2001-16-Resolution No. 2000-094 Recorded 1/9/2001VOL: CJ2001
PAGE: 16
RECORDED DOCUMENT
STATE OF OREGON
COUNTY OF DESCHUTES
*02001-16 * Vol -Page Printed: 01/09/2001 11:52:39
DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE
(This certificate constitutes a part of the original instrument in accordance with
ORS 205.180(2). Removal of this certificate may invalidate this certificate and affect
the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence in any legal proceeding.)
I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received
and duly recorded in Deschutes County records:
DATE AND TIME:
DOCUMENT TYPE:
Jan. 9, 2001; 8:09 a.m.
Resolution (CJ)
NUMBER OF PAGES: 50
Lv� 0. 0,-�
MARY SUE PENHOLLOW
DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK
KEY UN HED
J'A 2001
MICR MF1 4ED
JAN 17 2001
REV
LA IN -SEL
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON JAN _9 AM 8: 09
A Resolution of Intent to Amend PL -16, %
Sisters Urban Area Comprehensive Plan CCiUN Y G__i�r;
and Title 21, Sisters Urban Area Zoning Map
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-094
WHEREAS, Barclay Meadows Business Park, L.L.C. (Barclay Meadows) has
applied to the Deschutes County Planning Division for a Plan Amendment and Zone
Change to the Sisters Urban Area Comprehensive Plan and Sisters Urban Area Zoning
Ordinance on certain property located north of the City of Sisters (as more fully
described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated hE.-rein) to
include the subject property within the Sisters UGB and to change the Plan designation
from Agriculture to Industrial and the zone designation from EFU to IL; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing the record developed before the Deschutes County
Planning Division and reviewing evidence submitted at a hearing on the application, the
Board of County commissioners finds that the application meets all the relevant criteria
necessary for approval, as set forth in the Findings and Decision attached hereto as
Exhibit "B" and by this reference incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, Barclay Meadows has applied for and received voter approval for
annexation of the property described in Exhibit "A" to the City of Sisters pursuant to the
procedures set forth in the City of Sisters Annexation ordinances but such annexation
has not yet been finalized by a vote of the Sisters City Council; and
WHEREAS, Barclay Meadows has made an application with the City of Sisters
for the adoption of a Limited Use Combining Zone allowing the City to limit uses on
particular properties in addition to the zoning limitations when such properties have
been the subject of a goal exception but such zone has not yet been adopted; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the public health, safety, welfare and
convenience will be best served if the proposed plan amendment and zone change are
not made effective until such time as the following conditions are met; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, as follows:
Section 1. Based upon the findings set forth in Exhibit "B" the Board approves
the proposed plan amendment and zone change, contingent on the adoption, by the
City of Sisters, of a Limited Use Combining Zone in a format substantially similar to that
attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and further contingent upon the property described in
RESOLUTION OF INTENT Page 1
Barclay Meadows Business Park, LLC HAMy Documents\BOCC Decisions\ResDlution-Barclay.doc
Exhibit "A" being annexed to the City of Sisters.
Section 2. The Board will adopt ordinances amending the Sisters Urban Area
Comprehensive Plan and the Sisters Urban Area Zoning Ordinance in conformance
with this resolution at such time as Barclay Meadows demonstrates that the above
contingencies have been met.
DATED this . . ay o - jq�'2000.
BOARD OF COUNTY
OF DESC,,HHUTES COI
L.
PISSIONERS
,OREGON
N, CRAIR
NIS R. LUKE, COMMISSIONER
— ----A -z--�-V --
TOM DeWOLF, COMMissr6fNER
RESOLUTION OF INTENT Page 2
Barclay Meadows Business Park, LLC H:Wy Documents\BOCC Decisions\Resolution-Barclay.doc
A KCLA y �1 R o Pc4eTy
A Parcel of land situated in the Northwest Quarter (NW V4) of Section 4,
Township 15 South, Range 10, East of the Willamette Meridian, Deschutes
County, Oregon being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a 5/8" iron rod on the West line of said Section 4, which bears
N00003'45"W, 75.00 feet from the West Quarter comer of said section;
Thence N00°3'45"W, on said West line, 916.21 feet to a 5/8" iron rod at the
Southwest comer of "Trapper Point, First Addition" a subdivision of record;
Thence N89°55' 57"E, on the South line of said "Trapper Point, First
Addition". 1319.52 feet to a 518" iron rod; Thence S00°05'57'T, 988.49 feet
to a 5/8" iron rod at the Center -West Sixteenth comer of said Section 4;
Thence S89°49' 17"W, 1026.45 feet to a 5/8" iron rod; Thence
N00°07' 58"W, 75.00 feet to a 5/8" iron rod; Thence S89°47'28"W, 293.62
feet to the point of Beginning.
DOW- r(A"I OF j�ESOLJT(ar\! /\�O - 09q
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
FINDINGS AND DECISION
FILE NUMBERS: PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
APPLICANT/ Barclay Meadows Business Park, L.L.C.
PROPERTY OWNER: P. O. Box 587
Bend, Oregon 97709
ATTORNEY: Tia M. Lewis
Merrill O'Sullivan, LLP
1070 NW Bond St., Suite 303
Bend, Oregon 97701
Attorney for Applicant
REQUEST: The applicant is requesting approval to change the plan designation
and zoning of the subject property from Agriculture to Industrial
and from EFU-SC to IL, respectively, and approval of an exception
to Statewide Planning Goal 3 to include the subject property within
the Sisters Urban Growth Boundary.
STAFF REVIEWER: Chris Schmoyer, Associate Planner
HEARING DATE: January 26, 1999
RECORD CLOSED: March 31, 2000
I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
A. PL -16, the City of Sisters Urban Area Comprehensive Plan
Board of Commissioners Decision, PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 1
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
FINDINGS AND DECISION
FILE NUMBERS:
PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
APPLICANT/
Barclay Meadows Business Park, L.L.C.
PROPERTY OWNER:
P. O. Box 587
Bend, Oregon 97709
ATTORNEY:
Tia M. Lewis
Merrill O'Sullivan, LLP
1070 NW Bond St., Suite 303
Bend, Oregon 97701
Attorney for Applicant
REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting approval to change the plan designation
and zoning of the subject property from Agriculture to Industrial
and from EFU-SC to IL, respectively, and approval of an exception
to Statewide Planning Goal 3 to include the subject property within
the Sisters Urban Growth Boundary.
STAFF REVIEWER:
Chris Schmoyer, Associate Planner
HEARING DATE:
January 26, 1999
RECORD CLOSED:
March 31, 2000
I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
A. PL -16, the City of Sisters Urban Area Comprehensive Plan
Board of Commissioners Decision, PA-994/ZC-99-1
Page 1
B. Title 21 of the Deschutes County Code, the City of Sisters Urban Area Zoning
Ordinance
1. Chapter 21.72, Amendments
* Section 21.72.010, Amendments
* Section 21.72.020, Standards for Zone Change
C. Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Development Procedures Ordinance
1. Chapter 22.28, Land Use Action Decisions
* Section 22.28.030, Decision on Plan Amendments and Zone Changes
D. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197.298, Priority of Land To Be Included Within
Urban Growth Boundary
E. Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660
1. Division 4, Interpretation of Goal 2 Exception Process
* OAR 660-04-010, Application of the Goal 2 Exception Process to Certain
Goals
* OAR 660-04-015, Inclusion as Part of the Plan
* OAR 660-04-018, Planning and Zoning for Exception Areas
* OAR 660-04-020, Goal 2, Part II(c), Exception Requirements
* OAR 660-04-022, Reasons Necessary to Justify an Exception under Goal 2,
Part II(c)
* OAR 660-04-030, Notice and Adoption of An Exception
2. Division 12, Transportation Planning Rule
* OAR 660-12-060, Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments
3. Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
Board of Commissioners Decision, PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 2
I1. FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. Location: The subject property does not have an assigned address. It is located on the
west side of Camp Polk Road north of Barclay Drive and is further identified as Tax Lot
103 on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 15-10-04.
B. Zoning and Plan Designation: The subject property is designated Agriculture on the
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map and is zoned Exclusive Farm Use
Sisters/Cloverdale Subzone (EFU-SC). A portion of the property is within the Airport
Height Combining Zone and zoned Airport Overlay (AO).
C. Site Description: The subject property is 35 acres in size, roughly rectangular in shape,
relatively level and has a vegetative cover of unirrigated pasture grass. A row of large
ponderosa pine trees sit just to the north of the northern property boundary. The property
is undeveloped except for an old barn and several outbuildings. The property has no
irrigation water rights and is not currently engaged in farm use.
D. Soils: According to Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) maps of the area,
the subject property is composed of Lundgren sandy loam, mapping unit No. 85A, 0-3
percent slopes. The NRCS rates this soil as 6e when not irrigated. No classification rating
is provided for irrigated soils. This soil is well drained with the composition being 90%
inclusions and 10% contrasting inclusions. Permeability is moderately rapid with
available water capacity of about 5 inches. The major management limitations are
identified as climate, low fertility, susceptibility of compaction, surface texture and
permeability. Unit 85A is typically used for irrigated cropland and livestock grazing.
However, grazing and accessibility for livestock is limited due to the presence of rock
outcrops. This soil type is not considered high value soil with or without irrigation.
E. Surrounding Land Use: The subject property abuts the northern boundary of the Sisters
City limits and Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) at the property's southwest corner.
Further to the southwest is land located within the City limits, zoned IL and developed
with an industrial park. To the west is land zoned EFU-SC and owned by the Sisters
School District (hereafter "school district property"). To the north is property zoned
Rural Residential (RR -10) and developed with the Trapper Point Subdivision. To the east
is Camp Polk Road. Further to the east is the Sisters Airport. To the south are two parcels
zoned EFU-SC. Further to the south are parcels zoned IL and CG, General Commercial.
F. Procedural History: The applicant submitted the subject goal exception, plan
amendment and zone change applications on May 14, 1999. Subsequently, the county
advised the applicant that the application was incomplete and that additional information
was needed to address statewide planning goals. The applicant supplied the additional
information and the application was accepted by the county as complete on August 12,
1999. Because the applications include a request for a plan amendment, and the proposed
zone change cannot be approved without the plan amendment, the applications are not
Board of Commissioners Decision, PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 3
subject to the 150 -day period for issuance of a final local land use decision under ORS
215.428.
Hearings were held before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer on August 17, 1999
and August 24, 1999. The record before the Hearings Officer closed on September 28,
1999. At those hearings the subject applications were considered at the same time as
similar applications for the adjacent school district property (PA-99-5/ZC-99-3). On
November 16, 1999, the Hearings Officer issued her Findings and Decision,' concluding
that the subject proposal met all of the applicable criteria except those relating to
compatibility and traffic.
Pursuant to Section 22.28.030 of the Deschutes County Development Procedures
Ordinance (DCDPO), the Board heard this matter de novo. A public hearing; before the
Board was held at the Sisters Fire Hall on January 26, 1999. Again, these applications
were heard at the same time as similar applications on the school district property. At
this hearing, the entire record for the school district applications (PA-99-5/ZC-99-3) was
incorporated into the record for the subject applications and vice versa. A subsequent
hearing was held before the Board at which the Board took testimony from the Mayor of
Sisters and members of Sisters City Council only. Additional evidence and argument
was submitted by the applicant and members of the public. The record before the Board
closed on March 31, 2000.
G. Proposal: The applicant requests approval of a plan amendment from Agriculture to
Industrial and a zone change from EFU-SC to IL. The applicant also requests approval of
an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3, Agricultural Lands, to include the EFU-zoned
subject property within the Sisters UGB. The property would be developed with
industrial uses in an industrial park served by City water and by either on-site sewage
disposal systems or by connection to a future municipal sewer system.
H. Public/Private Agency Comments: The Planning Division mailed notice of the
applicant's proposal to a number of public and private agencies and received responses
from: the Deschutes County Road Department, Environmental Health Division, Property
Address Coordinator and Transportation Planner; the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT); the City of Sisters; the Sisters School District; the Oregon
Department of Water Resources, Watermaster-District 11; and the Oregon Aeronautics
Division (Aeronautics). These comments are set forth verbatim at pages 3-7 of the Staff
Report and are addressed in the findings below. The following agencies either had no
comment or did not respond to the notices: the Deschutes County Assessor's Office; the
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD); the City of Sisters
Fire Department; and the USFS Sisters Ranger District.
Section 22.28.030 of the Deschutes County Development Procedures Ordinance requires all plan amendment/zone
change applications involving goal exceptions or resource property to be heard de novo by this Board. Thus, while
the Hearings Officer's "decision" is entitled "Findings and Decision," it is essentially a recommendation.
Board of Commissioners Decision, PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 4
I. Public Notice and Comments: The Planning Division mailed individual written notice
of the applicant's proposal and the public hearing to the owners of record of all property
located within 500 feet of the subject property. In addition, notice of the public hearings
was published in the "Bend Bulletin" newspaper and the subject property was posted
with a notice of proposed land use action sign.
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
A. SUMMARY:
Since the Sisters Urban Area Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1979 the population of the
Sisters area has grown dramatically. This growth has occurred primarily outside the Sisters' City
limits because of the lack of a municipal sewer system. The draft Sisters 1997-2017
Comprehensive Plan identifies the need for approximately 250 acres of additional land to
accommodate projected continued growth in the area, including 67 acres of industrial land for
economic development and employment. The applicant's proposal would add the subject
property's 35 acres to the City's industrial land inventory and bring it within the City's UGB.
The applicant must satisfy a number of complex approval standards, including: the; criteria for
an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3; the criteria for a plan amendment and zone change;
as well as the Statewide Land Use Planning Goals and their implementing administrative rules.
