Loading...
2001-902-Minutes for Meeting November 28,2001 Recorded 12/13/2001F0001�' DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS T r} ` �j0n+01�9n2 0 ME S CO MARY SUE PENHOLLOW , COUNTY CLERK yJ {I COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 12/13/2001 01:16;56 PM C. Board of Commissioners 1130 N.W. Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 • Fax (541) 388-4752 www.deschutes.org Tom De Wolf Dennis R. Luke MINUTES OF BOARD MEETING Mike Daly DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2001 Present were Commissioners Tom De Wolf, Dennis R. Luke and Michael M. Daly. Also present were George Read, Damian Syrnyk, Dave Leslie, Catherine Morrow, Christy Morgan, Sandy Ringer, and Ed Pecoraro of Community Development; Rick Isham and Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Marty Wynne, Finance; and Susan Mayea Ross and Jenny Scanlon, Commissioners' Office. Also in attendance were Debbie Legg, Cherise Magnan and Patti Lucas, Personnel; Judy Sumners, Risk Management; Scot Langton, Assessor; Gary Judd, Tom Blust and George Kolb, Road Department; Tom Cornilliac, Information Technologies; Bend Mayor Bill Friedman; Dana Walters of Z-21 TV; and approximately twenty other citizens. Prior to the meeting, the audience was treated to entertainment provided by "Yesterday's Pops " Barbershop Quartet (current Oregon state champions), who did lively renditions of "Zippity Do Dah'; "Up a Lazy River'; "Peg o' My Heart'; "This Little Light", "Hello, Mary Lou'; and "Darkness on the Delta". Chair Tom De Wolf opened the meeting at 10:20 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. 2. Before the Board was the Continuation of a Public Hearing (previously continued from September 12, 2001) on Measure 7; and Consideration of Approval of Ordinance No. 2001-017, regarding Private Property Compensation Procedures. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 1 of 24 Pages Wednesday, November 28, 00 uai ity Services Performed with Pride George Read explained that this issue deals with the implementation of Measure 7, and has been continued pending the outcome of the Supreme Court decision. He said that January 23, 2001, would be a good "date certain" for the continuation of the public hearing. 3. Before the Board was a Public Hearing Regarding the Final Cost Assessment on Mohawk Local Improvement District, and Signature of Resolution No. 2001-089, Determining and Certifying Final Assessments, Setting Terms for Payment, and Requiring Notices. Gary Judd gave a brief overview of the LID. Chair De Wolf then opened the public hearing. Two citizens indicated that they had a few questions; they then went into an adjacent room with Gary Judd to discuss them. Chair DeWolf left the hearing open at this time. 4. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Cooperative Agreement No. 19,020 between the Oregon Department of Transportation and Deschutes County, Concerning the Realignment of Pinehurst Road. George Kolb said that this contract is being revised, and needs to be placed on hold. County representatives are presently meeting with ODOT regarding the necessary revisions. It will likely be brought before the Board again after the first of the year. 5. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on the O.B. Riley Road - Cook Avenue (Tumalo) Exchange Agreement. Mark Amberg gave an overview of exchange proposal, which involves private property owners. Chair De Wolf opened the public hearing. Being no response from the audience, Chair De Wolf closed the public hearing. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 2 of 24 Pages Wednesday, November 28, 2001 6. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2001- 075, Declaring the Intention of Deschutes County to Exchange Real Property with Private Individuals (O.B. Riley Road - Cook Avenue). Mark Amberg explained that he thought this Resolution was approved some time ago, but the Board chose to vote on it at this time. LUKE: I move approval of Resolution No. 2001-075. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. 7. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of the First Reading of Ordinance No. 2001-047, Amending Title 23 of the Comprehensive Plan; and Ordinance No. 2001-048, Amending Title 18 of the Zoning Ordinance, to Designate the Communities of Black Butte Ranch and The Inn of the 7th Mountain/Widgi Creek as Resort Communities. Christy Morgan gave an overview of the Ordinances. She explained that the process began in 1998. Chair DeWolf asked that if a resort provides only overnight facilities, is it still considered a resort. Dave Leslie responded that The Inn of the 7t" Mountain and Widgi Creek are really combined, and there is a golf course in operation as well as a restaurant. Christy Morgan said that both the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinances need to be amended, taking exceptions to the forest zone for both communities. Chair De Wolf opened the public hearing. Bill Friedman, the Mayor of Bend, thanked the County for moving this ordinance forward. He said the Inn operates all of the facilities except the ice rink; there has been a problem with the hotel operators, but this is expected to be resolved soon. He further said that as a representative of the Association of Unit Owners of the Inn, he would like to talk with the County about the transient tax at some point. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 3 of 24 Pages Wednesday, November 28, 2001 LUKE: I move first reading by title only of Ordinance No. 2001-047. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Chair De Wolf then conducted the first reading of Ordinance No. 2001-047. LUKE: I move first reading by title only of Ordinance No. 2001-048. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Chair De Wolf then conducted the first reading of Ordinance No. 2001-048. The second readings and adoption of both Ordinances will be conducted on December 12, 2001; and they will become effective ninety days after final approval. 8. Before the Board was a Decision of Whether to Hear an Appeal of the Hearings Officer's Decision regarding a Lot of Record Verification (Rastovich Properties). This decision was postponed at the request of the applicants and their attorney. A date certain was set for January 23, 2002. At this time, the Board went back to Agenda Item No. 3. Gary Judd explained that the couple from the audience had a few questions, but got the answers they were seeking and left the meeting. They were pleased to learn that the actual cost of the LID came back 28% below the original estimate. Chair De Wolf then closed the public hearing. LUKE: I move approval of Resolution No. 089. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 4 of 24 Pages Wednesday, November 28, 2001 9. Before the Board was a Public Hearing and Consideration of First Reading of Ordinance No. 2001-050 and Ordinance No. 2001-051, Regarding Changes to Plan Designations and Zoning of Certain Properties from Forest Use 2 to Exclusive Farm Use. Damian Syrnyk explained that these are concurrent requests for a plan amendment and a zone change. This is a quasi-judicial issue, and it is necessary to read the opening statement. Mr. Syrnyk then read the opening statement, incorporating it into the staff report. (A copy of the statement is attached as Exhibit A.) Mr. Syrnyk asked the Board if they had received any pre -hearing contacts. Chair DeWolf replied, only through staff and public meetings. Commissioner Luke indicated the same; and Commissioner Daly said he had none. Mr. Syrnyk then asked the audience if there were any challenges as to Board bias. No response was received. Laurie Craghead stated that statue now requires the Board to let the audience know that the applicant is required to bring up any questions of constitutionality at this time; otherwise they will not be able to appeal on that item. Mr. Syrnyk said that there is no 150 -day timeline involved; and that staff would concur that the record can be left open if the applicant wants to do so. SYRNYK: This involves quasi-judicial changes of zoning from FU -2 to EFU (Forest Use 2 to Exclusive Farm Use). It deals with three lots on Sizemore Road, located approximately one mile north of Couch Market Road. Both ordinances contain a map, showing the total acreage as 39.6; each lot is 13.2 acres. The first application was received under Policy 8 of the Plan. This was adopted by the County in August of 2000, and gives EFU landowners an opportunity to be able to place a residence on their property. This was spelled out on the recommendation of the Hearings Officer. The Hearings Officer's findings are summarized on page 5, and also addressed Oregon statewide planning goals and the state transportation planning rule. That is a requirement any time we are looking at adopting an amendment to our comprehensive plan or to our zoning ordinance or zoning map. SYRNYK: Minutes of Board Meeting Page 5 of 24 Pages Wednesday, November 28, 2001 In this application, what the applicant has to demonstrate is that the property subject to this application could not qualify under state law for forest land tax deferral. The applicant provided some documentation into the record that shows it is not being assessed for forest land deferral, and that it is not capable of producing tree species that would qualify the property for forest land tax deferral. The applicant also has to demonstrate that the property is not necessary for permitting forest operations or practices on the property, or constitutes forested lands that maintain soil, water, air, fish and wildlife resources. The applicant demonstrated that his particular tract of land does have trees on it, but that they are predominately juniper trees. The property itself doesn't have soils that can support commercial tree species or trees that would actually constitute wildlife resources, or that would help maintain soil, air and water quality. The applicant also has to show that the soils of this property could qualify as agricultural lands under statewide planning Goal 3, which is the agricultural lands goal. In this situation, we've got soils information in the record that shows the soils are rated as Class 6. In the agricultural lands rating scale used by the Natural Resource Conservation Service, Class 1 and 2 soils are pretty good, Class 7 and 8 are not very good, and in eastern Oregon agricultural land does include soils that are rated as Classes 1 through class 6. The applicant's soils are rated as Class 6 by the NRCS. The applicant has to show that the property is a tract of land forty acres or less in size; he did provide a copy of a partition map that was recorded in the late 1970's that shows the exact size of each parcel. The applicant also has to show that the property can't qualify for a dwelling under state law. There are three tests that we can apply to learn if we can approve a dwelling on property in the forest zone. One is called the large tract dwelling test, which simply says if you own a tract of land that is 240 acres or more in size, you qualify for a dwelling. Another test is the lot of record test, which is one we also have in our EFU zone. To meet the lot of record test, the applicant must show that the property was lawfully created and acquired prior to January 1, 1985. The applicant provided a copy of a special warranty deed that showed that he purchased the property in August of 1986, so he can't qualify under that test. