statutes 197.732 B. The LU Zone is an overlay zone which maybe applied, where appropriate, to plan amendment/zone changes effected by either a "physically developed" exception under Oregon Revised Statutes 197.732(1)(a), an "irrevocably committed" exception under Oregon Revised Statutes 197.732(1)(b), or a "reasons" exception under Oregon Revised Statutes 197.732(1)(c). C. The LUZone, when adopted, shall carry out the requirement of Oregon Administrative Rule 660-04-018 that where a goal exception is taken, permitted uses shall be limited to those uses justified by the exception statement. FINDING: The applicants are proposing a Limited Use Combining Zone to limit the allowed uses in the proposed exception area to the uses listed above: public park recreation facilities and recreation -oriented facilities requiring large acreage (specifically; a pitch and putt golf course, driving range and accessory uses thereto). 2. 18.112.040. Use limitations. The following limitations shall apply to the underlying zone when the LUzone is applied: A. In all cases, the Hearings Body shall establish that: 1. The uses and general activities subject to the rezoning are required to be limited to those uses and general activities justified in the exception taken. Z A review of all zones in this title demonstrates that no existing zone adequately limits the uses and general activities. 3. The LUZone, when applied to the underlying zone, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable policies of the county. FINDING: There are no existing zones which would both allow the proposed uses and limit development of the exceptions areas to only those uses. As discussed above, limiting the use to 18.60.030 (A) and (G) will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Goals and policies under Rural Development, Recreation and Agricultural lands. Page 25 - PA-98-6/ZC-98-3 _-i -I *. a :' IV. DECISION 170 - 07,19 The applicants have satisfied their burden of proof for the requested zone change and plan amendment. Thus, the Deschutes County Commission APPROVES the application with a Limited Use Combining Zone allowing the uses permitted under 18.60.030 Dated this 6 day of L t.C, , 1998. DYSCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1 A Recording Secretary Page 26 - PA-98-6/ZC-98-3 T L.