The Hearings Officer found that the applicant's proposal satisfied all approval criteria, except
those related to traffic impacts and compatibility with the rural residential uses to the north. The
Hearings Officer specifically identified measures which could bring the proposal into
compliance with the applicable criteria. Because our review of this matter is de novo, both the
applicant and all interested or affected parties were allowed to submit new evidence. The
applicant submitted new evidence in the form of a modified proposal, incorporating some
Hearings Officer's suggestions including restricting the level of development, planning for and
funding traffic improvements, prohibiting heavier industrial uses and providing increased
setbacks from the northern property line. Based on the evidence in the record, the Board is
satisfied, as discussed in detail in the findings below, that the proposal complies with all
applicable approval criteria.
UGB EXPANSION/GOAL EXCEPTION
B. OAR Chapter 660, Division 4, Interpretation of Goal 2 Exception Process
1. OAR 660-004-010, Application of the Goal 2 Exception Process to Certain
Goals.
(1) The exceptions process is not applicable to Statewide Planning Goal 1
"Citizen Involvement" and Goal 2 "Land Use Planning." The
exceptions process is generally applicable to all or part of those
statewide goals which prescribe or restrict certain uses of resource
land. These statewide goals include, but are not limited to:
Board of Commissioners Decision, PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 5
(a) Goal 3, "Agricultural Lands," however, an exception to Goal 3
is not required for any of the farm or nonfarm uses permitted
in an exclusive farm use (EFU) zone under ORS Chapter 215;
FINDINGS: Industrial uses are not permitted outright or conditionally in the EFU Zones under
ORS Chapter 215. Therefore, the applicant's proposal requires an exception to Goal 3.
(b) Goal 14, "Urbanization," except as provided for in paragraphs
(1)(c)(A) and (B) of this rule, and OAR 660-14-000 through
660-14-040:
(B) When a local government changes an established urban
growth boundary it shall follow the procedures and
requirements set forth in Goal 2, "Land Use Planning,"
Part II, Exceptions. An established urban growth
boundary is one which has been acknowledged by the
[Land Conservation and Development] Commission
under ORS 197.251. Revised findings and reasons in
support of an amendment to an established urban
growth boundary shall demonstrate compliance with
the seven factors of Goal 14 and demonstrate that the
following standards are met:
FINDINGS: The record indicates the Sisters UGB has been acknowledged by LCDC. Therefore,
the applicant's proposal to change the existing UGB to include the subject property must comply
with the exception criteria in Goal 2 and the seven factors in Goal 14, discussed in detail in the
findings below.
(a) Reasons justify why the state policy embodied in
the applicable goals should not apply. (This
factor can be satisfied by compliance with the
seven factors in of Goal 14);
FINDINGS: The state policy embodied in Goal 3 is to preserve and maintain agricultural land
for farm use. The applicant argues this state policy should not apply to the subject property for
three reasons: 1) the property is not suitable for farm use; 2) there is a need for additional
industrial -zoned land in the Sisters UGB; and 3) the property is suitable for industrial
development.
1. Unsuitability for Farm Use. The subject property does not have irrigation. In fact, the record
shows that the applicant and several other property owners in the area transferred the water rights
back to Squaw Creek for instream use because of the inability of the property owners to make
efficient or economical use of the water for irrigation purposes. The record also shows that all
easements for the transfer of that water to the subject property were abandoned. The property
currently is not engaged in farm use although the record indicates it is receiving farm tax deferral
and is included on the list of commercial farms in the comprehensive plan agricultural lands
Board of Commissioners Decision, PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 6
resource element.' The property includes one soil type -- Lundgren sandy loam, mapping unit
No. 85 -- which is not considered high value soil with or without irrigation. This soil has an
NRCS capability rating of VIe without irrigation.
OAR 660 Division 33, the administrative rules implementing Goal 3, and Chapter 18.16 of the
Deschutes County Code, EFU Zones, establish suitability standards for EFU-zoned land for
purposes of creating land divisions and for siting dwellings. The Board finds these standards are
useful in determining the subject property's suitability for farm use for purposes of the proposed
exception to Goal 3. Under the standards for farm divisions in Sections 18.16.055(B) and
18.16.065(B), each proposed parcel in the EFU-SC Zone must meet the minimum standards for a
commercial farm in the subzone -- 63 irrigated acres or a 1991 assessed farm use- value of
$14,931. The subject property is 35 acres in size and has no irrigation. The Assessor's data
indicates the property had a 1991 assessed value for farm use of $6,920. Therefore, the Board
finds the property's size, lack of irrigation and low assessed value for farm use place it far short
of meeting the minimum standards for a farm parcel in the EFU-SC Subzone.
Under the standards for siting non-farm dwellings in Section 18.16.050(G), a lot or parcel is
presumed to be suitable for farm use if it is composed predominantly of Class I -VI soils. The
subject property has soils classified VIe -- i.e., minimally suitable. The presumption of
suitability can be overcome by a showing that the property is generally unsuitable for the
production of farm products or livestock due to terrain, adverse soil or land conditions, drainage
and flooding, vegetation, location or size. Section 18.16.050(G)(1)(a)(iii). The Board finds that
according to the NRCS the subject property's soil type is so poor that without irrigation it can be
used only for dryland livestock grazing with significant limitations on productivity -;4_1e., it will
support only very few livestock on dryland forage. Accordingly, due to the inherent stature of
the soils, the Board finds the property unsuitable for crop production. Furthermorb, while the
soils alone do not make the property unsuitable for grazing, the other characteristics of the
property do render it unsuitable. For example, the information in the record shows that the size
of the property alone makes it unsuitable for a grazing operation because it will support less than
2 cows.
Likewise, the location makes the property generally unsuitable for farm use. The record
indicates the subject property's proximity to the Sisters Airport may render it unsuitable for some
agricultural uses. The record shows that seven acres of the property are located in! the .Airport
"Runway Protection Zone" (RPZ) in which no structures of any kind are allowed. 'The record
indicates the remaining 28 acres are located within the "Transitional Surface" of Sisters Airport
which is subject to building height and use restrictions but does not preclude industrial
development. The record includes a chart from Aeronautics entitled "Compatible Land Uses per
' The applicant argues that the commercial farms list was developed as a resource tool by the county solely to assist
the county in developing the standards for the subzones in the EFU zone throughout the county and was not intended
to be used to establish a particular property's suitability or productivity for farm use. The applicant further argues
that the list was not prepared with notice to the public or affected land owners, nor were the public or affected
landowners provided with the opportunity to comment because the list was intended for use as a resource tool only.
Because of the limited purpose for which the commercial farms list was developed, the Board finds that the list was
not developed as a mechanism for determining a property's suitability for farm use.
Board of Commissioners Decision, PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 7
FAR [Federal Aviation Regulations] Part 77 Surfaces and FAA [Federal Aviation
Administration] Safety Zone." The chart identifies the types of land uses that are incompatible
with the various "imaginary surfaces" the FAA recognizes around airports. The chart indicates
any agricultural activity that attracts birds or creates smoke is considered incompatible with
airport operations. According to the chart, livestock grazing may be incompatible with airport
operations.
Opponent ARLU-DeCo argues the subject property's suitability for farm use should be
determined based upon the production of llamas because such "specialty livestock"' represent a
large percentage of the county's agricultural production and because the nearby Patterson Llama
Ranch has the same soil type as the subject property. The Board disagrees. The Board finds that
evaluating the productivity of the subject property based upon llama production is not
appropriate because of the wide variations in market conditions and prices that can affect llamas
and other "exotic" species. This volatility was verified by the testimony in the record of Mark
Higham. Mr. Higham, who is a partner in the applicant's business, stated he operated a
successful llama ranch on 27 acres east of Bend until 1996 when the market price. for llamas
dropped and the overall contribution of llamas to the county's agricultural economy declined
dramatically -- from $11 million to $3 million per year. Moreover, the Board finds comparison
with the Patterson Llama Ranch is not appropriate because the ranch has irrigation and irrigated
pasture is many times more productive for grazing than dryland grazing on Lundgren sandy loam
soil. Furthermore, the ranch is not bordered on one side by the airport and on another by the
existing industrial park.
For the foregoing reasons, the Board finds the subject property is not suitable for farm use due to
its location, poor quality soil and lack of irrigation. Therefore, the Board finds the public policy
embodied in Goal 3 should not apply to require that the subject property be retained as
agricultural land for farm use.
2. Need for Additional Industrial -Zoned Land.
The applicant's Burden of Proof states there are 45 existing industrial -zoned lots within the
Sisters UGB -- 28 lots in the Sisters Industrial Park and 17 lots in the adjacent Mountain View
Industrial Park. The applicant states only eight of these lots are vacant and/or large enough to
allow redevelopment with additional industrial uses and they total only 5.94 acres.
Goal 9, Economic Development, requires that a city's comprehensive plan "[p]rovide for at least
an adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types, locations, and service levels for a variety of
industrial and commercial uses consistent with plan policies." The City of Sisters recently
completed a multi-year process to update its Comprehensive Plan in order to provide a planning
document for the next 20 years and to assure compliance with Goal 9. The City's draft 1997-
2017 Comprehensive Plan includes analyses of population growth and the resulting need for
additional lands within the Sisters UGB. The portions of the draft plan addressing these issues
are included in the record as Exhibit "C" to the applicant's initial Burden of Proof. The draft plan
identifies a need for an additional 250 acres of land, including 142 acres for residential
development, 42 acres for commercial development and 67 acres for industrial development. The
Board of Commissioners Decision, PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 8
plan includes a recommendation that the subject property and the adjacent school district
property be brought into the UGB and redesignated industrial to meet that need. The record
indicates the draft Comprehensive Plan has not yet been adopted by the City and therefore is not
binding on these applications. However, the Board finds the draft plan is relevant insofar as it
reflects the City's identified need for 67 additional acres of industrial -zoned land, the
methodology and data used to support that need and the City's intent that the subject property be
redesignated to meet that need. The Board also notes that the City's draft plan was prepared
prior to the subject applications being submitted and was initiated by the City.
The applicant also undertook its own comprehensive industrial land need analysis in conjunction
with the school district. The analysis uses population, income, employment and economic
forecasts based on information from the Center for Population Research and Census at Portland
State University, the Oregon Employment Department, the Oregon Office of Economic Analysis,
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Deschutes County and the City of
Sisters. This analysis can be summarized as follows. The population within the Sisters City limits
increased by 20 percent between 1990 and 1998 (from 708 to 850) -- an average growth rate of
approximately 2.2 percent per year. During the same period the population of Deschutes County
increased by nearly 40 percent (from 74,958 to 104,900) -- an average growth rate of
approximately 4.4 percent per year. Using the county's historic growth rate and including all
land within the Sisters UGB, the population in the UGB is projected to increase by over 100
percent by the year 2020, to approximately 1,71 0.3
The manufacturing employment base in Deschutes County has shifted dramatically from lumber
and wood products to other types of manufacturing. Since 1986, there has been a 30 percent
decline in wood products jobs, a 96 percent increase in other manufacturing jobs and increases of
approximately 68, 57, 90 and 104 percent, respectively, in construction, transportation, trade and
services jobs -- the types of employment typically located on industrial -zoned land. This shift is
anticipated to continue into the future due to the continuing decline of the wood products
industry.
In 1998, persons employed in Sisters represented approximately 2.5 percent of the total
employment in Deschutes County. In 1998, approximately 40 percent of persons working in
Sisters were employed in manufacturing, construction, transportation, trade and services jobs and
approximately 60 percent of these jobs were located on industrial -zoned lands, resulting in a
ratio of approximately 5 employees per acre of industrial land. Future employment: growth in
Sisters will be proportionate with its growing percentage of overall county employment. The
school district projected that the percentage of jobs in manufacturing, construction,
transportation, trade and services located on industrial -zoned land would increase to
approximately 7 employees per acre during the next 20 years as industrial land is occupied with
more high-technology businesses and as the City develops a municipal sewer system allowing
for denser industrial development. However, the applicant asserts the 5 -employee -per -acre rate
should be used because the availability of sewer will not increase the density of industrial
3 The county ordinance adopting this population figure, as required by ORS 195.025(1), is Ordinance No. 98-084.
Board of Commissioners Decision, PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 9
development due to the large minimum lot size landscaping, parking, and other infrastructure
typically required for industrial uses.
Based upon the above evidence, the applicant has predicted the amount of industrial -zoned land
needed during the next 20 -year planning period based on two separate calculation methods: the
historic absorption rate for industrial -zoned land in the Sisters UGB and an employee -per -acre
forecast analysis recommended by DLCD. The record indicates that until 1995 the historic
industrial land absorption rate was approximately 2.9 acres per year. Based on this figure, the
Sisters draft Comprehensive Plan predicts that an additional 67 acres of industrial land will be
needed (20 years x 2.9 less existing industrial land inventory of 5.84 acres plus 250/,o for roads,
utilities, churches, schools and parks). However, the applicant argues 2.9-acre/year absorption
rate is too low because the historic absorption rate data is several years old. Using more current
data as obtained from the City over a longer time frame, the applicant has submittE:d evidence
supporting a historic absorption rate of 3.3 acres per year. Based upon this rate, the applicant
calculates the City's industrial land need at an additional 83.85 acres (3.3 x 20 less existing
industrial land inventory of 5.84 plus 25%). The Board finds the evidence submitted by the
applicant in support of the 3.3 acre per year absorption rate is both credible and reliable. This
evidence includes the same data used by the City but supplements that data with additional data
from more recent years. The use of a longer time period to establish the absorption rate will
produce more reliable data because of the ability to capture periods of both slow growth and
rapid growth. Accordingly, the Board finds that the absorption rate methodology establishes a
need for 84 acres of industrial land.