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 6 of 24 Pages Wednesday, November 28, 2001 >YRNYK: The final test is called the template test. This is a somewhat complex test, but to summarize it, what someone has to show is that their property is within a certain distance of other lots or parcels that are always developed with dwellings. Both the applicant and the County used the County's geographic information system to apply this template to this property, and confirmed that lie could not meet the template test in the Forest Use 2 zone. Finally, the applicant simply has to demonstrate that he purchased the property before January 1, 1985, but before November 4, 1993, which he did. The Hearings Officer agreed with the applicant that he had met all of the criteria for approval, and has forwarded a recommendation to the Board, which is attached to the ordinances as Exhibit C, findings that support the adoption of a plan amendment and a zone change if the Board reaches that decision. Chair De Wolf then opened the public hearing. DAVE HUNNICUTT: I'm with Oregonians in Action; to my right is Jim Watts, the applicant in this case. This is Jim's second attempt at getting his land rezoned from F-2 to EFU. The first attempt was made under the County's old ordinance standards; this is our initial attempt under the County's new forest plan Policy No. 8. As Damian indicated, Dave Watts purchased the property in 1986; at the time lie bought it, it was zoned F-3. The County no longer has an F-3 zone; this was eliminated in 1992. When this happened, it rezoned Mr. Watt's parcels into F- 2; and under the F-2 zone he could no longer qualify for a dwelling. It would have qualified under F-3. In 1998 Mr. Watts applied to rezone these parcels to EFU. We had a staff recommendation of approval, but the Hearings Officer, Chris Eck, denied the application and the Board affirmed the Hearings Officer's decision. I want to read just the last paragraph from the Hearings Officer's 1998 determination. "While I agree that the evidence shows that the properties would support neither agricultural or forest uses, that the adjacent neighbor's compatibility concerns ring hollow, and that the F-2 zoning makes little sense, it is simply not the office of the Hearings Officer to accomplish by a quasi-judicial ruling what is essentially a legislative decision. Therefore, I must deny the request for a zone change and plan amendment." Minutes of Board Meeting Page 7 of 24 Pages Wednesday, November 28, 2001 HUNNICUTT: So, essentially what the Hearings Officer seems to be saying is that this doesn't make sense, but it is a legislative matter; and if the Board wants to change it, they can do so. So we were thrilled when the County decided to take on the issue of the proposal for forest plans Policy No. 8. There were extensive public hearings on this, both with the Planning Commission and with this Board. I did testify before this Board on that ordinance, which was approved. During the hearings on that ordinance, a determination was made about the number of parcels that could potentially be rezoned from F-2 to EFU under that standard, and the number of new dwellings that could potentially be sited. The record on the ordinance all went through LCDC, as any comp plan amendment is required to, and LCDC acknowledged that. So we've got the state acknowledging forest land Policy No. 8 as complying with all the Goals, Goals 3, 4 and 5, all of the statewide land use planning goals. Based on that, Mr. Watts submitted application under forest plans Policy No. 8. That's why we're here today. We've submitted mounds of evidence, letters and testimony from experts, from the state, from DLCD, and from the Department of Forestry, to document that we can meet all of the criteria in forest lands Policy No. 8, and all of the state criteria applicable to this application. This is all in the record. The nub of the issue seems to be Goals 4 and 5. Goal 4 is statewide land use planning related to forest lands; Goal 5 is the statewide planning goal related to natural resources. The arguments under Goal 4 that must be demonstrated are, first, that it is not suitable for commercial timber production. The soils on these parcels have no woodland suitability rating; they are not even rated for timber production; nor are any of the surrounding properties. Because of the soil type and the lack of precipitation, the NRCS says you can't grow commercial trees on these parcels. Aerial photos will show junipers are on property. The aerials also show, and the Oregon Department of Forestry, indicate that the parcel isn't forest land, there are no timber stands on the property. The Hearings Officer's site visit confirmed that the land is not suitable for commercial timber production, and private foresters also submitted letters indicating this. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 8 of 24 Pages Wednesday, November 28, 2001 HUNNICUTT: The next criteria is that the land isn't needed for timber production on adjoining or adjacent parcels, and that one is relatively easy to answer because there aren't any timber operations occurring on adjoining or adjacent parcels. None of them have woodland suitability ratings, either. Much of the land in the area is owned by BLM, so there aren't any commercial timber operations occurring nearby; nor would any need access through Mr. Watt's property to get to Sizemore Road. What the record shows is that you might be able to grow if you hauled in soils and irrigated; but it would be at least 50 years before any trees would grow bog enough to be a commercial operation. This demonstrates that this property is not needed for timber operations on adjacent land. The third criteria is that these aren't other forested lands. The parcels are located within the WA combining zone - the wildlife combining zone. They are within the Tumalo deer winter range. But in order to get to the issue of whether they are forested lands that support air, water or wildlife, you first have to get over the hurdle of whether they are forested. Again, you can look at the aerial photos and soils maps, and all of the letters submitted into the record; and you can look at the Hearings Officer's report. All of this information indicates that this land won't grow timber and hasn't grown timber. All of this indicates that this land isn't forested. There are only a few LUBA cases on that issue. One indicates that the County has to do more than rely simply on the aerial photo, so I believe we've given the County more than adequate additional evidence that this isn't forested. The argument seems to be that any land supporting wildlife is automatically forest land, but that covers most land outside cities in Oregon. The majority of land outside the urban growth area actually is farm land. This is not Goal 4 forest land. The proper zoning for this land is Goal 3, EFU lands. We could argue that it isn't really EFU land either. You live with the Goals and the rules that LCDC says you will live with, and under LCDC definition of agricultural land, this land falls within that definition. We can probably all agree that there won't be any extensive agricultural practices on this land. We've got land that I think has been mis-zoned. The question is, what can we do to get it zoned properly. I believe that is the purpose of forest lands Policy No. 8. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 9 of 24 Pages Wednesday, November 28, 2001 HUNNICUTT: Goal 5 is the other statewide land use planning goal at issue here. I believe the argument that's being made is that rezoning this from forest to farm use will interfere with the wildlife habitat. I remind the Board that forest land Policy No. 8 has already been acknowledged by LCDC as complying with all of the statewide planning goals, including Goal 5. All of the reports that were done with the record behind the adoption of forest lands Policy No. 8 indicated the number of parcels that could potentially be rezoned, and the number of dwellings that could potentially be sited on those parcels. The DLCD had all of the information, and acknowledged that as being in compliance with Goal 5. There isn't any difference in any event if this land is rezoned from forest use to farm use. The same requirements of Goal 5 WA combining zone are going to apply to this property whether it is in a farm zone or a forest zone. There isn't any evidence in the record that this application would have any effect on wildlife. There's one letter from the ODF & W indicating that it is their belief that this may some type of detrimental impact, but it is the opinion of the author and there isn't anything in the letter to support those allegations. To me, the most important thing is to correct a mis-zone. If you buy into the argument that you can't rezone it because it may somehow interfere with wildlife habitat, then the argument would be that LCDC, when adopting Goal 5, intended to elevate Goal 5 over the other goals, and require you to leave land that is mis-zoned in its mis-zoned state rather than allowing the County to correct a mistake. We believe that we've demonstrated compliance with Goals 3, 4 and 5 goals. The Hearings Officer agreed that we did, and we got a staff recommendation of approval as well. Mr. Watts would like to put a home on this land and this is the only way to do so. We have nothing new to submit; we feel there is adequate information in the record for the Board to be able to make a decision. DEWOLF: Did anyone appeal the Hearings Officer's decision? SYRNYK: No. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 10 of 24 Pages Wednesday, November 28, 2001 DEWOLF: The reason we are hearing this, for the audience's benefit? What's the rule that requires us to hold this hearing, if the Hearings Officer made a decision already that wasn't appealed? SYRNYK: It is a function of both state law and our procedures ordinance that, when we're dealing with a plan amendment and a zone change under a quasi-judicial application process, that the Board has to take final action on the decision of the County. DEWOLF: And whether or not anyone appealed the Hearings Officer's decision, does not preclude anyone from appealing the decision of this Board. SYRNYK: Correct. JIM WATTS: If you look at the soils interpretation records, they list the soil and vegetation on that property under wildlife habitat as poor; there's not much there to sustain wildlife. WILLIAM BOYER: I am representing myself, and for the Alliance for Responsible Land Use in Deschutes County (ARCLU DeCo). We request a denial of this application in relation to both ordinances. I'm going to just provide summary reasons, but will attach more detail support materials to the testimony. I also request that TA -00- 1 be included in this application's previous material, since it included important relevant information connected with the decision. And I would like a decision on the inclusion of that information during this hearing, if you could provide it. DEWOLF: I don't know exactly what you are referring to; so I'll need help with that. SYRNYK: Are you asking that the record under the text amendment file be included in the record of this proceeding? Minutes of Board Meeting Page 11 of 24 Pages Wednesday, November 28, 2001 BOYER: Right. Is that already included? SYRNYK: It is not included. BOYER: This is previous material. If this should be going on to LUBA, the background material really is important. DEWOLF: Is it relevant to this case, Damian? SYRNYK: Well, it's relevant because that text amendment file that Mr. Boyer referred to was the actual file number that was assigned to our process of creating Policy No. 8. DEWOLF: If he submits it into the record today, it's part of the record automatically, correct? So this isn't a decision that we need to make, is that correct? So it is submitted by your submission. (Legal counsel, in the audience, indicated yes.) BOYER: Is it included automatically? I didn't get a yes on that. DEWOLF: I got a yes from my legal counsel, and I just said if you submit it, it's part of the record. SYRNYK: Just to make sure that we're clear for the record, what we're going to be doing by reference is incorporating the record on this text amendment in the file of this proceeding. LUKE: You are talking about the ordinance we passed a year go, correct? Policy No. 8? Minutes of Board Meeting Page 12 of 24 Pages Wednesday, November 28, 2001 SYRNYK: Yes. CRAGHEAD: Also, for clarification, Mr. Boyer, you are requesting that the entire record that went into passing the text amendment for this Policy No. 8 be included? BOYER: Only for TA -00-1. SYRNYK: TA -00-1 was a file number assigned to this project of developing Forest Policy No. 8 of our comprehensive plan. LUKE: Which we already passed, and which has also already gone to LCDC, and has come back approved. CRAGHEAD: Right, but he's asking that the record ... LUKE: How big is the record? It's at least as big as the green file I have before me. (Indicating a file about six inches thick.) Maybe a little bit bigger. LUKE: I'm not quite sure why we would want to put that into this record, since it has already been approved by the LCD. If it goes to LUBA, you're going to have to copy the whole file, which is a big expense, of an ordinance that we've already passed and that has been approved. What is the relevance of having it included in the record? SYRNYK: I think that's something for Mr. Boyer to explain, since he has requested that it be included in this record. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 13 of 24 Pages Wednesday, November 28, 2001 BOYER: We think all the previous information needs to be included if this becomes a serious problem when it goes to LUBA. That's part of the past record. We don't want to have exclusion of things that we think are pertinent to decision making. LUKE: Do you believe LUBA will overturn our original ordinance? BOYER: I don't know. That's yet to be determined. LUKE: To me, that's a separate case. If you include it in this record, then they have an opportunity to then to have a second bite at the apple. CRAGHEAD: They couldn't overturn the ordinance, as the time has passed for that. Also, just including the ordinance in the record does not necessarily raise the issue of enough specificity for you, as the decision -makers, to be able to make a decision on that issue. I would suggest to Mr. Boyer that he suggest what specifically in the record he thinks needs to be added, and what issues are in the record that goes to your point that in order to afford this Board the ability to be able to make a decision on that issue, that would then be appealable. Just including it in the record doesn't necessarily make the issue appealable, unless you've raised a specific issue here. DEWOLF: My suggestion would be that we'll leave the record open for a period of seven days to give you the time to make that case, and with the advice of staff and legal counsel, we can make a decision on what we agree would be applicable to this. CRAGHEAD: I would recommend that Mr. Boyer then, in the written submission after that, decide what in the record is relevant, and what is the issue in the record that you want to include. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 14 of 24 Pages Wednesday, November 28, 2001 BOYER: That sounds very fair. Thank you. I'll just summarize some of my main points, and then submit the supporting information later on. The main points are that the property does not have either the terrain or the soil quality to provide agricultural use. But if the applicant really wanted to farm, the right currently exists to farm under F-2, so the application is really unnecessary if he actually wants to farm. The zone change would constitute spot zoning, which is prohibited by the county's comprehensive plan. And the change would alter the character of the area, because it would create a breakthrough for residential development through use of non-farm dwelling provisions. And the sole intent is to create non-farm dwellings, which really produce a windfall for up -zoning. The area is in a winter range, a Goal 5 resource. The head of Oregon Fish & Wildlife says that a zone change should be denied because the residential development threatens the Tumalo mule deer winter range. There is no need for expanding rural residential development in an F-2 winter deer range. The applicant has not met the required burden of proof for a need. With the state legislated changes in Dornovan recently, there will be a large expansion of non-farm dwellings in EFU areas. The County, in the November 16 Bulletin (newspaper) indicated that Central Oregon is one of the most endangered scenic places in America. DEWOLF: The County did not indicate that in the newspaper article, I don't believe. Someone else made such a claim, but I don't think the County made such a claim. BOYER: That was the statement, however, that was made in the Bulletin. This application is the kind that can add incrementally, certainly, to the degradation of the Central Oregon rural landscape, particularly by using spot zoning to open up the surrounding area to residential development. There has been no "change in circumstances" to warrant this zoning conversion. The driving force behind the earlier text amendment was the threat of suit under takings. You recall that. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 15 of 24 Pages Wednesday, November 28, 2001 DEWOLF: When you said there had been no change in circumstances, you don't consider the fact that when he bought the property he would have been allowed, under the F-3 zoning at that time, to build a home on each of these parcels. The change in law took away that right. You don't consider that a change in circumstances? BOYER: I think that's one in which the lawyers will have to see whether it constitutes a legal requirement or not. The driving force behind the earlier text amendment was the threat of suit under takings. DEWOLF: I do have to take exception to that. I don't operate one way or the other based on lawsuits. You may have perceived that there was a threat of a lawsuit. I couldn't care less. We get sued regularly. BOYER: You said you couldn't care less, but I think others might. LUKE: I don't operate that way, either. When people threaten me, I usually get my back up and I can go the other way. The threat of a lawsuit didn't have much to do with anything. DEWOLF: That's your opinion, and that's great; I just wanted to respond to that. BOYER: The language I am using is the driving force. However, Measure 7 is now in limbo and not currently a threat, so if you want to scratch out that whole episode in relation to Measure 7, you can. It no longer constitutes a serious takings threat, under current decision making anyway. Those are the only points I have here. I will turn in supporting material. DEWOLF: Thank you very much. (Mr. Boyer then turned in documentation to the Planner.) Minutes of Board Meeting Page 16 of 24 Pages Wednesday, November 28, 2001 CRAGHEAD: I had not had a chance to thoroughly review the Hosty case, which is a recent case that came out of the Oregon Court of Appeals regarding standing. One of the things I would like to be able to research during the next seven days is the issue whether ARLU DeCo has standing in this issue. This is because of the fact that it has to be a person or a business aggrieved by this decision. WILLIAM KUHN: I live at 65575 Sizemore Road, on the property that is directly across the road from Mr. Watt's property. I would like to request of Laurie that if ARLU DeCo does not have standing, or if you determine that, would we have an opportunity to be able to respond to that? CRAGHEAD: Yes, because it that would be new evidence in the record that you'd have a chance to respond to. KUHN: We are concerned. My wife and I have lived on our property, and we bought it originally in 1986, and our concern has always been for the winter deer range. This parcel is in that range. We are not raising issue about some piece of property someplace else; we are talking about in the winter deer range. The original parcels, when they were sold by the County at auction in 1976, had an informal and not a legally binding condition. I'll put it this way; it was not a recorded binding document. But there was a document that was created by the people who bought the property originally, saying that they personally would never divide the property. I would like to submit that. (He gave the document to Damian Syrnyk at this time.) On at least six different occasions, the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife has come out against either the originally division of the property, because of the winter deer range, or they have objected to the original plan amendment zone change. They objected to the text amendment that went through. They objected to the plan amendment zone change that we just had a hearing on for this. The original letter that was sent out by Mike Golden on May 4, 1979, communicated the concept that the interim agreement between the Department of Fish & Wildlife of Deschutes County recommends this area be maintained at forty acre minimum lot sizes until the Deschutes County comprehensive plan and accompanying ordinances are approved. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 17 of 24 Pages Wednesday, November 28, 2001 KUHN: I would like to call to your attention that the Public Law 14 and 15 did not take effect until November 1, 1979. We have asked for, and have so far not been offered, a chance to look at the interim agreement. Because somehow this one parcel, which Mr. Eddy, who owned the property originally, said he would never divide; somehow he was able to divide it into three different parcels, something that even the current County zoning would not allow. That's why we asked at the hearing whether it was possible to see that. We have personally gone to the County recorder, and although there are three or four references to this interim agreement, extending the life of the interim agreement, three or four times until Public Law 14 and 15 went into effect, nobody can seem to find that interim agreement. I did ask Rick Isham this morning whether he would personally look, and he said that he would. I know the Hearings Officer asked Damian to look; I don't know how extensively he looked. I know that ODF & W may have a copy, but they are so swamped that unless they have a formal request from somebody here at the County, they just don't have the time to look for it. I bring this up again because we're not opposed to Mr. Watts building a house on the forty acres. We are objecting to three houses on three different lots; we question whether it was according to the intent of ODF & W to protect the winter deer range. I respect that you need to get going. LUKE: How big is your property again? KUHN: We own a 4.2 acre building site which is in part of a three -parcel lot, where one of the parcels, of 34 acres, was set aside as a reserve area where no building activity can take place. Again, our intent is to try to deal with the integrity of the winter deer range. Putting an exclusive farm use in the middle of this area, to us this goes against the intent of protecting the winter deer range. DEWOLF: Are your property and the property of the neighbor to the north, both in the winter deer range as well? KUHN: Yes, they are. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 18 of 24 Pages Wednesday, November 28, 2001 DEWOLF: So, how is this different? N41- ILS It is different in the sense that there are three houses that could be allowed, that ODF & W has spoken out against this six different times minimum. They did not speak out against the way that ours was arranged. We have tried to work with ODF & W whenever possible; and very recently ODF & W has recommended that this not go through. CRAGHEAD: I'd like to make one more suggestion, in that you should not wait for my analysis of the standing issue; and if ARLU DeCo wants to go ahead and submit something about the standing issue, they should go ahead and do that. One of the reasons I raised it now is so they would be on notice to be able to put it into the record during these next seven days. DEWOLF: This is a little bit awkward. I'm going to make a proposal, and I want advice from the two of you (indicating Laurie Craghead and Damian Syrnyk). DALY: I need to leave for an important meeting. DEWOLF: Go ahead and leave, this is just detail work. LUKE: You'll just have to listen to the last part of the record off the tape. Commissioner Daly left the meeting at this point. DEWOLF: My thought is to leave the record open for seven days for further comment from either side. That would include your determination on ARLU DeCo's standing. I would suggest that we have then a seven-day timeframe for rebuttal by either side to what you say or what you say or what anyone says. At the end of that, we have seven days, which we typically do for the applicant, to make any final comment before we make a decision. Does that sound acceptable? Minutes of Board Meeting Page 19 of 24 Pages Wednesday, November 28, 2001 (Affirmative responses from all parties.) DEWOLF: That's three seven-day time frames. We'll go to 5:00 p.m. on each Wednesday. SYRNYK: Next Wednesday would be December 5. DEWOLF: Okay, December 5th at 5:00 p.m. for any comments of any kind from anyone. Then December 12th at 5:00 p.m. for anyone to rebut whatever has been put into the record during the first seven days. Then we'll give the applicant until December 19th at 5:00 p.m. for final comment. CRAGHEAD: Would you then have your deliberations on December 20th, then? DEWOLF: I would suspect the following Wednesday. It depends on how much is in there. (The Recording Secretary pointed out that the Board does not meet the day after Christmas, December 26.) DEWOLF: Okay, then we'll do this the first Wednesday in January. LUKE: If you had rebuttal due by 5:00 p.m. on the 18`h, we could then do a decision on the 19tH DEWOLF: Let's do this on the 17tH. Would that be acceptable? Then we'll put this on our agenda for a decision on the 19tH LUKE: Should all information go to Damian? (All parties agreed that would be logical, and he could distribute copies as needed.) KUHN: I would like to make a comment. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 20 of 24 Pages Wednesday, November 28, 2001 LUKE: It really makes it a problem when Commissioner Daly isn't here, so if you could submit everything in writing it makes the record a lot clearer. KUHN: I just wanted to comment on the notice that was sent out. It said 11:00 a.m., not 10:00 a.m. LUKE: We started about 11:00 a.m. DEWOLF: We might have started with the opening statement at about 10:50 a.m. KUHN: You're safe; I just wanted to call it to your attention. Thank you. DEWOLF: When we make them a part of these meetings, we have to do a little guesswork as to timing. 10. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2001- 090, Supporting the Candidacy of Umatilla County Commissioner Bill Hansell for NACo (National Association of Counties) Second Vice President. LUKE: I move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of the Consent Agenda. LUKE: I move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 21 of 24 Pages Wednesday, November 28, 2001 CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS: 11. Approval of the Dedication of Reserve Strips located in the Los Pinos Subdivision, La Pine 12. Signature of Resolution 2001-087, Accepting a Petition regarding a Right -of - Way Vacation (Off Groff Road) 13. Signature of Order 2001-117, Setting a Public Hearing for Right -of -Way Vacation (Off Groff Road) 14. Signature of a License Agreement between Deschutes County and a Property Owner regarding Property in the La Pine National Demonstration Project 15. Signature of a Contract between Deschutes County and Daniel A. Cason, Contractor, for Work to be Performed for the La Pine National Demonstration Proj ect 16. Signature of a Contract between Deschutes County and Wert & Associates, Inc. for Work to be Performed for the La Pine National Demonstration Project 17. Signature of Order No. 2001-110, Changing the Name of Elder Berry to Elderberry Court (Ponderosa Pines Subdivision, La Pine) 18. Ratification and Chair Signature of Amendment No. 7 to the Oregon Department of Human Services 2001-2003 Agreement with Deschutes County to Add Problem Gambling Prevention Services 19. Signature of Order No. 2001-113, Transferring Cash Among Various Funds as Budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Deschutes County Budget, and Directing Entries 20. Signature of Resolution No. 2001-088, Transferring Appropriations within Various Funds of the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Deschutes County Budget, and Directing Entries 21. Additions to the Agenda. A. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Chair Signature of an Oregon Liquor Control License for Thousand Trails Restaurant. LUKE: I move approval. DEWOLF: Second. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 22 of 24 Pages Wednesday, November 28, 2001 VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. B. Before the Board was Discussion and Consideration of Chair Signature of an Amendment to a Contract between Deschutes County and the Oregon Department of Human Services, Extending a Chemical Dependency Program through December 31, 2001. LUKE: I move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 22. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $61,267.64 (three weeks). LUKE: I move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 23. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-H County Service District in the Amount of $4,597.27 (three weeks). LUKE: I move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board Meeting Page 23 of 24 Pages Wednesday, November 28, 2001 RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 24. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $2,037,631.23 (three weeks). LUKE: Move approval, subject to review. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DEWOLF: Chair votes yes. Being no further items brought before the Board, Chair Tom De Wolf adjourned the meeting at 11:45 a.m. DATED this 28th Day of November 2001 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. T m eWolf, Chair ATTEST: 62 Recording Secretary tl 2 D nnis R. Luke, Commissioner M. Daly, Commissioner Minutes of Board Meeting Page 24 of 24 Pages Wednesday, November 28, 2001 117 NW Lafayette Ave, Bend, OR 97701 (541) 388-6575 Fax (541) 385-1764 Memorandum To: Deschutes County Board of ComffJJS8MaQrs From: Damian Syrnyk, Senior Planner CC: George Read, Director; Kevin Harrison, Principal Planner; Laurie Craghead, Assistant Legal Counsel Date: November 20, 2001 Re: STAFF REPORT for 11:00 a.m. November 28, 2001 Public Hearing on Ordinances 2001-050 and 2001-051 regarding a plan amendment and zone change for property on Sisemore Road (File Nos. PA-012/ZC-01-2). This memorandum serves as the staff report for a public hearing on Ordinances 2001-050 and 2001- 051. James Watts submitted applications for a quasi-judicial plan amendment and a zone change to change the plan designation and zoning on his property from Forest Use 2 (F2) to Exclusive Farm Use (EFU). The subject property consists of three (3) lots of record (39.6 acres) located on the east side of Sisemore Road, approximately one -mile north of its intersection with Couch Market Rd. County Assessor's Tax Map No. 16-11-20 identifies the properties as Tax Lots 100, 200, and 300. The proposed ordinances would amend the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan map and the Official Zoning Map to change the plan designation and zone on Mr. Watts' property from F2 to EFU. Staff notified the applicant and the parties of the public hearing through written notice dated and mailed on November 15, 2001. You will find copies of each ordinance, including a map identifying the property, and the Recommendation of Deschutes County Hearings Officer