The applicant submitted the need calculations based on the employee -per -acre forecast method
because it was recommended by LCDC. However, the applicant argues the employee -per -acre
forecast method is not as reliable as the historic absorption method because it is based on
assumptions rather than on historic data. In addition, the applicant takes issue with the school
district's conclusion that in applying the employee -per -acre method the City's share of the
county employment pool is approximately 2.5 percent.' The applicant argues a more accurate
figure would be 7.13 percent, based upon the .21% -per -year rate of increase in the City's share
of county employment from 1990 to 1998. Using this rate, the applicant predicts that: at least an
additional 328 persons will be employed in manufacturing, construction, transportation, trade
and service jobs on Sisters industrial -zoned land by the year 2020, requiring an additional 82
acres of industrial land based on 5 employees per acre (65.6 acres plus 25%). See Applicant's
Second Supplemental Burden of Proof Statement, pp. 4-10. The Board finds that, based on the
evidence submitted by the applicant showing Sisters' steady increase in the percentage of the
county employment pool from 1990 to 1998, it is reasonable to conclude that this percentage will
continue to increase at the same rate to result in Sisters having 7.13% of the county employment
pool by 2020. See, Applicant's Second Supplemental Burden of Proof Statement, pp. 4-10.
4 In its burden of proof materials in support of its application (PA-99-5/ZC-99-3), the school district calculated
Sisters' current share of the County employment pool to be 2.48% (1,264 employees in the City of Sisters in 1999 is
2.48% of 51,090, which is the total projected employees in Deschutes County in 2000). The school district then
used the 2.48% to calculate the need to be 38.04 acres under the employee -per -acre methodology.
Board of Commissioners Decision, PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 10
Using this figure, the Board finds that the employee -per -acre methodology establishes a need of
82 acres of industrial land.
Because the two methodologies produce almost the same result (absorption rate shows need of
84 acres, employee -per -acre shows need of 82 acres), the Board need not decide which
methodology is more accurate. Based on the evidence in the record, the Board finds that the
applicant has shown that the City of Sisters needs at least 82 acres of industrial land to meet its
Goal 9 requirements.
With respect to population projections, opponent Howard Paine cites provisions of the current
Comprehensive Plan stating the original UGB was based on a projected 20 -year population
growth from 810 to 2,135. He argues that because the current population in the Sisters' City
limits is 910 there is no basis to expand the UGB for any purpose. The Board disagrees.
Goal 14 factors 1 and 2 are referred to as the "need" factors. See Benjamin Franklin
Development v. Metro Service District 17 Or LUBA 30,37 (1988), aff'd 95 Or App 22 (1989). In
City of La Grande v. Union County, 25 Or LUBA 52(1993) LUBA explained that, to satisfy the
requirements of Goal 14 Factors 1 and 2, a proposed amendment to expand the UGB must
demonstrate a need for such change based upon either (1) increasing projected populations, (2)
amending the assumptions applied to those population figures in originally justifying the UGB or
both.
The applicant here bases its request on both prongs of the analysis. First, it seeks to amend the
assumptions that were applied in the City of Sisters 1979 Comprehensive Plan to the
relationships between population, population growth and the need for industrial lands generated
by population and growth. This amendment of the assumptions justifies increasing the UGB to
add additional industrial lands to the City. Second, the applicant also demonstrates projected
population growth that even alone justifies expansion of the UGB.
The City of Sisters' 1979 Comprehensive Plan noted the 1978 population of the City of Sisters to
be 810 persons. The plan projected the City's population figure for the year 2000 to be 2,135, a
near tripling of the 1978 figure. The record demonstrates this level of population growth within
the City limits has not occurred. Indeed, the population within the City of Sisters grew to only
850 persons by 1998 according to the Center for Population Research, Portland State University,
and 910 in 2000. However, the Board finds that the level of population growth from 1978 to
1998 alone is not the determining factor. Rather, it is the "assumptions" applied to the population
and projected growth, in 1979 and presently, as well as the now projected growth that are
significant. Both of these factors demonstrate on this record the required justification for a plan
amendment expanding the City of Sisters UGB.
The 1979 Sisters Comprehensive Plan "assumptions" about the population growth and the need
for industrial lands were both general and specific. Generally, the plan reflected that, at that time,
the economic character of the Sisters area was dominated by the timber industry, agriculture and
recreation (See, 1979 Sisters Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, p. 34.). The plan stated that
"Logging, timber management, and other forest activities account for the principal payroll of the
Board of Commissioners Decision, PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 11
Sisters general area." Id. The plan further identified the Sisters area as a supplier of the raw
material for wood product manufacturing, but not as a location for manufacturing itself. Indeed,
the plan contained a generally pessimistic view of the City's future role in area manufacturing
and other industrial activity by concluding that "local industrial development prospects of major
industry appear dim due to limited resources," Id. at 37, and that the "established locations for
the lumber and wood products industries can be expected to remain in Bend and Redmond." Id.
Thus, assumptions in the 1979 Sisters Comprehensive Plan with regard to the area economy, in
general, were that it would not generate substantial need or opportunity for industrial growth in
Sisters. Those assumptions, in turn, led to a specific finding that "There are ample sites located
within the Sisters Industrial Park to accommodate these needs. Id. at 44.
The record demonstrates that this assumption proved true by 1998, but only half so. While there
were sufficient industrial lands available during these two decades, the 1979 assumption
concerning the relationship between population growth and need for industrial lands proved to be
grossly inaccurate. The assumption that the City of Sisters would grow to a population of 2,135
by the year 2000, and that it would have sufficient industrial lands to accommodate the needs of
that population completely underestimated or failed to consider the increase in the need for
industrial lands that would occur during the 20 year plan period despite limited population
growth within the City limits. In fact, the City "used up" all of its industrial lands during this 20
year period with a total population growth of less than 10%. The record demonstrates this
pattern in detail. The record also demonstrates that, starting with the present as a "baseline," now
projected population growth in the City of Sisters will further increase the demand for industrial
lands in the City's very immediate future.
Furthermore, the record indicates the Sisters UGB was established in 1983 with lands sufficient
to provide for a projected 20 year need. From 1983 to 1990 very little residential, commercial or
industrial development occurred within the UGB. In 1990, Deschutes County and the Sisters area
began to grow dramatically. However, the population within the Sisters City limits and UGB
could not grow as dramatically as the county's population because the City lacks a municipal
sewer system. Therefore, growth occurred in outlying areas in the rural subdivisions that dot the
landscape around Sisters. The applicant's Burden of Proof states that the school district boundary
is actually the service area for the City of Sisters and that the population within the school
district boundaries is approximately 9,000. Opponents have not challenged this argument or
population figure. In fact, this population compelled construction of a new high school in 1991.
In addition, the record indicates Sisters voters approved a bond measure to fund construction of a
municipal sewer system and the City is in the process of acquiring land on which to site a sewage
treatment plant. While the timing of a future municipal sewer system is not known, it is clear that
once it is in place development within the City limits and the UGB will increase to more typical
urban density. Finally, the Deschutes County Hearings Officer previously approved a plan
amendment, zone change and development permits for a 51 -acre parcel on the western edge of
the Sisters UGB (Pine Meadow Ranch, PA-95-15/ZC-95-12/TP-98-896/CU-98-64) to allow a
127 -lot planned unit development. At buildout, this development has the potential to increase the
Board of Commissioners Decision, PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 12
population in the UGB by approximately 320 persons (assuming 2.5 persons per dwelling unit),
which is one-third of the existing population.
Considering all of these factors, the Board finds the applicant's needs analysis, as detailed in its
initial Burden of Proof Statement and its. Supplemental Burden of Proof Statements, provide a
credible basis on which to calculate the need for additional industrial land. Based on the
evidence in the record, the Board finds that Sisters needs at least 82 acres of industrial land to
meet its obligations under Goal 9 and provide an adequate supply of industrial land.
3. Suitability for Industrial Designation and Zoning.
The applicant argues the subject property is suitable for industrial zoning and development for
the following reasons:
a. The property is located close to the City's existing industrial parks on land zoned IL and
adjacent to the school district property which also is proposed for industrial designation.
b. Placing new industrial uses near or adjacent to the existing industrial parks will allow more
efficient provision of public facilities and services such as a looped water system and connection
to a future municipal sewer system.
c. The property is adjacent to Camp Polk Road, a designated collector street that provides a
direct connection to Highway 20.
d. At 35 acres, the property is of adequate size to accommodate in one location a variety of uses
permitted in the IL Zone, including those which require large land areas.
The Board concurs that these factors make the subject property generally suitable for industrial
development.
Opponents argue two factors make the subject property unsuitable for industrial development --
its proximity to low-density residential development in the Trapper Point Subdivision to the
north and its location near Sisters Airport. The proposal's compatibility with adjacent residential
development is discussed in detail in the findings below concerning the proposal's compliance
with the goal exception criteria.
With respect to airport proximity, the record shows that 7 acres of the subject property cannot be
developed because it lies within the RPZ. The applicant has indicated an intention to explore
park dedication for a portion of the 7 acres which cannot be developed. In its comments on the
applicant's proposal, Aeronautics recommended that the subject property remain in an
agricultural designation because of the RPZ and because Aeronautics believes agricultural
zoning will more effectively limit the number of people congregating near the airport.
Aeronautics provided no comments addressing the fact that its own chart on compatible land
uses identifies various agricultural activities, including grazing, as possibly being incompatible
with the airport operations. The Board finds Aeronautics' concerns are legitimate. Operation of
Board of Commissioners Decision, PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 13
light aircraft over populated areas can create safety hazards for persons on the ground. However,
the Board is aware that industrial uses typically are sited near airports because of the relatively
lower numbers of people present at industrial sites and because property in the vicinity of
airports is not considered suitable or desirable for commercial or residential uses due to conflicts
and the potential congregation of people. Examples of industrial development in proximity to
airports exist in Deschutes County -- the airport industrial park west of Roberts Field in
Redmond and the large Lancair aircraft manufacturing plant located just east of the Bend Airport
runway. Moreover, Clifford Clemens, owner of Sisters Airport, testified in support of the
applicant's proposal, stating he believes industrial development can be compatible with the
airport. Considering all of these factors, the Board finds the 28 acres of the subject property not
located within the RPZ is suitable for industrial development despite its proximity to the RPZ
and the airport.
For the foregoing reasons and as further addressed in the findings herein, incorporated by
reference, the Board finds the applicant has demonstrated "reasons [that] justify why the state
policy embodied in ... [Goal 3] should not apply."
(b) Areas which do not require a new exception
cannot reasonably accommodate the use;
FINDINGS: The Board finds this criterion requires an alternative area analysis to determine
whether there is land not requiring a goal exception that reasonably could accommodate
industrial development without having to expand the Sisters UGB. The Board finds such an
analysis should include vacant and underdeveloped land within the UGB and nonresource land --
i.e., exception areas -- outside the UGB. The Board further finds that the phrase "cannot
reasonably accommodate the use" requires a determination of whether the alternative sites are
suitable for industrial development considering: 1) the typical operating characteristics and site
and locational requirements of industrial uses; 2) the need to locate industrial uses so that
adequate infrastructure can be provided; and 3) the location of potential conflicting uses.
1. Vacant and Underdeveloped Land Within the UGB.
The record before the Hearings Officer included a detailed analysis of the inventory of buildable
land within the Sisters UGB developed by the applicant in conjunction with the school district.
The analysis examined available data from the Deschutes County Assessor's Office and
Community Development Department including zoning and tax maps and development permits.
In addition, the record indicates the applicant conducted on -the -ground inspections of each
parcel. Based on this analysis vacant land within the Sisters UGB was categorized as either
"gross fully vacant land," "partially vacant land" or "redevelopable land." Land was excluded
from the inventory of buildable lands if it was located in the 100 -year flood plain or floodway,
had slopes over 25% or other hazards, or was protected from development under a Goal 5
resource plan. In addition, 25% of the gross buildable acreage for road rights-of-way, utilities
and non -industrial uses was subtracted from the buildable land inventory.
Board of Commissioners Decision, PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 14
Based upon the above-described data and analysis the buildable land inventory' includes a total
of 170.09 net buildable acres distributed within the UGB as follows:
Zones
Net Buildable Acres
RS (Standard Density Residential) 71.01
RH (High Density Residential) 15.47
CG (General Commercial) 17.0
CH (Highway Commercial) 6.22
IL (Light Industrial)
4.28
UAR 2.5 (Urban Area Reserve) 4.26
UAR 10 (Urban Area Reserve) 51.85
In addition, the applicant submitted maps labeled Exhibits "H" and "I" showing the location and
zoning of all land on the buildable land inventory.
The Board finds lands on the inventory zoned RS and RH cannot reasonably accommodate the
need for land suitable to locate a variety of industrial uses considering the factors discussed
above. First, the inventory shows most of these residential lots are five acres or smaller in size.
Many of these lots are too small to accommodate the types of industrial uses requiring large
buildings and truck parking and loading areas.' Second, these residential -zoned parcels are
scattered throughout developed residential areas presenting the potential for significant conflicts
with existing residences. Third, it is not reasonable to spread industrial uses throughout the UGB
rather than consolidating them in industrial parks where they can be more efficiently served with
infrastructure. Finally, the Sisters UGB is expected to experience significant population growth
' Opponents ARLU-DeCo and Paine argue the buildable land inventory should include land now devoted to on-site
septic systems because the city eventually will have a municipal sewer system allowing those areas with septic
systems to be redeveloped. ARLU-DeCo's September 21, 1999, letter indicates there are a total of 44 lots devoted to
septic drainfields and 77 residential -zoned lots one-half acre or larger in size that it believes could be redeveloped
once the municipal sewer system is in place. In response, the applicant noted the buildable land inventory already
takes such land into account in the "gross fully vacant land" and "partially vacant land" categories where the
existence and location of on-site septic systems could be verified from available data. Nevertheless, the applicant
supplemented the record before the Board to include another detailed analysis of buildable lands currently devoted
to on-site septic systems. The details of this study are discussed in the findings below.
' For example, the record shows that a mini -storage facility developed on the subject property would require 2.1
acres. The City cannot provide the "adequate supply of sites of suitable sizes, types, locations and service levels"
for a variety of industrial uses, as required by Goal 9, with parcels that can only accommodate 1 or 2 industrial uses,
scattered throughout residential areas.
Board of Commissioners Decision, PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 15
requiring 142 acres of additional residential land. Converting residential -zoned lands to
industrial uses will cause a shortage in available residential lands to meet the City's housing
needs.