enclosed with this report. The applicant submitted the applications under Forest Policy No. 8 (see attached) of the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. The Board of Commissioners adopted this policy through Ordinance No. 2000-018 in August of 2000. This policy provides an opportunity for an owner of F2 -zoned property to pursue a quasi-judicial plan amendment and zone change to EFU if they could meet certain criteria. One of the criteria requires the applicant to demonstrate that a dwelling cannot be sited on the property under the terms of the F2 Zone. The Hearings Officer conducted a public hearing on the plan amendment and the zone change on July 17, 2001. Staff recommended approval of both the plan amendment and zone change in the July 10, 2001 staff report to the Hearings Officer. The Hearings Officer issued a Recommendation of Deschutes County Hearings Officer dated and mailed October 16, 2001, which recommends the Board adopt the plan amendment and the zone change. State law and the DCC Section 22.28.030(C) require the Board of Commissioners to hold a hearing on the proposed plan amendment and zone change prior to making a decision on whether to adopt the proposed ordinances. Staff will attend your Monday November 26, 2001 work session to discuss this matter with you. Please contact me at extension 1709 or at damians(ab-co.deschutes.or.us if you have any questions. /DPS Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Forest Policy No. 8 (DCC Section 22.40.020(C)(8)) 8. Notwithstanding any other quasi-judicial plan or zone change criteria, lands designated as Forest under the Plan and zoned Forest Use 2 under the zoning ordinance may upon application be redesignated under the Plan from Forest to Agriculture and rezoned under the zoning ordinance from Forest Use 2 to Exclusive Farm Use if such lands: a. Do not qualify under state law for forestland tax deferral, b. Are not necessary to permit forest operations or practices on adjoining lands and do not constitute forested lands that maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources, c. Have soils on the property that fall within the definition of agricultural lands as set forth in Goal 3, d. Are a tract of land 40 acres or less in size, e. Do not qualify under state law and the terms of the Forest Use 2 Zone for a dwelling, and; f. Were purchased by the property owner after January 1, 1985 but before November 4, 1993. Such changes may be made regardless of the size of the resulting EFU-Zoning district. Such changes shall be processed in the same manner as other quasi-judicial plan or zoning map changes." (Ord. 2000-017 § 1, 2000; Ord. 94-037, 1994; Ord. 92-024, 1992) REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL REVIEWED CODE REVIEW COMMITTEE For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Title 23, Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, to Amend the Comprehensive Plan Map to Change the Plan Designation for Certain Property from Forest to Agriculture. ULK-AR ORDINANCE NO. 2001-050 WHEREAS, James Watts submitted a request for a quasi-judicial amendment to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map to change the plan designation for a 39.6 -acre tract of land from Forest to Agriculture; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on July 17, 2001, after notice was given in accordance with state law, before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer; and WHEREAS, the Hearings Officer recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 28, 2001, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, before the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the change in plan designation from Forest to Agriculture; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. ADOPTION OF PLAN MAP AMENDMENT. The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map is hereby amended to change the plan designation for the subject tract, as depicted on Exhibit "A" and described in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, from Forest to Agriculture. PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2001-050 (12/26/01) Section 2. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings in support of this decision, the Recommendation of Deschutes County Hearings Officer, attached hereto as Exhibit "C," and incorporated herein by reference. DATED this day of , 2001. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON Tom DeWolf, Chair Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner Recording Secretary Michael M. Daly, Commissioner PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2001-050 (12/26/01) REVIEWED LEGAL COUNSEL REVIEWED CODE REVIEW COMMITTEE For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Title 18, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, to Amend the Official Map To Change the Zone of Certain Property From Forest Use 2 to Exclusive Farm Use-Tumalo/ D'AFT Redmond/Bend Subzone. ORDINANCE NO. 2001-051 WHEREAS, James Watts submitted a request for a quasi-judicial amendment to the Deschutes County Official Zoning Map to change the zone for a 39.6 -acre tract of land from Forest Use 2 to Exclusive Farm Use; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on July 17, 2001, after notice was given in accordance with state law, before the Deschutes County Hearings Officer; and WHEREAS, the Hearings Officer recommended approval of the proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Map; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 28, 2001, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, before the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the change in zoning from Forest Use 2 (F2) to Exclusive Farm Use-Tumalo/RedmondBend subzone (EFUTRB); now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. AMENDMENT TO DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL ZONING MAP. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, is hereby amended to change the zoning designation on the Official Zoning Map for the subject tract, as depicted on Exhibit "A" and described in Exhibit "B," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, from F2 to EFUTRB. PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2001-051 (12/26/01) Section 2. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings in support of this decision, the Recommendation of Deschutes County Hearings Officer, attached hereto as Exhibit "C" to Ordinance No. 2001- 050 and by this reference incorporated herein. DATED this day of , 2001. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON Tom DeWolf, Chair Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner Recording Secretary Michael M. Daly, Commissioner PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2001-051 (12/26/01) Exhibit A mance 2001-050 & 2001-051 2A N 240.54' 661.05' N23 56'02"w 39.02' Parcel 1 \ N43 33 17'E \ 117.25' Parcel 2 Parcel 3 r Map Symbols *. Taxlots 100, 200, 300 OTaxlots Date: November 19, 2001 F_ Cl) 20 M Deschutes County Geographic Information System Service center " O 300 0 300 600 Feet Copyright © 2001 by Deschutes County, Oregon. All Rights Reserved. Printed in the United States of America. ^r m U C File: n:\custom\county\cdd\planning\damian\161120100-200-300\exhibita.apr as DISCLAIMER: The information on this map was derived from digital databases on Deschutes County's G.I.S. Care was taken in the creation of this map, Ctl W 13-0 but it is provided "as is". Deschutes County cannot accept any responsibility for errors, omissions, or positional accuracy in the digital data or the underlying records. There are no warranties, express or implied, including the warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, accompanying this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. Exhibit "B" Legal Description PARCEL I: A parcel of land located in Sections Nineteen (19) and Twenty (20) in TOWNSHIP S LATEEN (16) SOUTH, RANGE ELEVEN (11) EAST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, Deschutes County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the Section corner common to.Sections 17, 18, 19 and 20; thence South 89°12'58" East 661.05 feet; thence South 00°38'33" West 921.69 feet; thence North 51°53'26" West 1106.27 feet to the Easterly right-of-way line of Sisemore Road; thence along said right-of-way on a 213.81 foot radius curve left 78.31 feet, the long chord of which bears North 14°36102" East 77.87 feet; thence along said right-of-way on a 293.88 foot radius curve left 143.83 feet, the long chord of which bears North 09'54'46" West 142.40 feet; thence along sT {d . right -of -w--y North 23"55_'92"-�;; st-39.02 feet; - theare . South 89*11147" East 240.54 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL II: A parcel of land located in Sections Nineteen (19) and Twenty (20) of TOWNSHIP SIXTEEN (16) SOUTH, RANGE ELEVEN (11) EAST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, Deschutes County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at a point from whence the Section corner common to Sections 17, 18, 19 and 20 bears North 41°33'31" East 331.33 feet; thence South 51°53'26" East 1106.27 feet; thence South 00°38133" West 404.94 feet; thence North 89°14'02" West 447.31 feet; thence North 29°47'15" West 1083.18 feet to the Easterly right of way line of Sisemore Road; thence along said right of way line North 43033117" East 117.25 feet; thence along said right of way line on a 213.81 foot radius curve left 68.89 feet, the long chord of which bears North 34"19126" East 68.60 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL III: A parcel of land located in Sections Nineteen (19) and Twenty (20) in TOWNSHIP SIXTEEN (16) SOUTH, RANGE ELEVEN (11) EAST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, Deschutes County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at a point from whence the Section corner common to Sections 17, 18, 19 and 20 bears North 41°03'12" East 516.57 feet; thence South 29047'15" East 1083.18 feet; thence North 89°14102" West 213.56 feet; thence North 89010'05" West 521.97 feet to the Easterly right of way line of Sisemore Road; thence along said right of way line on a 650.80 foot radius curve left 194.34 feet, the long chord of which bears North 13"06'27" West 193.62 feet; thence along said right of way line North 21°39144" West 117.19 feet; thence along said right of way line on a 978.31 foot radius curve right 371.98 feet, the long chord of which bears North 10046111" West 369.74 feet; thence along said right of way line North 00"07'23" East 117.44 feet; thence along said right of way line on a 78.02 foot radius curve right 127:66 feet, the long chord of which bears North 46'59158" East 113.88 feet; thence along said right of way line South 86007127" East 68.83 feet; thence along said right of way line on a 254.18 foot radius curve left 223.24 feet, the long chord of which bears North 68'42155" East 216.13 feet to the point of beginning. PAGE 1 OF 1 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2001-050 (12/26/01) E RECOMMENDATION OF DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER FILE NUMBERS: APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: PA -01-2 and ZC-01-2 James L. Watts P.O. Box 138 Blue River, OR 97413 APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY: David J. Hunnicut Director of Legal Affairs Oregonians in Action PO Box 230637 Tigard, OR 97381-0637 610141518-;->- �O OCT 2001 a bESCHU7ES kc COUN1Y V r REQUESTS: PA -01-2 An application for a Plan Amendment to amend the Deschutes County Comprehensive plan map designation of the subject property from Forest to Agriculture. ZC-01-2 An application for a Zone Change to amend the Deschutes County Official Zoning Map to change the zoning on the subject property from Forest Use (F-2) to Exclusive Farm Use. STAFF CONTACT: Damian Syrnyk, Senior Planner HEARING DATE: July 17, 2001 RECORD CLOSED: September 4, 2001 L APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA: A. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance 1. Chapter 18.136, Amendments * Section 18.136.010, Amendments * Section 18.136.020, Rezoning Standards B. Title 23 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan 1. Chapter 23.40.020, Forest Lands * Forest Lands Policy No. 8 C. Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR). 1. OAR 660-015-0000, Statewide Planning Goals 2. OAR 660-012-0060, Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments of Transportation Planning Rule PA -01-2 and ZC-01-2 Page 1 Exhibit iC 1 Page of 1 Ordinance 2 -DO 1 - 6 5O • II. BASIC FINDINGS: A. LOCATION: The properties (site) that are the subject of these applications do not have assigned street addresses. All three properties are located on Sisemore Road north of its intersection with Couch Market Road. County Assessor's map no. 16-11-20 identifies the properties as tax lots 100, 200 and 300. B. ZONING: The site is zoned Forest Use 2 (F2), Landscape Management Combining (LM), and Wildlife Area Combining (WA). The County Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is Forest. The site is zoned LM because it is located within one-quarter mile of Sisemore Road, a designated Landscape Management Road. The site is zoned WA because it is located within the Tumalo Deer Winter Range. C. SITE DESCRIPTION: All three properties are located on the east side of Sisemore Road. Each property is approximately 13.2 acres in size. The total area of the site is approximately 39 acres. Tax lots 100 and 200 are currently vacant and contain no water rights. Tax lot 300 has been developed with a vacation cabin and does not include any water rights. The entire site has a vegetation cover of juniper and pine trees, sagebrush, bitterbrush, and native grasses. The properties are located approximately 2 to 3 miles from U.S. Highway 20, roughly half way between Sisters and Bend. The properties are not engaged in farm or forest uses. D. PROPOSAL: The applicant submitted concurrent applications for an amendment to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan map and an amendment to the County's Official Zoning Maps to change the plan designation of the site from Forest to Agriculture and its zoning from Forest Use to Exclusive Farm Use. Under the current comprehensive plan and zone designation, the properties..are unable to qualify for a conditional use permit for a dwelling on any of the three properties. The applicant seeks the change of plan designation and zoning for the purpose of establishing a dwelling on each property under the terms of the EFU Zone. The applicant submitted a completed application for the amendments, a written statement (narrative) that addresses the applicable criteria, and several documents in support of the application. E. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division sent written notice of the July 17, 2001 public hearing to several affected public agencies on May 31, 2001. The following lists the agencies that respond and the substance of their comments: 1. Deschutes County Assessor: Submitted a response of No Comments and a request for a copy of the Staff Report. 2. Deschutes County Building Division: Submitted a response of No Comments. 3. Deschutes County Environmental Health: Submitted a response of No Comments. 4. Deschutes County Property Address Coordinator: No situs address has been assigned to this property at the present time. 5. Deschutes County Road Department: Submitted a response of No Comments. PA -01-2 and ZC-01-2 Ex Page Exhibit Page z of Ordinance 2- ©O 1 "d SP 6. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife -High Desert Region: Submitted the following comments in a June 28, 2001 letter: The applicant is basically requesting a zone change from Forest to Agriculture Use. For several reasons we are opposing this zone change. This property is within the County recognized Tumalo Mule Deer Winter Range. This is a significant goal 5 resource. The recent text amendment change (TA -00-1) allowed this zone change only if it did not effect significant wildlife resources. It does effect these resources therefore should not be allowed. This property has previously been identified as extremely high value for wintering mule deer. Our Department has been on record since the late 70's opposing zone changes and Partitioning of this parcel. This zone change will do nothing but increase the overall housing density within the Tumalo Mule Deer Winter Range and further erode the ability of this area to support wintering mule deer. This zone change request should be denied. If approved, no further partitioning our housing should be allowed on this parcel. F. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS: Notice of the July 17, 2001 public hearing was mailed to owners of record of property within 750 feet of the subject properties, as required by DCC Section 22.24.030, on May 31, 2001. Four property owners testified in opposition to the proposal at the public hearing and several comment letters in opposition have been submitted into the record. The substance of these comments are a part of the record in this matter and are addressed in the findings herein. The applicant complied with DCC Section 22.24.030(B) by posting notice of the July 17, 2001 hearing on the site where it was visible from Sisemore Road on July 6, 2001. Notice of the hearing was published in the Bend Bulletin newspaper on June 24, 2001, as required by DCC Section 22.24.030(C). The Bulletin submitted an affidavit dated June 27, 2001 that confirmed the publication of the notice. The Planning Division sent a Notice of Proposed Amendment to the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) on July 10, 2001 G. LOT OF RECORD: The site consists of three legal lots of record. The subject properties were created through minor partition file number MP -79-70. III. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS A. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance 1. CHAPTER 18.136, AMENDMENTS. :14111111" =11- 11C.1 This title may be amended as set forth in this chapter. The procedures for text or legislative map changes shall be as set forth in chapter 22.12 of this code. A request by a property owner for a quasi-judicial map amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable procedures of Title 22 of this code. PA -01-2 and ZC-01-2 Page 3%tii'[uit C Page 3 of Ordinance 2.06 t r 0 E -D FINDING: The applicant has requested a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan map amendment from Forest to Agriculture. In addition, the applicant has requested an amendment to the Deschutes County Zoning Map to change the zoning from Forest Use (F-2) to Exclusive Farm Use (EFU). The applicant has filed the application on the required forms provided by the Planning Department with the required burden of proof statement. The applicant for a quasi-judicial rezoning must establish that the public interest is best served by rezoning the property. Factors to be demonstrated by the applicant are: A. That the change conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, and the change is consistent with the plan's introductory statement and goals. B. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone classification. C. That changing the zoning will presently service the public health, safety and welfare considering the following factors: 1. The availability and efficiency of providing necessary public services and facilities. 2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan. D. That there has been a change in the circumstances since the property was last zoned, or a mistake was made in the zoning of the property in question. FINDING: The Hearings Officer agrees with Staff that the criteria of this section are not applicable to this proposal because the applicant submitted the applications for the plan map and zoning changes under the terms of Forest Lands Policy Number 8. Policy 8 specifically authorizes a quasi-judicial plan amendment and zone change for F-2 designated lands meeting the criteria contained in Policy 8 "notwithstanding any other quasi-judicial plan or change criteria." The Hearings Officer finds that use of the above quoted and underscored language means that the Board intended the criteria in Policy 8 to be used instead of or as a substitute for any other quasi-judicial plan amendment or zone change criteria. The proposal's compliance with Policy 8 and the criteria thereunder are addressed below. B. Title 23 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan 1. CHAPTER 23.40, RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OF DCC TITLE 23 T490TIVACIE,i 1 — 8. Notwithstanding any other quasi-judicial plan or zone change criteria, lands designated as Forest under the Plan and zoned Forest Use 2 under the zoning ordinance may upon application be redesignated under the Plan from Forest to Agriculture and rezoned under the zoning ordinance from Forest Use 2 to Exclusive Farm Use if such lands: PA -01-2 and ZC-01-2 1( t' Page 4 Ex" f ail. G Page '-(— of i I Ordinance 2w t- o Sa FINDING: As indicated above, the applicant has applied for quasi-judicial amendments to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map and Official Zoning Map to change the plan designation and zoning on the site from Forest Use 2 to Excusive Farm Use. The applicant has applied under the terms of the above -quoted policy and has addressed the following criteria in his application. The following findings address the proposal's compliance with these criteria. (a) do not qualify under state law for forestland tax deferral, FINDING: The record shows the proposal meets this criterion because it includes substantial evidence to show that the subject parcels do not qualify under state law for forestland tax deferral. The applicant's