The Board finds that for the same reasons the vacant and underdeveloped commercial -zoned
land also cannot reasonably accommodate industrial use. The inventory shows there are no
vacant commercial lots and those commercial lots that could be redeveloped average only
approximately 11,000 square feet in size in the CG Zone and only approximately 5 acres in size
in the CH Zone. Many of these lots are simply not large enough to accommodate many types of
industrial uses. In addition, the commercial -zoned parcels are located adjacent to existing
commercial retail uses with which industrial uses and their traffic impacts likely would conflict.
And removal of commercial lands from the inventory by converting them to industrial uses is not
reasonable because it is likely to result in the City having to expand the UGB to provide for
additional commercial land to meet projected needs. Finally, with respect to existing; industrial -
zoned land, as discussed in the findings above less than 6 acres of industrial -zoned land remain
in the Sisters UGB -- an amount not nearly sufficient to meet projected 20 -year need :for 82 acres
of industrial land.
The remaining land on the net buildable lands inventory consists of approximately 56 acres of
land zoned UAR-2.5 and UAR-10. The 4.26 acres of UAR 2.5 -zoned land consist of some or all
of 12 parcels. Many of these properties have access from Highway 126, a designated scenic
highway the record indicates already is very congested. The Board finds this land cannot
reasonably accommodate industrial use because the parcels are too small, the parcels are located
in areas throughout the UGB that include developed subdivisions, churches and other potentially
incompatible uses, and many parcels would take access from Highway 126.
The 51.85 acres of UAR-10-zoned land consist of five vacant parcels, five developed parcels
larger than one acre and one partially -developed parcel, described in detail in the findings below.
a. Vacant UAR-10 Zoned Land. Of the five vacant parcels, three are 3 acres or less in size. For
the reasons set forth above, the Board finds these parcels are not of sufficient size to
accommodate industrial uses requiring larger buildings and loading areas. The remaining two
vacant parcels are 14.61 acres and 43.66 acres in size. The buildable land inventory indicates the
larger parcel is adjacent to the Pines Manufactured Home Park. The inventory indicates 10 acres
of this parcel are committed to a community septic system for the park which will be needed
until the municipal sewer system is in place, and the remainder of the site is planned for
expansion of the park Finally, the record shows that the City has targeted this property for
residential zoning to help meet its projected need of 142 acres of residential land. For these
reasons, and because this parcel is located adjacent to relatively high-density residential
development with which industrial uses likely would conflict, the Board finds this parcel cannot
reasonably accommodate industrial uses.
The record indicates the 14.61 -acre parcel is located adjacent to existing industrial development.
However, the record indicates this parcel was annexed by the City in September of 1997 and
rezoned to RH and CG to meet projected needs for residential and commercial land during the
Board of Commissioners Decision, PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 16
next twenty years.' For these reasons, the Board finds this parcel cannot reasonably
accommodate industrial development. Furthermore, this parcel is too small to supply the 82
acres of industrial land needed.
For the foregoing reasons, the Board finds the vacant UAR-10-zoned parcels cannot reasonably
accommodate industrial uses.
b. Partially -Developed UAR-10 Parcels. Of the six parcels in this category three are 5 acres or
smaller in size. The Board finds the 1.44 -acre parcel is too small to accommodate many
industrial uses. The 5 -acre parcel is occupied by a church -- a use incompatible with most
industrial development. The 2.84 -acre parcel is developed with residential cabins, another use
incompatible with industry. The remaining three parcels in this category are a 23.32 -acre parcel
occupied by the Pines Manufactured Home Park, a 39.56 -acre parcel occupied by Sisters High
School, and a 77.02 -acre parcel occupied by the USFS Sisters Ranger District compound. The
Board finds that none of these three parcels reasonably can accommodate industrial uses. The
undeveloped portions of the parcels occupied by the manufactured home park and the high
school cannot reasonably accommodate industrial uses because of the inherent incompatibility
between such uses and the existing uses on these parcels. It is not expected that these uses will
change within the 20 -year planning period.
With respect to the USFS parcel, the applicant states approximately two-thirds is committed to
existing buildings, parking and landscaping for the Sisters Ranger District compound and/or is
unbuildable because it is located within the Landscape Management Combining (LM) Zone
along Highway 20 which would preclude industrial development. Thus, approximately one-third
of the parcel -- 25 acres -- is potentially "available" for industrial development. However, the
Board concurs with the applicant that this parcel cannot reasonably accommodate industrial uses
because it is owned by the federal government and therefore is not subject to local land use
planning under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The City lacks authority
to rezone the parcel for industrial use without the consent of the USFS. And the record indicates
Bill Anthony, Sisters District Ranger, has stated the USFS has no intention of removing this
parcel from Forest Service use.'
Opponents ARLU-DeCo and Paine nevertheless argue the USFS parcel reasonably can
accommodate industrial uses because the City could purchase it through the Townsite Act
(Public Law 85-569). The applicant responds that even if the USFS were willing to sell the
parcel, which it is not, the Townsite Act requires a showing that the need for the USFS parcel
cannot be accommodated by other means -- e.g., on other available land. As discussed in the
findings above, the Sisters City Council and the voters of Sisters have found the subject property
is suitable for industrial use. Therefore, the Board finds it highly unlikely the City could make
' The record indicates that because the county has not received notification of these approved zone changes, the
Sisters Urban Area zoning map does not yet reflect these changes.
' At the second public hearing before the Hearings Officer, Leslee Bangs, agent for the school district, testified the
Sisters Ranger District has expressed interest in having its property removed from the city's planning designation
and zoning altogether.
Board of Commissioners Decision, PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 17
the type of showing required for acquisition of the USFS parcel under the Townsite Act. For the
foregoing reasons, the Board finds the vacant and underdeveloped parcels located within the
Sisters UGB cannot reasonably accommodate industrial uses.
c. Impact of Sewer on Buildable Land Inventory. In response to concerns raised by the
opponents that the installation of a sewer would free up drainfield areas within the UGB
resulting in an increase in the buildable lands inventory, the applicant and the school district
undertook another comprehensive study, based on county environmental health and building
department records, DEQ records, county planning documents and on the ground inspection of
every tax lot within the City limits, to determine the increase in the amount of buildable lands
once the sewer is fully functioning and all lots are hooked up. The data gathered, together with
the summary and conclusions of the study, are found in the applicant's Third Supplemental
Burden of Proof Statement and Exhibit "D" thereto. Opponents did not challenge this evidence
other than with the conclusory statement that the sewer would make additional lands available
for development within the City limits. Based on the detailed evidence submitted by the
applicant, the Board concludes that the installation of a sewer system will have no impact on the
amount of industrial land available and the applicant's needs analysis showing a need of at least
82 acres remains valid even with the addition of sewer to the City.
2. Nonresource Land Located Outside the UGB. Opponent ARLU-DeCo has identified as
suitable for industrial development a vacant 36.02 -acre parcel zoned RR -10 abutting; the Sisters
UGB southeast of the subject property (hereafter "Tax Lot 1202"). This tax lot is located east
across Camp Polk Road from parcels to the south of the subject property zoned CG and UAR-10,
abuts RR -10 -zoned land on the north and east and abuts developed RS -zoned land on the south.
ARLU-DeCo argues that under ORS 197.298, the RR -10 -zoned parcel is a higher priority for
inclusion within the Sisters UGB than the EFU-zoned subject property. ORS 197.298 provides in
pertinent part:
(1) In addition to any requirements established by rule addressing urbanization,
land may not be included within an urban growth boundary except under
the following priorities:
(a) First priority is land that is designated urban reserve land under ORS
195.145, rule or metropolitan service district action plan.
(b) If land under paragraph (a) of this subsection is inadequate to
accommodate the amount of land needed, second priority is land
adjacent to an urban growth boundary that is identified in an
acknowledged comprehensive plan as an exception area or
nonresource land. Second priority may include resource land that is
completely surrounded by exception areas unless such resource land
is high-value farmland as described in ORS 215.710.
Board of Commissioners Decision, PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 18
(c) If land under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection is inadequate
to accommodate the amount of land needed, third priority is land
designated as marginal land pursuant to ORS 197.247 (1991 Edition).9
(d) If land under paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection is inadequate to
accommodate the amount of land needed, fourth priority is land
designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan for agriculture or
forestry, or both.
(3) Land of lower priority under subsection (1) of this section may be included in
an urban growth boundary if land of higher priority is found to be
inadequate to accommodate the amount of land estimated in subsection (1) of
this section for one or more of the following reasons:
(a) Specific types of identified land needs cannot be reasonably
accommodated on higher priority lands;
(b) Future urban services could not reasonably be provided to the higher
priority [lands] due to topographical or other physical constraints; or
(c) Maximum efficiency of land uses within a proposed urban growth
boundary requires inclusion of lower priority lands in order to
include or to provide services to higher priority lands.
The applicant argues the subject property is a higher priority for inclusion in the Sisters UGB
than Tax Lot 1202 because: (1) Tax Lot 1202 is zoned residential and is not adequate to
accommodate the identified need for industrial -zoned land; (2) Tax Lot 1202 is surrounded by
residential uses; (3) Tax Lot 1202 floods regularly; and 4) Tax Lot 1202 does not have adequate
access for industrial use because it shares access with adjacent residential development. The
opponents have offered no evidence refuting these facts or arguments. The Board agrees that
these factors make the subject property a higher priority than Tax Lot 1202. The recozd indicates
the City has targeted this property for residential zoning in the future and, giver. the City's
identified need for an additional 142 acres of residential land, it is not reasonable to remove
lands from the potential residential supply. The Board also finds that locating a new industrial
park so far from existing industrial uses would not result in the maximum efficiency of land uses
and the orderly provision of services.
For the foregoing reasons, the Board finds the applicant has demonstrated there are no alternative
lands that do not require a new goal exception that can reasonably accommodate needed
industrial uses.
9 Deschutes County has not designated "marginal lands."
Board of Commissioners Decision, PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 19
(c) The long-term environmental, economic, social
and energy consequences resulting from the use
at 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 other areas
requiring a Goal exception.
FINDINGS: In a previous decision approving a proposed plan amendment and goal exception to
construct a road on forest -zoned land (Deschutes County Public Works, PA-97-4/CtJ-97-44) the
county held this criterion means the applicant has to demonstrate the long-term consequences of
its chosen alternative are not "significantly more adverse" than the long-term consequences from
alternative locations requiring a goal exception -- i.e., resource land. Applying this interpretation
to the subject proposal, the Board finds the applicant must demonstrate that including the subject
property within the Sisters UGB will not create environmental, social, economic and energy
("ESEE") consequences that are significantly more adverse than those that would typically result
from including other land zoned EFU or Forest in the Sisters UGB for industrial use.
The record indicates there is other resource land abutting the Sisters UGB on the west and
south.10 To the southwest is the Patterson Llama Ranch zoned EFU and engaged in commercial
farm use. The Board finds that including this land within the Sisters UGB would convert
productive farm land to industrial uses, creating significantly more adverse ESEE consequences
than converting the unproductive subject property to industrial use. To the southeast are other
parcels zoned EFU. The Board is aware that these parcels are engaged in farm use consisting of
livestock grazing on irrigated pasture. Therefore, the Board finds that converting these parcels to
industrial use also would have significantly more adverse ESEE consequences than would result
from the applicant's proposal. Finally, to the northwest and south are parcels zoned for forest
use. Nothing in the record suggests that these parcels have been or are being hzuvested for
timber. However, we take note of the fact that no commercial timber cutting is currently taking
place in or immediately adjacent to the City of Sisters. In any event, based on the evidence in
the record, the Board finds that converting the subject property to industrial use would not create
significantly more adverse ESEE consequences than converting forest -zoned land to such use.
(d) The proposed uses are compatible with other
adjacent uses or will be so rendered through
measures designed to reduce adverse impacts.
FINDINGS: The Board finds this criterion requires a determination as to: 1) the nature of the
uses adjacent to the subject property; 2) the nature of uses permitted under the proposal; 3)
whether the permitted uses are compatible with existing uses on adjacent lands; and 4) whether
the permitted uses can be rendered compatible with adjacent uses "with measures designed to
reduce adverse impacts."
10 The rest of the UGB abuts land zoned RR -10.
Board of Commissioners Decision, PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 20
1. Uses In Surrounding Area. The area surrounding the subject property has a mixture of
zoning districts and uses. To the south is land zoned EFU-SC. The record does not indicate
whether this property currently is engaged in farm use. To the west is the school district property.
The record indicates this property has the same soil type as the subject property, also lacks
irrigation and is not currently engaged in farm use. Further to the west is Pine Street and the
USFS Sisters Ranger District compound on land zoned UAR-10. To the east is Camr, Polk Road
and Sisters Airport. To the north is land zoned RR -10 and developed with the Trapper Point
Subdivision.
2. Permitted Uses.
This application presently involves a request to expand the Sisters' UGB to include the subject
property together with a plan amendment and zone change to change the property designation
from Agricultural to Industrial and to change the zoning from EFU to Light Industrial. The
applicants have applied to the City for annexation and have received voter approval for the
annexation. The record shows that the Sisters City Council also supports annexation but has
taken the position that it cannot finalize the annexation until the present application its approved
and the property is brought within the UGB.
In concluding that the impacts from specific heavier industrial uses permitted outright in the IL
Zone of the Sisters Urban Area Zoning Ordinance could not be effectively mitigated, the
Hearings Officer relied on the uses identified in the IL Zone of the Urban Area ordinance rather
than the IL Zone of the City of Sisters ordinance. A comparison of the two ordinances is useful
for the purpose of this analysis and is set forth in the following chart:
Board of Commissioners Decision, PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 21
J
r
v
O
M
O
C
(c
O
N
O
N
CO
r
N
O
LO
N
O
tL)
o c 'y al _ � a)
>. � N yy
to
W m d C `y ti c_>
0 3 m io >
y j y o L. E L 7 O O
O O N J y V 7 C.
C O C N yyg V/
L O j CIO m E > .Lm. y 'O y
O 'O 7 C U C tC ? O .y
O —
L '6m yc�in E n m 3�•n
O 7 n C_ G O T 04) c L W>, a)
L E O 4)N .L 0 a) N V m Cl
y O O 00 Y a) N C C O 5 C
y € n 7
E M E;` r- m mo r
p mm a dj vo m a
J O U 2 y C V E N O L •y E y
a) C d C �yp al Y Q 3 Z> O N
a - U W d C� C U �` E •- C
S E o `° m c n� o
C. na yp > c y ?m d r� ov
L a) y S U 4 8.8 y c {0 C r7 •O � f0 y c
=O C 0 .0 G. 0 M O T m E n N >,' C U
O
C lOwt Via C m a1 y Z U L
a a�$oc' m oo LO y h C Cam y
y � � 0cmaoc 2�n.0E 4) r. -
co D
y L=c vic '�m4c COgNc 0, = 1, —in
y � �i '� m o m o c �' � m m� m E 8 •- o o c o 'a
C' m ami 5, .2 o 0) E v rn of o•� c yw «� !ti y 15,0
c_• yCwm Cm rC Cr7�ato Ct0 CLdc
m E 'c E 1 5 L 10 m
oN U o)� E u) :?� v� y� o l� = E c
o°= SEE I=A 4Oo�i-0ai�=-0c� =cm cc 1p
j— m 2 7 7 L 'y c V QI O w '- m M x CO Co C C
FL -U oCo) c 4lm o �L m m m n C io 0
Q m Uo Uiti t9i_ -> Y �� UU E Ad m
rn
c
'v
N U
C n Cl y
V) O
y N y m e
rt y ' EN �w
N SpQ N�� Qa' y n 0 y
y O` .m Gj E O YC a L. ~ Q
y U O 2 mp
C6 2
S ti) c Lb E tco.m E 2S ��, >cL O a) Oo
•� E�ma :6 C S{p i N C C a Y•p c O 0>
c :: y On
U 6= 7 N U C C r E � m m �' 'y. a) C 7 N aY
o c- � n� rn N to '0 LOt w m m p o rn m m
J E CL
dvmi Z _v�� y vEi E c .gym v cn�2�a �° $ED
c c g C C C y c L d O C �p Cf 0 • '. L C O
c a 0 P a m E 71�i $ m v 0 W- C 4La
) S a aai
g'rn m v m.
r ?,� c �da�Om mO o Svc c c �o-> m :: m!o
c m e m m EL c c E y d m y m� ���� t� m E p..
5 Em n o yr ca tram E m �1y 2 g5BO€ c o o >,ny
0 0 o c �i it, alm y E vrci L m ) d c y m$ m m y 20, NO` E
m c tj U) 43 Z, L° vi c 2� !v $ r � A °� E v am y m E °;
U o m o no c m m •� m y._16 c 0-02
E O — CIO L O" y a) y 3 N w - al >. N pQ O y d L y
�c Y `��nmca n.0c E 1L arn't°' V%a a ami3 �"" $ t m
c _ _0.
`o m3��i �mo'a.N'�2'i �$ voSm Ms .o E94 n c 3. or
m �'m c ar -0@ 5�W��yLD vimmL yet =�N Mm yErin€$y 0O 4)i :�
C y C d E $'- N c L C O$ N C C G O. d) C m .5-
4) C 7
y m� yZ;cvi�,2occo m m2S my � N o-c$g'�'p i ��to a) m
rnayinjai)°'omccm OCL �y2mccym.yOtJ C jta��ny�0 E� c o w
C y C till E U +d,, d m O O m m ;:, C y 0 c0 ..+ o 0 7 i .0 O C Vi ti -O ti - o O tT "' O �, O '� 0 C) C
7 m a) L a1 y L y �;j O w C F m O O C i e m .Y m L' E C
o yae:a 2E°3mco�d'�col UcoinHaor 'C2m32 �f'ca)c`)U�QIMic dci
0 cc
2>_ U2E��.. c c m-- c yS? you_c_ >>E �p $'
r- O C m ._ p� 7 !t p� t1 3) m �p m m �� m �� �' O 2'i a1 O m C N 4)
y n Z, C m M E w. N •_ m y y .+ C C O ._ C O. 10 0 y >. •- Y O
d o0omrn as L°C, �y.RScccy 3)�c O ff'«o�n '5L'> d x`°''cE'oHo
ci yrs S m c•g m 0vS 0 orm•E_ oa m L" 2--2
Ta) 0: s mL E cm ��� m >g g. o w L°- c
QQQQmvmU y mUUWIa_:0 �4.aN mH►=!-�Q> y LamaJ i� o �i a��3U oii y
�NMRui (6 fl: a06��� ���� ���NNN O �C4vi <ui 6 t.:ao 0; �-
N
N
As illustrated above, the heavier industrial uses allowed outright in the Urban Alrea IL Zone
identified by the Hearings Officer, including asphalt and concrete batch plants, wrecking and
junk yards, boat building and fuel oil distributors, are either not allowed at all in the C� IL Zone
(i.e. asphalt and concrete batch plants, junk yards not allowed at all) or allowed only subject to a
conditional use permit (i.e. boat building, wrecking yards and fuel oil distributors allowed
conditionally). The Hearings Officer concluded that the proposal did not satisfy the criterion
related to compatibility with the adjacent rural residential land uses because she concluded that
the typical mitigation measures authorized through site plan review for uses allowed outright
would not effectively mitigate all of the impacts from some of the heavier industrial uses, which
are allowed outright in the Urban Area IL Zone. However, because the Board has conditioned,
through a Resolution of Intent to Rezone, approval of the rezone upon annexation to the City and
zone change approval to City zoning, as set forth in the findings below and incorporated by
reference herein, the Board finds that the City IL Zone is the appropriate ordinance i:or purposes
of analyzing the permitted uses and their compatibility with adjacent uses.
As illustrated and discussed above, the only heavier -type industrial uses allowed in the City IL
Zone are boat building, fuel oil distributors and wrecking yards. These uses are allowed in the
City IL Zone only if they meet the City's conditional use criteria, 15.02.210(03), which authorize
approval only after a hearing and upon a showing that the following criteria are met:
That the location, size, design and operating characteristics of the
proposed use are such that it will have minimal adverse impact on the
livability, value, or permissible development of abutting properties and the
surrounding area.
2. That the site planning of the proposed uses will, as far as reasonably
possible, provide an aesthetically pleasing and functional environment to
the highest degree consistent with the nature of the use and the given
setting.
3. If the use is permitted outright in another zone, that there is substantial
reason for locating the use in an area where it is only conditionally
allowed, as opposed to an area where it is permitted outright.
4. That the proposed use will be consistent with the purposes of this
ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan, Statewide Goals, and any other
statutes, ordinances, or policies that may be applicable.
5. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied for will
not, under circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the
health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the
neighborhood or to the general welfare of the Urban Area.
Board of Commissioners Decision PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 23
In addition to the above general conditional use criteria, there are specific use standards designed
to further mitigate impacts from specific conditional uses. 15.02.210(08). As shown in the
criteria set forth above, the City is required to deny approval of these heavier industrial uses if
those uses do not meet the criteria set forth above.
3. Compatibility of Uses Permitted on IL -Zoned Land With Adiacent Uses.
The Board finds the uses permitted in the City IL Zone will be compatible with the industrial
uses existing and permitted in the nearby IL -zoned industrial parks to the southwest. The Board
finds that the uses also will be compatible with the USFS compound across Pine Street to the
west because this use has the characteristics of industrial and commercial uses -- i.e., offices,
shops and equipment storage and parking areas. The Board finds that the uses permitted in the
City IL Zone will be compatible with the vacant school district property since it is not engaged in
farm use and historically was used for industry -- the Lundgren sawmill. The Board also finds
that the uses permitted in the IL Zone will be compatible with the industrial uses proposed for
the school district property. With respect to the other adjacent EFU-zoned parcels, the Board
finds that they are relatively small and therefore are not likely to be productive considering the
minimum standards for a commercial farm in the EFU-SC subzone. Therefore, the Board finds
industrial uses on the subject property are not likely to be incompatible with uses on these
parcels.
With regard to the adjacent rural residential uses, the applicant argues industrial uses on the
subject property will be compatible with adjacent rural residential parcels in the Trapper Point
Subdivision because industrial properties often are less occupied than residential parcels and
because the City ordinance site plan approval and conditional use criteria include measures to
reduce adverse impacts from such uses. The applicant further agreed to impose voluntary
restrictions, as discussed below, to ensure compatibility. Opponents who are residents of the
Trapper Point Subdivision argue the applicant's proposal will not be compatible with their rural
residences because it will reduce their privacy and property values, will negatively impact their
mountain and pasture views and will place incompatible uses in close proximity to their homes.
They expressed particular concern about the breadth of uses permitted in the IL Zone."
Although the residents of Trapper Point do not have a guarantee that their mountain and pasture
views will never be affected by development on the subject property, their concerns are
legitimate. However, the Board finds that the provisions of the City ordinances are adequate to
protect these residents and ensure that the uses allowed on the subject property will be
compatible with the adjacent residential uses. As illustrated in the chart of the City IL Zone, the
City IL Zone does not allow asphalt or concrete batch plants or junk yards either outright or
conditionally. The City IL Zone does permit boat building, wrecking yards and fuel oil
distributors subject to a conditional use permit, the approval criteria for whichrp ohibit approval
unless the applicant demonstrates minimal adverse impact on livability, value or permissible
11 Again, the focus of the Hearings Officer and consequently the Trapper Point residents was on the uses allowed in
the Urban Area IL Zone not the City IL Zone.
Board of Commissioners Decision PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 24
development of surrounding area; substantial reason for locating in the zone if permitted outright
in another zone; consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Statewide Goals and other applicable
ordinances, statutes or policies; and no detrimental effect to health, safety or welfare of area or
general welfare of urban area. The Board finds that these conditional use approval criteria will
ensure that any heavier industrial uses which could be permitted conditionally under the City IL
zoning will be compatible with adjacent uses, can be rendered so with the mitigation measures
authorized through conditional use approval or can be denied based on failure to meet the
conditional use criteria.
Because we find that the uses authorized under the City IL Zone will be compatible with the
adjacent uses, can be rendered so through mitigation measures or can be denied, this should end
our inquiry. However, in response to the concerns of the Trapper Point residents, the applicant
voluntarily agreed to prohibit the heavier industrial uses on the property through the: imposition
of a Limited Use Combing Zone 12 and through use restrictions contained in a Development
Agreement, authorized by state statute. The applicant has further voluntarily agreed, through the
Development Agreement, to increase the setbacks from the northern property line to 50 feet for
buildings up to 20 feet in height and 100 feet for buildings over 20 feet in height.
Based on the above, the Board finds that the site plan and conditional use approval criteria in the
City Zoning Ordinance are adequate to ensure that any uses allowed on the subject property will
be compatible with the adjacent uses, including the residential uses to the north, will be rendered
so through mitigation measures or conditions of approval or will be denied. Nevertheless,
pursuant to the applicant's request, the Board agrees, through the Resolution of Intent to Rezone
adopted herewith, that approval of this rezone is conditioned upon annexation to the City and
rezone to the City IL -Limited Use Combing Zone discussed herein. For these reasons, the Board
finds that the proposal satisfies this criteria.
3. If the exception involves more than one area for which
reasons and circumstances are the same, the areas may
be considered as a group. Each of the areas shall be
identified on a map, or their location otherwise
described, and keyed to the appropriate findings.
FINDINGS: As discussed above, the subject applications were considered at public hearings at
which similar proposals for the adjacent school district property were considered. In some
respects the reasons and circumstances presented in support of both applications are similar.
However, the Board finds this rule provision does not apply to authorize combined consideration
of the two applications because the rule refers to "the exception" (emphasis added) -- i.e., one
exception application. The Board finds this section applies only where a single exception
application includes non-contiguous parcels and does not apply to the circumstances presented
here where there are two separate goal exception applications for contiguous property.
12 The Limited Use Combining Zone proposed by the applicant would contain all of the same provisions as the City
IL Zone, set forth in the chart above, except the following uses would be eliminated from the list of uses permitted
conditionally: boat building and associated sales and service, fuel oil distributors, and wrecking yards.
Board of Commissioners Decision PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 25
2. OAR 660-04-015, Inclusion as Part of the Plan.
(1) A local government approving a proposed exception shall adopt as
part of its comprehensive plan findings of fact and a statement of
reasons which demonstrate that the standards for an exception have
been met. The applicable standards are those in Goal 2, Part II(c),
OAR -660-004-0020(2) and 660-004-0022. The reasons and facts shall
be supported by substantial evidence that the standard has been met.
FINDINGS: In conjunction with the present decision, the Board has set forth findings of fact
and a statement of reasons consistent with the above requirement and will adopt it as part of its
Comprehensive Plan contemporaneously with this decision.
3. OAR 660-004-018, Planning and Zoning for Exception Areas.
(1) Purpose. This rule explains the requirements for adoption of plan and
zone designations for exception areas. Exceptions to one goal or a
portion of one goal do not relieve a jurisdiction from remaining goal
requirements and do not authorize uses or activities other than those
recognized or justified by the applicable exception.
(3) "Reasons" Exceptions:
(a) When a local government takes an exception under the
"Reasons" section of ORS 197.732(1)(c) and OAR 660-004-
0020 through 660-004-0022, plan and zone designations must
limit the uses and activities to only those uses and activities
which are justified in the exception;
FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings herein, the Board finds that the applicant has satisfied
all applicable criteria for a "reasons" exception to Goal 3 for an industrial designation and City
IL zoning on the subject property. The plan and zone designations will limit the uses on the
subject property to only those uses which are justified in the exception.13
4. OAR 660-004-0020, Goal 2, Part IIc, Exception Requirements.
(1) If a jurisdiction determines there are reasons consistent with
OAR 660-04-022 to use resource land for uses not allowed by
the applicable Goal, the justification shall be set forth in the
comprehensive plan as an exception.
13 As previously indicated, our finding that the uses allowed under the IL Zoning will be compatible with adjacent
residential uses to the north is based on the uses allowed either outright or conditionally in the Cfty IL Zone. We
have therefore conditioned our rezone approval, through a Resolution of Intent to Rezone adopted herewith, on
annexation to the City and rezone to the City IL Zone, with a Limited Use Combining Zone prohibiting boat
building, fuel oil distributors and wrecking yards.
Board of Commissioners Decision PA-99-41ZC-99-1
Page 26
FINDINGS: The Board finds that the findings of fact and conclusions of law in this decision
will provide the basis for justification for the exception to be included in the Comprehensive
Plan.
(2) The four factors in Goal 2 Part II(c) required to be addressed
when taking an exception to a Goal are:
(a) Reasons justify why the state policy embodied in the
applicable goals should not apply.
FINDINGS: The Board has addressed this factor in the findings above, which are incorporated
by reference herein.
(b) Areas which do not require a new exception cannot
reasonably accommodate the use.
FINDINGS: The Board has addressed this factor in the findings above, which are incorporated
by reference herein.
(c) The long-term environmental, economic, social, and
energy consequences resulting from the use at 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
other areas requiring a Goal Exception. The exception
shall describe the characteristics of each alternative
area 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
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 least 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.
Board of Commissioners Decision PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 27
FINDINGS: The Board has addressed this factor in the findings above, which are incorporated
by reference herein. However, the Board makes the following additional findings addressing
specific aspects of this criterion. The findings above address all of the alternative areas within
and outside the Sisters UGB that were considered by the applicant and opponents for industrial
designation and zoning. Those include findings that the subject property is not suitable for farm
use due to its poor soils, lack of irrigation and location and that because of its unsuitability there
will not be adverse economic impacts from permanently removing the property from the
agricultural resource base. The Board finds that the adjacent school district property, which the
record indicates has the same soil type as the subject property, also lacks irrigation water and has
not been farmed, is similarly unsuitable for farm use. Therefore, the applicant's proposal will not
interfere with the ability to sustain resource uses on the school district property. There are no
other resource uses or EFU- or forest -zoned properties near the subject property.
The Board finds there is no evidence in the record that the applicant's proposal will have any
impacts on the water table. The record indicates development on the subject property would be
served by the City's municipal water system and sewer system, when available. In addition, the
applicable site plan approval criteria regulate on-site drainage for all industrial -zoned property
and provide a mechanism to assure runoff from industrial uses on the subject property will not
contaminate the water table. The record indicates there are no special service districts that would
be affected by the applicant's proposal. Furthermore and as specifically discussed in the findings
below, the applicant's Development Agreement with the City of Sisters and the County, with
ODOT's approval, under which the applicant agrees to contribute $152,295 to fund traffic
improvements, exclusive of any traffic -related SDC and other traffic -related charges, and to
restrict the level of development of the subject property to ensure the v/c ratios identified in the
Oregon Highway Plan (OHP) for all affected intersections would not be exceeded,'" ensures that
the ESEE consequences are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the
same proposal being located in other areas requiring a Goal exception.
(d) The proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent
land uses or will be so rendered through measures
designed to reduce adverse impacts.
FINDINGS: The Board has addressed this factor in the fundings above, which are incorporated
by reference herein.
5. OAR 660-004-0030, Notice and Adoption of an Exception.
(1) Goal 2 requires that each notice of a public hearing on a
proposed exception shall specifically note that a goal exception
is proposed and shall summarize the issues in an
understandable manner.
(2) A planning exception takes effect when the comprehensive plan
or plan amendment is adopted by the city or county governing
body. Adopted exceptions will be reviewed by the Commission
when the comprehensive plan is reviewed for compliance with
14 The dollar contributions and the percentage restriction on development contained in the Development: Agreement
are based on a detailed traffic study prepared in conjunction with the school district by David Evans and Associates.
The record shows that these dollar figures, trip generation calculations, the estimated worst-case traffic impacts,
proposed transportation facilities and cost estimates were developed with the support of ODOT and the City of
Sisters.
Board of Commissioners Decision PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 28
the goals, when a plan amendment is reviewed pursuant to
OAR Chapter 660, Division 18, or when a periodic review is
conducted pursuant to ORS 197.640.
FINDINGS: The Board finds the criteria in paragraph (1) were met by the mailed and published
notice of the public hearings which specifically stated that a goal exception was proposed. In
addition, the record indicates notice of the proposed plan amendment was mailed to DLCD.
PLAN AMENDMENT
C. PL -16, the Sisters Urban Area Comprehensive Plan15
1. Part VI. Implementation Programs and Policies
Comprehensive Plan Review Adoption. Amendments
... Any changes should be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and
statements of intent of the plan or these guidelines should first be changed or
amended to reflect the new policies. This should be true of both changes
resulting from periodic Planning Commission review and from individual
petitions. Hearings on plan amendments shall follow the amendment
procedures set forth in the ordinance adopting the Plan. (Plan, page: 108.)
FINDINGS: The applicant has identified several plan policies as applicable to the proposed plan
amendment. However, at the outset, the Board finds it is necessary to determine to what extent
the plan policies identified by the applicant constitute mandatory approval criteria for this quasi-
judicial plan amendment application. Whether a plan policy constitutes such a criterion depends
not only on the language of the policy but also on the function the plan assigns to the policy. Von
Lubken v. Hood River Countv, 104 Or App 683, 689, 803 P2d 750 (1990), adhered to 106 Or
App 226, rev den 311 Or 349 (1991). Schellenburg, v. Polk Countv, 21 Or LUBA 425 (1991).
The Sisters Urban Area Comprehensive Plan includes the following language describing its
purpose:
The comprehensive plan provides the foundation for the planning process by
establishing long-range goals and objectives and by providing, through its various
elements, an integrated view of future public and private development patterns in
the community. It is not the last word, nor is it the first... The comprehensive plan
is not the zoning plan... The plan recommends appropriate uses for various areas
and attempts to provide a maximum range of choice in the urban area within the
limits of community living. (Plan, page 2; emphasis added.)
15 The Board finds that it is the Sisters Urban Area Comprehensive Plan, not the Deschutes County Year 2000
Comprehensive Plan, which contains the applicable approval criteria because the applicant proposes to include the
subject property within the Sisters UGB.
Board of Commissioners Decision PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 29
The plan must be implemented if it is to be of value to the community. It requires...
the administration of appropriate codes and ordinances which influence
development ... The Comprehensive Plan provides basic guidelines with which the
community can chart a course for change .... (Plan, page 3; emphasis added.)
The Comprehensive Plan policies are based on the established general goals and
objectives described in Part III and are supported by adequate findings ... The
Plan maps and text are intended as a statement of public policy encompassing
development objectives of and for the urbanizing area of Sisters.... (Plan, Page 56;
emphasis added.)
The Board finds the above -underscored language suggests the plan and its policies were intended
only to be recommendations and statements of broad public policy rather than to establish
mandatory approval criteria for quasi-judicial land use applications. Nevertheless„ some plan
policies are written in mandatory terms, suggesting they were intended to be more than mere
recommendations or statements of policy. In the absence of a clear statement in the plan that its
policies are not intended to apply to quasi-judicial plan amendment applications, the Board finds
that it must examine each plan policy identified by the applicant to determine its applicability.
Urbanization (Plan, page 93.)
1. The urban growth boundary shall be used as the official area for which to
plan all public facilities, annexations, and future land use for the year 2000.
2. The urban growth boundary shall not be considered for amendment unless it
is determined that the carrying capacity of the current UGB has reached its
maximum with adequate findings of fact.
FINDINGS: The parties have treated these two plan policies as approval criteria. The Board
finds Policy 1, although written in mandatory terms, addresses the area within which to "plan,"
suggesting it is directed at the City and county and is not an approval criterion for individual plan
and UGB amendment applications. Policy 2, on the other hand, expressly addresses UGB
amendments and is written in mandatory terms. Therefore, the Board finds it does constitute an
approval criterion for the proposed plan amendment and UGB expansion.
As discussed in the findings above, the City of Sisters has developed a draft 1997-2017
Comprehensive Plan which recommends that the subject property be included within the Sisters
UGB and designated industrial in order to provide adequate industrial -zoned land during that
planning period. The draft plan has not been formally adopted and therefore the current
Comprehensive Plan controls. Opponents Paine and ARLU-DeCo argue these two plan policies,
read together, mean the existing UGB is frozen because of the reference in Policy 1 to the year
2000. They also argue the carrying capacity of the UGB has not yet reached its maximum
because once a municipal sewer system is in place the City limits and UGB can be developed at
greater density, thus accommodating any need for additional lands for development.
Board of Commissioners Decision PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 30
The Board funds opponents' reading of these two provisions would render Policy 2 meaningless.
To give effect to Policy 2, it must be interpreted to authorize UGB amendments be)bre the year
2000 if the applicant demonstrates with adequate findings of fact that the UGB's "carrying
capacity" has "reached its maximum" -- i.e., it no longer is large enough to accommodate
planned and anticipated growth. As discussed in detail in the findings above, incorporated by
reference herein, the Board has found the applicant has demonstrated the City's projected need
for industrial land cannot reasonably be accommodated by the approximately six acres of IL -
zoned land remaining in the UGB or other available land within and outside the UGB. The
applicant has demonstrated with reliable, credible evidence that at least 82 additional acres of
industrial land are needed to accommodate population and economic growth during the next
twenty years. Therefore, the Board finds the applicant's proposal is consistent with Urbanization
Policy 2.
3. In order to assure the economic provision and utilization of future
public facilities and services, the present city shall develop to 75%
capacity before expanding into the "urban reserve" areas.
FINDINGS: This policy is written in mandatory terms. However, the Board finds it is not
applicable to the proposed plan amendment because it addresses expansion of the City limits into
the UGB rather than expansion of the existing UGB into rural lands as proposed by the
applicant. Even if this policy is applicable, the Board finds it has been satisfied. In a previous
decision (PMR, PA-95-15/ZC-95-12), the County held the term "present city" means the Sisters
City limits as they existed in 1979 when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. The County
further held the applicant in that case had demonstrated through a 1995 developed lands study
that the City had developed to 75% capacity. At the first public hearing, the applicant's attorney
testified that the applicant conducted an updated developed lands study which indicates that 82.2
percent of the City now is built out. This updated study was submitted into the recordand
opponents did not submit any evidence to challenge it. The Board finds this study to be credible
and adheres to the County decision in PMR.
ZONE CHANGE
D. Title 21 of the Deschutes County Code, the Sisters Urban Area Zoning Ordinance
1. Chapter 21.72, Amendments
This title may be amended by changing the boundaries of districts, or by
changing any other provisions thereof as set forth in this chapter..
a. Section 21.72.020, Standards for Zone Change
The burden of proof is upon the applicant. The applicant shall in all
cases establish:
Board of Commissioners Decision PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 31
1. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Board has
found the applicant's proposal is consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan policies.
Therefore, the Board finds the applicant's proposed zone change satisfies this approval criterion.
2. Conformance with all applicable statutes.
FINDINGS: As discussed above, the Board has found the applicant's proposal is consistent with
the provisions of ORS 197.298 governing the priorities for inclusion of land within a UGB.
Based on those findings, incorporated by reference herein, the Board finds the applicant's
proposal satisfies this zone change approval criterion.
3. Conformance with Statewide Planning goals wherever they are
determined to be applicable.
FINDINGS: As discussed herein, the Board has found that the proposal is consistent with all
applicable statewide planning Goals. Based on those findings, incorporated by reference herein,
the Board finds the applicant's proposal satisfied this zone change approval criterion.
4. That there is a public need for a change of the kind in question.
FINDINGS: As discussed in detail in the findings above, the Board has found the applicant has
demonstrated a need for at least 82 additional acres of industrial land within the Sisters UGB to
accommodate anticipated growth during the next twenty years. Based upon these findings,
incorporated by reference herein, the Board finds the applicant has demonstrated a public need
for the proposed zone change satisfying this approval criterion.
5. That the need will be best served by changing the classification
of the particular piece of property in question as compared
with other available property.
FINDINGS: As discussed in detail in the findings above, the Board has found the applicant's
alternative areas analysis indicates there are no other vacant or underdeveloped lands within the
Sisters UGB, or other nonresource land outside the UGB, that reasonably could accommodate
the proposed industrial uses. The Board finds that for purposes of this zone change approval
criterion "other available property" means the alternative lands analyzed by the applicant and
discussed in the findings above. For the reasons set forth in those findings, incorporated by
reference herein, the Board finds the applicant has demonstrated the need for additional
industrial land within the Sisters UGB will best be served by rezoning the subject property rather
than other available land within and outside the UGB.
6. That there is proof of a change of circumstances or a mistake
in the original zoning.
Board of Commissioners Decision PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 32
FINDINGS:
1. Mistake. The Board finds there was no mistake in the original EFU zoning of the subject
property. As discussed above, it is located outside the Sisters UGB, is composed of Class VI
soils and no exception to the Statewide Planning Goals previously was taken for the! property to
remove it from its resource designation.
2. Change of Circumstances. The Board finds the applicant has demonstrated a change of
circumstances since the subject property's original EFU zoning consisting of the almost
complete absorption of industrial land within the Sisters UGB. As discussed in the findings
above, incorporated by reference herein, the applicant has demonstrated that only approximately
six acres of IL -zoned land remain in the UGB and that an additional 82 acres of industrial land
are needed to accommodate projected population and employment growth in the Sisters area in
the next twenty years. The applicant also has demonstrated that other available land (vacant and
underdeveloped land within the UGB and nonresource land abutting the UGB) cannot reasonably
accommodate industrial uses. The record indicates the updated comprehensive plan recommends
the subject property be redesignated industrial in order to address this need. For these reasons,
the Board finds the applicant's proposal satisfies this zone change criterion.
7. That annexation to the City of Sisters will accompany the zone
change.
FINDINGS: The record indicates a ballot measure proposing to annex the subject property into
the Sisters UGB was approved by the voters at the November 2, 1999, election. The record also
indicates that the Sisters' City Council approved the annexation but has taken the position,
pursuant to directions from LCDC and the AG's office, that it cannot finalize the annexation until
the property is included within the UGB.
Opponent ARLU-DeCo argues this zone change approval requirement cannot be satisfied by
annexation that precedes the approval of a UGB expansion, plan amendment and zone change.
The Board finds this criterion could be read to require that the City take simultaneous action to
grant the zone change and annex the property. The record contains testimony from Neal
Thompson, Sisters Planning Director, that the City has concluded that the requirement of this
section must be met by the applicant executing a consent to annexation agreement as a condition
of approval for a plan amendment and zone change. Requiring simultaneous annexation ignores
the fact that under current Sisters law annexation requires approval by the voters through a ballot
measure. Therefore, it simply may not be possible for the City to synchronize annexation of a
given piece of property with land use approval considering the time required for placing an
annexation measure on the ballot and the uncertainty of the eventual outcome of either the land
use application or the vote. In any event, the Board has resolved this issue by including a
provision in its Resolution of Intent to Rezone requiring annexation to be completed before the
zone change becomes final. For these reasons, the Board finds that the proposal satisfies this
zone change criterion.
Board of Commissioners Decision PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 33
F. OAR 660-012, Transportation Planning Rule
1. OAR 660-12-060, Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments
FINDINGS: The Board finds this administrative rule is applicable because the applicant
proposes a plan amendment and zone change from EFU to IL.
(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 [Transportation System Plan] 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.
FINDINGS: Although the proposed plan amendment and zone change, in and of themselves,
will not affect transportation facilities, if approved they would allow industrial development on
the subject property that will generate traffic creating impacts on such facilities in the future.
However, the Board finds the applicant's proposal will not change either the functional
Board of Commissioners Decision PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 34
classification or standards implementing the functional classification of any affected
transportation facilities. The subject property abuts Camp Polk Road, a designated collector
street. The classification of this street and the standards relating to collector streets will not be
affected by the applicant's proposal. The record also indicates an arterial street is planned to run
east -west between Highway 20 and Camp Polk Road in the vicinity of the subject property's
southern boundary. The Board finds the applicant's proposal also will not affect the
classification of or standards affecting this planned arterial street. The applicant's proposal
would allow industrial development generating traffic affecting three intersections on Highway
20. The record indicates Highway 20 is classified by ODOT as a state highway. The Board finds
the applicant's proposal also will not change the classification of or standards affecting this
highway. Thus, the Board finds that the application does not "significantly affect" a
transportation facility pursuant to subsections (a), (b), and (c) above.
Our inquiry under subsection (d) is more complicated. Subsection (d) focuses on the impact of
the proposed plan amendment and zone change, on the actual function of affected transportation
facilities. The record indicates that the City of Sisters has not adopted a TSP, and adoption may
be as much as two years away. Thus, the question arises as to what standards apply in the
absence of a TSP. As discussed in more detail below, we find that there is no TSI.' under this
subsection of the rule.
We are first guided by Oregon case law which on this subject suggests that, where: there is no
adopted TSP there is, quite simply, no TSP. ONRC v. City of Seaside, 29 OR LUB.A 39, 62-63
(1995); Bicycle Transportation Alliance v. Washington County, 26 Or LUBA 265�(1993). In
fact, this was the conclusion of the City of Bend Hearings Officer in the recent decision in
Clabaugh, City of Bend File 99-118, a copy of which is contained in the record. There, the
Hearings Officer concluded that, unless the political subdivision has adopted a TSP, subsection
(2)(d) of OAR 660-012-0060 - the "level of service in the TSP" provision - does not apply.
Clabaugh @ 41. Applying that conclusion here, and since we have concluded that subsections
(2)(a) -(c) of the TPR are not implicated in this application, there is no legal basis on this record
to deny the application for failure to comply with any applicable TSP.
Second, the TPR itself provides at OAR 660-012-055 that:
(3) By November 8, 1993 affected cities and counties shall, for non -MPO urban areas
of 25,000 or more, adopt land use and subdivision ordinances or amendments
required by OAR 660-012-045(3), (4)(a) -(f) and (5)(d). By May 8, 1994 affected
cities and counties within MPO areas shall adopt land use and subdivision
ordinances or amendments required by OAR 660-012-045(3), (4)(a) -(e) and
(5)(d). Affected cities and counties which do not have acknowledged ordinances
addressing the requirements of this section by the deadlines listed above shall
apply OAR 660-012-045(3), (4)(a) -(f) and (5)(d) directly to all land use decisions
and all limited land use decisions.
(4)(b) Affected cities and counties that do not have acknowledged plans and land use
regulations as provided in subsection (a) of this section, shall apply relevant
Board of Commissioners Decision PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 35
sections of this rule to land use decisions and limited land use decisions until land
use regulations complying with this amended rule have been adopted.
OAR 660-012-055.
Since the City of Sisters did not have an adopted TSP by the regulatory deadline, and still does
not, the cited section of the TPR itself becomes the functional standard to be applied to an
application. The question turns, therefore, to whether the TPR contains substantive standards
which we should or could apply to the traffic analysis in this application. It does not. The TPR
simply does not contain any separate, regulatory performance standards against which to
measure this application. The only such standard anywhere in the TPR is that set out in OAR
660-012-060(2)(d) cited above which, in turn, relies on the existence of a TSP to establish an
"acceptable level" of performance. Again, the circular analysis leads to only one conclusion; the
TPR does not contain a level of performance standard which we can apply. Absent such a
standard, let alone one that is "clear and objective", we may not deny or condition this
application based on the TPR.
Although we conclude here as a legal matter that there is no TSP, or alternative standard, to
apply under OAR 660-12-060, the Board is not unmindful that the future development of
applicant's property would, without mitigation steps agreed to by the applicant, influence the
Sister's traffic facilities. There is substantial evidence in the record detailing the traffic impacts
of such future development. Based upon this record we specifically find that, even if a TSP
standard existed which was dictated by or based upon the OHP, as suggested by the Hearings
Officer and Opponents below16, the applicant has bound itself through a Development
Agreement entered into pursuant to ORS 94.504 through 94.528 to mitigation steps that satisfy
OAR 660-12-060(1). This conclusion is supported by the evidence in the record as summarized
and analyzed below.
1. Kittleson Traffic Study.
In support of its proposal before the Hearings Officer, the applicant submitted a traffic impact
study dated August 3, 1999, prepared by Beth Wemple of Kittleson & Associates. In addition,
Ms. Wemple submitted a supplemental traffic analysis dated August 24, 1999. This study
analyzed the impact on streets and intersections from traffic generated by industrial development
on the subject property. The study was based on the following assumptions: a) only 28 acres of
the property could be developed because of the restrictions on development in the RPZ; b) the
property would be developed with a lumber yard, a mini -storage facility; "general light
16 In her recommendation, the Hearings Officer used the performance standards (v/c ratios) contained in the Oregon
Highway Plan (OHP) to conclude that the applicant's proposal "significantly affects" a transportation facility under
OAR 660-012-060(2)(d) because it would reduce the level of service of affected intersections below the minimum
acceptable level identified in the OHP. The Hearings Officer cited no authority for her substitution of the OHP for
the TSP as that term is used in OAR 660-012-060(2)(d). The Board is not aware of any authority for such a
substitution and, in fact, finds it to be inappropriate. The TPR contains a detailed description of the elements of a
TSP. See, OAR 660-012-0020. The OHP simply does not contain many of those elements and the Board finds no
authority for substituting the OHP for a TSP in this case.
Board of Commissioners Decision PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 36
industrial" and "light manufacturing" uses; c) these uses would generate traffic levels as
predicted by the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (ITE Manual); d)
the primary access to the property would be from Camp Polk Road. The study contained traffic
counts and impacts if the school district property were not developed and if the school district
property were developed with industrial uses.
This Kittleson study was criticized by the Hearings Officer as underestimating the amount of
traffic generated by the proposal, particularly when compared to the traffic study submitted by
the school district in support of its similar applications on the adjacent parcel. In an effort to
reconcile the traffic impact estimates and because the applications were being processed
simultaneously, the applicant joined with the school district and hired David Evans &
Associates, who prepared a January 2000 Update to the June 1999 Transportation Impact
Study." It is this January 2000 Update, as discussed below, which ODOT and the City support
and the Board finds to be credible and reliable. It is this study upon which the Board relies to
support its conclusion that the applicant has satisfied all applicable criteria related to traffic
impacts.
2. January 2000 Uadate.
The January 2000 Update was prepared by David Evans & Associates on behalf of both the
school district and the applicant. This study details the traffic impacts from industrial
development on both the school district property and the subject property, offers suggested
mitigation measures, appropriate transportation improvements and estimates the costs of those
improvements. The analysis assumes full industrial buildout of both the school district and the
subject property, predicts failure dates for the affected intersections and develops numbers for a
proposed development restriction on the traffic trips per PM peak hour which would. not exceed
the v/c ratio found in the OHP for the affected intersections.
The SIGCAP analysis of potential signalized intersections in 2015 was developed to represent
the actual operation of the three key intersection. The results show that a signal at the Cascade
Street -Locust Street intersection will operate at a v/c ratio of 0.72 in 2015 without the rezoning.
Adding traffic from the rezoning will degrade v/c to 0.91 and result in queue storage requirement
of over 500 feet. A signal at the Cascade Street -Pine Street intersection will operate at a v/c ratio
of 0.80 in 2015 without the rezoning and 0.83 with the rezoning. A signal at the Highway 20 -
McKinney Butte Road/New Arterial intersection will operate at a v/c ration of 0.79 in 2015
without the rezoning and 0.81 with the rezoning.
The following table shows the volume -to -capacity ratio (v/c) for the intersections of Highway 20
and Locust Street, Pine Street and McKinney Butte Road. The We is based on SIGCAP analysis
for signalized intersections. Although the intersections will not be signalized in the year 2000,
"The June 1999 Transportation Impact Study prepared by David Evans was for the school district property only.
This study was originally submitted into the record for the school district file and not for the subject file. However,
the parties joined forces after the Hearings Officer's recommendation, incorporated the records for each, file into the
other, and participated jointly in the January 2000 traffic impact analysis and subsequent submissions related to
traffic and compatibility impacts.
Board of Commissioners Decision PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 37
the year 2000 analysis is based on the assumption that a signal is in place so that a comparison
can be made with the year 2015 conditions with traffic signals. (Capacity analysis for signalized
intersections is significantly different than capacity analysis for unsignalized intersections, so the
results of the two are not directly comparable.)
Volume -to -Capacity Ratio (v/c) for Highway 20 Intersections
Based on Signalized Intersection Capacity
Year 2000 Year 2005
Intersection No Build No Build
Year 2015
No Build
Year 2015
Build
Locust Street 0.54 ---
0.72
0.91
Pine Street 0.59 ---
0.80
0.83
McKinney Butte Rd --- 0.66
0.79
0.81
Note: The capacity analysis for McKinney Butte road was calculated for the year 2005 because the proposed fourth
leg of that intersection will not be constructed by the year 2000.
3. Proposed Traffic Mithiation.
To address these impacts, and while not waiving its position that there is no TPR standard to
apply to this application, the applicant developed and entered into a Development Agreement
with the City of Sisters and the County, as approved by ODOT, that satisfies the mitigation
provisions set out at OAR 660-012-060 that will be binding on development of its property.
Because the Locust Street - Highway 20 intersection will exceed the We ratio of .85 by the year
2015, or at a maximum 413 PM peak hour trips, the applicant agreed to restrict industrial
development on the subject property (210 PM peak hour trips generated by uses on the Sisters
School District property and 203 PM peak hour trips generated by uses on the Barclay Meadows)
so that traffic generated will not reduce the level of service of affected intersections below the
minimum acceptable level identified in the OHP.
OAR 660-012-060 provides the four means cited above for mitigation of development that
"significantly affects" a traffic facility when there is a TSP standard to apply. Again, those four
means are:
a. Limit land uses to be consistent with the function, capacity and level of service of the
facility;
b. Amend the TSP to provide transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed uses;
C. Alter land use designations, densities or design requirements to reduce demand for
automobile travel and meet travel needs through other modes; or
d. Amend the TSP to modify the planned function, capacity or performance standards.
Since there is no TSP to amend, and alternative transportation modes are not practical for
industrial development, the applicant has focused its mitigation efforts on the subsection (a)
provision as well as on dollar contributions to fund a specific percentage of the total dollar cost
Board of Commissioners Decision PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 38
of future system -wide transportation improvements. There is no dispute that the intersections
which will be affected by any development of the properties will be Locust Street -I lighway. 20,
Pine St. -Highway 20 and the future McKinney Butte - Highway 20. ODOT anticipates that
traffic signals, if ultimately approved through the City of Sisters's adoption of a TSP, at the
future McKinney Butte - Highway 20, Pine Street- Highway 20 and Locust Street - Highway 20
intersection will cost $150,000 each and that the future McKinney Butte collector will cost
$700,000 to construct. These cost estimates and the applicant's proposed contributions have been
incorporated into a binding Development Agreement and include the following contributions:
Improvement
Cost
Sisters School
District Share
% Cost
Barclay Meadows
Share
% Cost
Locust Street Signal
$ 150,000
33.9%
$ 50,850
32.9%
$ 49,350
McKinney Butte Signal
$ 150,000
6.3%
$ 9,450
6.3%
$ 9,450
Pine Street Signal
$ 150,000
13.3%
$ 19,950
12.5%
$ 18,750
McKinney Butte Collector
$ 700,000
9.1%
$ 63,700
8.7%
$ 60,900
Subtotal
$ 143,395
$138,450
10% Contingency
$ 14,395
$ 13,845
TOTAL
$158,345
$1.52,295
Cost Per PM Peak Hour Tri
$ 754
$ 754
As shown above and set forth in detail in the attached Development Agreement, the applicant
agrees to pay fees to the City to be used to fund the future McKinney Butte collector, a traffic
signal at each of the intersections of Highway -Locust Street, Highway 20 -Pine Street and
Highway 20 -McKinney Butte. If the future adopted City of Sisters TSP does not identify the
transportation facility improvements referenced above as part of the TSP, the applicant agrees
that its contributions will be put toward whatever transportation facility improvements are
identified in the City's TSP.
4. Conclusion.
Based on the evidence in the record and the support of both ODOT and the City, the Board finds
that the applicant has fully satisfied the most that could be required even if the proposal were
found to "significantly affect" a transportation facility within the meaning of the TPR. The
Board finds the applicant's suggested mitigation measures contained in the Development
Agreement are adequate for the following reasons. The applicant voluntarily offers to restrict
allowed land uses to be consistent with the planned function, capacity and level of service of the
transportation facility. The Agreement addresses the transportation impacts of both the School
District's project as well as Barclay Meadows project by estimating the number of trips which
would be generated from both properties under a maximum, worst case development scenario,
planning for the traffic facilities necessary to accommodate these worst case scenario trips,
restricting development of the subject properties to 68% of these worst case scenario trips and
Board of Commissioners Decision PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 39
providing for developer contributions (exclusive of any traffic SDCs or other traffic -related
charges) to fund the facility improvements. For the foregoing reasons, the Board of
Commissioners finds the applicant's proposal is in conformance with the TPR.
(3) Determinations under section (1) and (2) of this rule shall be coordinated
with affected transportation facility and service providers and other affected
local governments.
FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, the City, county and ODOT commented with
approval on the applicant's proposal, traffic study, and Development Agreement. Therefore, the
Board finds this portion of the TPR has been satisfied.
G. OAR 660-015, Statewide Planning Goals
FINDINGS: The applicant proposes an amendment to the comprehensive plan. Therefore, the
Board finds the applicant must demonstrate the proposal is consistent with applicable statewide
planning goals. The Board makes the following findings concerning compliance with the goals.
1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement
FINDINGS: The Board finds the applicant's proposal is consistent with this goal because the
City and county have provided numerous opportunities for public comment and involvement.
The City appointed a Citizen's Advisory Committee in 1990 to prepare a draft revised
comprehensive plan that was considered by the planning commission and city council through
public workshops, work sessions and public hearings. The comprehensive plan recommended
that the subject property be redesignated industrial and included in the UGB. In addition, two
public hearings before the Hearings Officer were held on the subject applications and a public
hearing before the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners was held. Owners of record of
property located within 500 feet of the subject property received individual written notice of the
proposal and the initial public hearing, and the public hearing also was noticed through
publication in the "Bend Bulletin" newspaper and by posting the subject property.
2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning
FINDINGS: The Board finds the applicant's proposal is consistent with this goal because it has
been reviewed under the Sisters Urban Area comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance and
public hearings have been conducted in accordance with the county's procedures ordinance.
3. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands
FINDINGS: The applicant has requested approval of an exception to Goal 3 to include the EFU-
zoned subject property within the Sisters UGB. For the reasons set forth in the findings above,
incorporated by reference herein, the Board finds the policies in Goal 3 should not apply to the
subject property due to its unsuitability for farm use, the demonstrated need for at least 82 acres
Board of Commissioners Decision PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 40
of industrial land and the evidence demonstrating that the subject property is the most suitable to
meet that need.
4. Goal 4, Forest Lands
FINDINGS: The Board finds this goal is not applicable because the subject property is not
zoned Forest and does not abut or impact forest lands.
5. Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Area and Natural Resources
FINDINGS: This goal requires the county to inventory and protect significant scenic, historic
and natural resources. The record indicates the subject property does not include any inventoried
Goal 5 resources. Therefore, the Board finds the proposal is consistent with this goal.
6. Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality
FINDINGS: Goal 6 requires that the county protect air and water quality. The Board finds the
applicant's proposal is consistent with this goal. The property has been approved for annexation
to the City and consequently any industrial development will be subject to the City's regulations
for connection to municipal water as well as state standards for air and water quality and sewage
disposal. In addition, the proposal will not affect water quality because no bodies of water exist
on or near the subject property.
7. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
FINDINGS: The record indicates there are no identified natural disasters or hazards on the
subject property. Therefore, the Board finds this goal is not applicable.
8. Goal 8, Recreational Needs
FINDINGS: The Board finds this goal is not applicable because the applicant does not propose
to use the subject property for a destination resort or other recreational uses and there are no
existing or planned destination resorts near the property.
9. Goal 9, Economic Development
FINDINGS: This goal requires the county and City to provide adequate opportunities for a
variety of economic activities, including providing an adequate supply of industrial -zoned land
within the Sisters UGB. As discussed in detail in the findings above, incorporated by reference
herein, the Board has found the applicant has demonstrated a need for at least 82 acres of
industrial -zoned land to meet the City's needs during the next twenty years. The applicant's
proposal would address this need by allowing 28 acres of the subject property to be developed
with industrial uses and therefore is consistent with this goal.
Board of Commissioners Decision PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 41
10. Goal 10, Housing
FINDINGS: The Board finds this goal is not applicable because the applicant's proposal would
neither remove nor add the subject property to the City's inventory of residential lands.
11. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services
FINDINGS: This goal requires the City and county to plan and develop an orderly arrangement
of public facilities and services for urban and rural development. In addition, as discussed in the
findings above and below, Factor 3 of Goal 14 requires that changes to an urban growth
boundary be justified on the basis of demonstrated adequacy of public facilities and services. The
subject property, when included in the Sisters UGB, will be served with municipal water, on-site
drainfields and ultimately City sewer service when available. The record shows that both water
and sewer service, when available, will be adequate to serve the development. The record
further shows that the applicant proposes extensive traffic mitigation measures, through a
Development Agreement described herein, with the support of ODOT and the City which will
ensure that the traffic facilities are adequate to accommodate the traffic generated by the
proposal. Based on this evidence and the findings set forth above and incorporated by reference
herein, the Board finds the proposal is consistent with this goal.
12. Goal 12, Transportation
FINDINGS: This goal is implemented through the TPR, discussed in detail in the findings
above. For the reasons set forth in those findings, incorporated by reference herein, the Board
finds the applicant's proposal is consistent with the rule and therefore satisfies Goal 1.2.
13. Goal 13, Energy Conservation
FINDINGS: This goal requires the City and county to give priority in land use planning to the
efficient utilization of energy. The Board finds the applicant's proposal is consistent with this
goal because it would allow the subject property to be developed with industrial uses like those
on adjacent industrial -zoned land, providing opportunities for more efficient transportation and
energy utilization for such uses.
14. Goal 14, Urbanization
FINDINGS: This goal requires the City and county to assure their land use planning will
provide for the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land uses. This goal is
applicable because the applicant's proposal would result in bringing rural land into the Sisters
UGB for urban industrial development. The goal provides in pertinent part:
Board of Commissioners Decision PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 42
Urban growth boundaries shall be established to identify and separate urbanizable
land from rural land. Establishment and change of the boundaries shall be based
upon consideration of the following factors:
1. Demonstrated need to accommodate long-range urban population growth
requirements consistent with LCDC goals;
2. Need for housing, employment opportunities, and livability;
FINDINGS: As discussed in detail in the findings above, the Board has found the applicant has
demonstrated a need for at least 82 acres of additional industrial -zoned land to meet the City's
projected employment and economic development needs for the next twenty years. The applicant
also has demonstrated the subject property generally is suitable for conversion from
unproductive farmland to industrial land. For the reasons set forth in the findings above,
incorporated by reference herein, the Board finds the applicant's proposal satisfies these two
Goal 14 factors.
3. Orderly and economic provision for public facilities and services;
FINDINGS: As discussed above, once annexed into the Sisters UGB the subject property would
be served by municipal water and a municipal sewer system when available. Until the municipal
sewer system is available to this property, industrial uses would be served by ori -site septic
systems approved by the county as meeting the requirements of the Department of
Environmental Quality. The record indicates development on the property would be served by
the Sisters -Camp Sherman Rural Fire Department and the Deschutes County Sheriff's
department. The subject property has access to Camp Polk Road, a designated collector street.
The intersections which will be affected by the ultimate development of the property include
Highway 20/Locust Street, Highway 20/Pine Street and the future intersection of Highway
20/McKinney Butte. The evidence in the record shows that the applicant has restricted the level
of development on the subject property and provided funding for traffic improvements to ensure
that the affected transportation facilities continue to function at the level identified to be
acceptable in the OHP. Based on the evidence in the record together with the applicant's
obligations under the Development Agreement, discussed in detail in the findings above and
incorporated by reference herein, the Board finds that the proposal satisfies this factor.
4. Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the existing
urban areas;
FINDINGS: The Board finds the applicant's proposal is consistent with this Goal 14 factor
because it will allow the subject property to be developed with industrial uses similar to those
already existing on adjacent industrial -zoned land within the Sisters UGB. As discussed in the
findings above and incorporated by reference herein, the subject property and the adjacent school
district property are the two parcels most suitable to provide the industrial land supply required
by Goal 9. Public facilities and services are available and adequate to serve the proposed
development. The location is the only logical area for industrial use and the acreage is sufficient
Board of Commissioners Decision PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 43
to provide the City with an industrial land supply of suitable sizes, locations and services to meet
a variety of industrial needs. For these reasons and as further supported by the findings above,
incorporated by reference herein, the Board finds the proposal satisfies this Goal 14 factor.
5. Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences;
FINDINGS: Compliance with this factor is discussed in detail in the findings above which are
incorporated by reference herein. The Board has found that the applicant's proposal will have no
greater ESEE consequences than would industrial zoning of any other resource land in the
vicinity. The Board has also found that the City needs at least 82 acres of industrial land and that
industrial zoning on the subject property will have positive ESEE consequences by concentrating
industrial development in one area of the City, providing increased economic opportunities,
allowing for the maximum efficiency of land uses and the orderly provision of services.
Therefore, the Board finds that the applicant's proposal satisfies this factor.
6. Retention of agricultural land as defined, with Class I being the highest
priority for retention and Class VI the lowest priority; and,
FINDINGS: As discussed in detail in the findings, incorporated by reference herein., the Board
has found the subject property is classified as Class VI without irrigation, the lowest priority in
the preservation of agricultural lands. The subject property has no irrigation, does not: have high-
value soils and is significantly smaller than the minimum size the Comprehensive Plan indicates
is typical for a commercial farm, falls far below the assessed value for the subzone and is Class
VI, which is the lowest priority for retention of agricultural land. Based upon these findings, the
Board finds the proposal is consistent with this Goal 14 factor.
7. Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural activities.
FINDINGS: The record indicates there are no agricultural uses near the subject property. The
adjacent school district property, although zoned EFU-SC, is not and has not been engaged in
farm use. The closest farm use on EFU-zoned land is the Patterson Llama Ranch which is
located approximately one mile from the subject property. The nearest farm use ort non-EFU-
zoned land is on RR -10 -zoned land approximately one-half mile from the subject property. And
as discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Board has found the
applicant's proposal is consistent with the priorities for land to be included in an urban growth
boundary under ORS 197.298. For these reasons, the Board finds the applicant's proposal will
have no effect on nearby agricultural activities and therefore is consistent with this Goal 14
factor.
In addition to the seven factors listed above, Goal 14 requires that any changes to an urban
growth boundary satisfy the requirements of Goal 2, Part II, for goal exceptions. As discussed in
the findings above concerning the proposal's compliance with those Goal 2 requirements,
incorporated by reference herein, the Board has found the applicant's proposal satisfies all Goal
2 exception requirements.
Board of Commissioners Decision PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 44
Goals 15 through 19
FINDINGS: The Board finds these goals are not applicable to this proposal because they
address river, ocean, and marine resources not located near the subject property.
IV. DECISION:
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the BC)ard hereby
APPROVES the applicant's proposal to expand the Sisters UGB to include the subject property;
to change its plan designation from Agricultural to Industrial; and, to change its zone, subject to
the Resolution of Intent to Rezone adopted herewith, from EFU-SC to IL -LU.
r *t-,
Dated this day of December, 2000.
Mailed this c;)- + day of December, 2000.
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Dennis Luke, Commissioner
Board of Commissioners Decision PA-99-4/ZC-99-1
Page 45
Chapter 15. LIMITED USE
COMBINING LU ZONE
15. Purpose.
15. Combining zone requirements.
15. Procedures.
15. Use Limitations.
15. Adoption.
15. Official plan/zoning map.
15. Purpose.
A. The purpose of the LU Zone 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 may be
applied, where appropriate, to plan
amendments/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 LU Zone, 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.
15._ Combining zone requirements.
When the LU Zone is applied, the uses permitted in
the underlying zone shall be limited to those uses
and general activities specifically set forth in the
ordinance adopting the underlying zone and the LU
Zone. Any change in those uses and general
activities must be made through the plan/land use
regulation amendment process.
15. Procedures.
The LU Zone shall be applied through the plan
amendment and rezoning process at the time the
underlying plan and/or zone designation is being
changed.
15. Use limitations.
The following limitations shall apply to the
underlying zone when the LU Zone 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
goal exception taken.
2. A review of all zones in this Chapter
demonstrates that no existing zone
adequately limits the uses and general
activities.
3. The LU Zone, when applied to the
underlying zone, is consistent with
Comprehensive Plan and other applicable
policies.
15. Adoption.
The ordinance adopting the underlying zone and the
LU Zone shall set forth those specific uses and
general activities which will be permitted or
conditional uses. The description of the permitted
and conditional uses may be qualified as necessary to
achieve the purpose of the LU Zone.
15. Official Plan/zoning map.
The official plan/zoning map shall be amended to
show an LU suffix on any parcel where the LU Zone
has been applied.
�Ya�t
EXHIBIT "C" OF RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A