narrative addressing this criterion, the letters from staff of the Oregon Department of Forestry, the Special Assessment Qualification, and the soil interpretation records show the site does not qualify under the Oregon Revised Statutes for forestland tax deferral. The record indicates that under state law, ORS 321.805 through 321.825, for land to qualify for forestland tax deferral it must meet the definition of forest lands and meet minimum stocking requirements set forth in the Forest Practices Act. ORS Chapter 321 addresses timber and forest land taxation. ORS 321.805 through 321.830 addresses special assessment of Eastern Oregon forest lands. ORS 321.805 defines "forestland" as land which is being used or held for the predominant purpose of growing and harvesting trees of a marketable species. The record indicates that the site is not being held for the predominant purpose of growing and harvesting trees of a marketable species. The record includes the letters from staff at the Departments of Forestry and Land Conservation and Development that show the site is not engaged in growing marketable forest tree species. Additionally, the soils interpretation records and descriptions of the soils occurring on site indicate the site has not been rated for woodland suitability. This information indicates that none of the soil units identified on site are capable of producing marketable forest tree species. This documentation shows that because the site does not have soils capable of producing marketable tree species, and is not engaged in this activity, that it cannot qualify under state law for forestland tax deferral. The opponents argue that the subject properties do not meet the above criterion because the applicant applied for and received a reduction in his property tax assessments from the Oregon Department of Revenue for the subject parcels. The Hearings Officer finds that the evidence in the record demonstrates that the subject parcels do not qualify under state law for forestland tax deferral. The reduction in the applicant's property tax assessments was based on a finding that the parcels had been overvalued for assessment purposes n -W on a finding that the parcels would qualify for forestland tax deferral. Based on the evidence in the record, the Hearings Officer finds that all three of the parcels meet this criterion. (b) are not necessary to permit forest operations or practices on adjoining lands and do not constitute forested lands that maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources, FINDING: The record indicates the proposal meet this criterion because it includes evidence to show that the subject parcels are not necessary to permit forest operations or practices on adjoining lands. The proposal also shows the site does not constitute forested lands that maintain soil, air, water and fish and wildlife resources. The applicant's narrative addressing this criterion refers to evidence addressing criterion (a), specifically the letters from State Forestry and Land Conservation and Development staff that show the site is not suitable to produce forest tree species and is therefore not considered forest land. The narrative indicates that the property surrounding the site to the north, east, and south, is maintained by the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The record includes assessor's maps and PA -01-2 and ZC-01-2 C if Page 5 Exhibit � Page of Ordinance 2-00 i z 0 5-0 copies of assessor's records that document ownership. The applicant argues that neither the subject properties nor the abutting public lands are engaged in growing or harvesting marketable forest tree species, and therefore are not necessary to permit forest operations or practices. The Hearings Officer agrees. The record also includes a soils map for this area, including the adjoining public lands, that show the soils occurring on the public lands are also of the same mapping units found on site. As indicated above, these soils are not rated for woodland suitability. The soils descriptions included with the interpretation records further indicate that these same soils have limitations that limit their suitability for growing and supporting marketable tree species. The second part of this criterion requires the applicant to show that the site does not constitute "forested lands" that maintain soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources. As indicated in the above findings, the site does not constitute "forested lands". The applicant submitted documentation from staff of the Oregon Departments of Forestry and Land Conservation and Development as well as from a forester in private practice that confirms the site's vegetation and tree cover do not represent forested land. The record includes comments from ODFW that indicate the proposal should be denied because the property is within an area identified as significant wildlife habitat. However, as indicated above, the site is not "forested land" that maintains wildlife habitat. The record indicates that the site's vegetation and cover is similar to range land typical of Deschutes County. Because the property does not constitute "forested lands", the Hearings Officer agrees with Staff that the proposal meets this criterion. (c) have soils on the property that fall within the definition of agricultural lands as set forth in Goal 3, FINDING: The Hearings Officer agrees with Staff that the proposal meets this criterion because the narrative addressing this criterion and the soil interpretation records and descriptions show the soils on the properties fall within the definition of agricultural lands as set forth in Goal 3. The applicant submitted a copy of OAR Chapter 660, Division 33, which includes the administrative rules counties must follow in planning and zoning agricultural land. OAR 660-033-0020(1)(a) defines "Agricultural Land" as defined in Goal 3, to include lands classified by the U.S. Soil Conservation Services as predominantly Class I -VI soils in Eastern Oregon. The soils interpretation records indicate all three soils mapped on the site have soils that are rated as Class VI when unirrigated. This information shows the soils fall within the definition of agricultural land under Goal 3. (d) are a tract of land 40 acres or less in size, FINDING: The Hearings Officer agrees with Staff that the proposal meets this criterion because the three parcels that are the subject of this application constitute a tract of land less than 40 acres in size. The applicant provided a copy of the partition approved in 1979 that created the three parcels. Each parcel is at least 13.2 acres in size. The three parcels together comprise a total of 39.6 acres. DCC Section 18.04.1261 defines a tract as a group of contiguous lots or parcels held in common ownership. The deeds submitted with the application show all three parcels are owned by the applicant. (e) do not qualify under state law and the terms of the Forest Use 2 Zone for a dwelling, and; FINDING: The record shows that the proposal meets this criterion because it includes evidence from the applicant that none of the subject parcels qualify under state law and the terms of the Forest Use 2 Zone for a dwelling. OAR Chapter 660, Division 6, outlines the terms under which a lot or parcel zoned for PA -01-2 and ZC-01-2 Exhibit G Page 6 Page t_ of I Ordinance 200 I - 0 20 • • Forest Use may qualify for a dwelling. The County has incorporated this language into DCC Chapter 18.40, with the specific criteria under DCC Section 18.40.050. This section lays out three "tests" for a dwelling including the template test, the lot of record test, and the large tract dwelling test. The tract does not qualify for a large tract dwelling because it is less than 40 acres in size. To qualify under this test, the tract must be at least 240 acres in size. The record indicates the proposal would not qualify under the lot of record test, because the applicant purchased the property after January 1, 1985. The special warranty deed submitted with the application shows the applicant purchased the property in August of 1986. To satisfy the lot of record test, an applicant must demonstrate that they purchased the property and that it was lawfully created on or before January 1, 1985. Finally, the record includes a memorandum to the Assessor's Office that indicates all three lots could not qualify for a dwelling under the terms of the Forest Use 2 Zone. This document indicates that none of these lots could qualify under the template test. This test requires that the applicant demonstrate that a certain number of lots, and that a certain number of these lots are developed with dwellings, on January 1, 1993 and within a 160 -acre square centered on the property. The record indicates that none of the subject parcels would meet this test because only two (2) properties in private ownership would fall within this template. (0 were purchased by the property owner after January 1, 1985 but before November 4, 1993 Such changes may be made regardless of the size of the resulting EFU-Zoning district. Such changes shall be processed in the same manner as other quasi-judicial plan or zoning map changes." FINDING: The record shows the proposal meets this criterion because the applicant has provided deeds for the subject tax lots that show he purchased them after January 1, 1985 and before November 4, 1993. The warranty deed shows the applicant and one other person purchased the subject properties in August of 1986. The quitclaim deed shows the applicant acquired all three parcels December 1992. C. Oregon Administrative Rules 1. OAR CHAPTER 660, DIVISION 15, STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS State law (ORS 197.175) requires that quasi-judicial changes to a comprehensive plan and/or zoning map be consistent with the applicable statewide land use goals. The following finding addresses the proposal's compliance with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, will be met because the County's land use process provides for notice of proposed comprehensive plan text amendments to the general public by publication in The Bulletin and by posting notices in public places in the county. The Hearings Officer has held a public hearing regarding the proposed amendment and herein makes a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board will hold a public hearing regarding the application and make the final decision on whether to adopt the amendments to the plan and zoning maps. Goal 2, Land Use Planning, will be met because at least two public hearings will be held prior to any decision being made to.adopt or to not adopt any amendment to the comprehensive plan map and zoning map. The County land use procedures code provides for such hearings, complying with Goal 2. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands, is applicable and will be met because the applicant has requested a change in plan designation and zoning from forest to agricultural. This recommendation includes PA -01-2 and ZC-01-2 Page 7 Exhibit Page — -7 of Ordinance `2-00 I-© • findings in a forgoing section that show the soils occurring on site fall within the classification of agricultural lands under OAR 660-033-0020. Goal 4, Forest Lands, is applicable and has been met because the record indicates the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to meet the decision-making criteria under Forest Lands Policy No. 8. The applicant has demonstrated that the site cannot qualify under state law for forest land tax deferral and are necessary to permit forest operations or practices. The applicant has further shown that the site does not constitute forest lands that maintain soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resource, and that have soils that would qualify as agricultural lands under Goal 3. Additionally, the requested EFU Zoning does permit forest uses outright. Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources, is met because the proposal does not include language that would relieve an applicant for a proposed change in plan and zone map designation from complying with adopted regulations intended to protect identified Goal 5 resources. The resources applicable to this review include Sisemore Road, a designated scenic corridor, and the site's location within the Tumalo Deer Winter Range, a significant wildlife habitat. The proposal is consistent with Goal 5 because the applicant has not proposed the removal of the Landscape Management Combining Zone designation from the site. If approved, any development of dwellings, accessory buildings, or agricultural related buildings would be subject to approval according to the terms of the Landscape Management Combining Zone. With respect to the wildlife resources, the record includes comments from the regional office of ODFW that states their position the proposal would not comply with Goal 5. Their comments state that the proposal would affect significant wildlife resources, but does not provide any further comments as to what impacts the proposal would have on the winter range. Staff and the Hearings Officer.. have reviewed the most recent economic, social, environmental, and energy analysis (ESEE) performed by the .County in 1992 as -part of its periodic review of the plan. Through Ordinance 92-041, the County adopted a new ESEE analysis that incorporated a program to achieve the goal of conserving the deer winter range. This program included application of the Wildlife Area Combining Zone and adoption of related amendments to the text to this zone to require a large lot size for land divisions and to prohibit certain conflicting uses. The applicant has not proposed to amend these regulations. Additionally, the ESEE analysis indicates that the underlying zoning in the deer winter range is primarily resource zoning, including both Exclusive Farm Use and Forest Use zoning. These resource zones have limited development potential and additional limitations on uses, which provide considerable protection for wildlife habitat. The Hearings Officer agrees with Staff that the proposed change is consistent with the County's program for protecting the deer winter range because the applicant has proposed a change from one resource zone to another resource zone and has not proposed any changes to the Wildlife Area Combining Zone. The requested Exclusive Farm Use zone limits the potential uses of the site, which will also protect the deer winter range. The applicant will continue to be subject to the provisions of the Wildlife Area Combining Zone and will have to comply with those provisions with regard to future development under the EFU zoning. Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality, will be met because, if approved, the proposal will not create any new impacts to the quality of air and land resources. The site does not abut any water resources such as rivers or lakes. The requested zoning, Exclusive Farm Use, includes limitations on new uses that are not related to farm use and does not allow land use that could have a significant impact to the quality of the air and land resources. PA -01-2 and ZC-01-2 Page 8 Exhibit C' t I Page of Ordinance -2-O0 1- 0 50 Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards, is not applicable because the proposal does propose a change in plan designation and zoning for property in flood plains or areas subject to slides. Goal 8, Recreational Needs, is not applicable because the proposal does not affect land designated for destination resort development under this goal. Goal 9, Economic Development, is not applicable because the proposal does not allow for changing the plan designation and zoning on property from forest to commercial or industrial. Goal 10, Housing, is not applicable because the proposal would not affect plan policies for urban levels of housing in urban growth boundaries, urban unincorporated communities, or in rural residential exception areas. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services, is not affected by this proposal because there is no net impact to any public facilities or services. Goal 12, Transportation, will not be affected by this proposal because there is no net impact to transportation facilities serving the property. This recommendation includes findings below addressing the requirements of the Transportation Planning Rule. Goal 13, Energy Conservation, requires that land and uses developed on the land be managed so as to maximize the conservation of all forms of energy, based upon sound economic principles. This goal does not apply in this situation because the applicant has not proposed to change the plan designation and zoning of the site to a zone that would allow more intensive uses that would require more energy. Goal 14, Urbanization does not apply because the proposal would only change zoning regulations for forestlands outside of urban growth boundaries. Goals 15 through 19 address river, ocean, and estuarine resources. These goals are not applicable because the proposal will not affect any of these resources. 2. OAR CHAPTER 660, DIVISION 12, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE. a. Section 660-12-060 Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments. of the Transportation Planning Rule (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.- FINDINGS: ither. FINDINGS: The record show the proposed amendment to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan map and Official Zoning map will not significantly affect a transportation facility. The following findings show why the proposed amendment and zone change will not significantly affect a transportation facility. PA -01-2 and ZC-01-2 i ( C " Page 9 Exhibit Page 2 of t Ordinance zW I- 090 (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; FINDING: The proposal meets this criterion because it does not propose a change in the functional classification of any existing or planned transportation facility, including Sisemore Road. (b) Changes standards implementing a functional classification plan; FINDING: The proposal meets this criterion because it does not propose a change to the standards that implement a functional classification plan. The current County classification plan classifies roads according to their intended function: arterial, collector and local. The County Transportation System Plan (TSP) indicates the functional classification for Sisemore Road is rural local road. The proposal does not propose to change the classification of this road to accommodate the development contemplated by the requested plan amendment and zone change. (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 FINDING: The record indicates the proposal meets this criterion because the applicant has not proposed a change in plan designation or in zoning that would allow types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent .with Sisemore Road's functional classification. The applicant requests a change in plan designation and in zoning from Forest Use 2 to Exclusive Farm Use (EFU). The EFU Zone is a resource zone similar to the F2 Zone in that farm and forest uses are the most protected uses and are permitted outright. -Non-resource related uses may be allowed only as conditional uses and require review and approval. The applicant has indicated that the intended use of each parcel is a single family dwelling under the terms of the EFU Zone. As indicated above, Sisemore Road is designated as a rural local road under the County TSP. Such roads are capable of accommodating 250 to 1,500 vehicle trips per day. Staff has consulted the Deschutes County Road Department's Traffic Count Summary: 1980-2000 report and found that no traffic counts have been conducted for Sisemore Road. According to the Road Department, the lack of this kind of data indicates that current traffic counts are too low to effectively measure. If developed as proposed by the applicant, with one dwelling on each parcel, the Hearings Officer agrees with Staff's estimate that the proposed dwellings would generate an additional 9.57 trips per parcel per day, which may yield approximately 29 additional trips per day. The Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual (6th ed.) includes data that indicates a single family dwelling can generate as many as 9.57 vehicle trips per day. Based on this information, the Hearings Officer finds that the proposed use would not generate levels of traffic or access, which are inconsistent with the functional classification of Sisemore Road. (d) Would reduce the level of service of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP. FINDING: The record indicates the proposal will not reduce the level of service (LOS) of Sisemore road below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP. Staff has reviewed the TSP, and found that the LOS for a rural local road such as Sisemore Road is LOS A. This level represents trips not exceeding 10 percent of a PM traffic peak. For this level, traffic cannot exceed 240 vehicle trips during the pm peak on a rural local road. This proposed amendments to the plan map and official zoning map will not reduce the LOS on Sisemore Road. The applicant has not proposed to establish uses allowed under the terms of the PA -01-2 and ZC-01-2 Page 10 Exhibit Page 10 of ._.. Ordinance '2-110 i- ®�`� 0 EFU Zone that would generate significant levels of traffic. In this situation, the applicant indicates the expected development one each parcel would be one (1) dwelling, with each dwelling generating 9.57 trips per day. The ITE Trip Generation Manual (6th ed.) indicates that during the PM Peak, each dwelling will generate at most one (1) additional trip. IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearings Officer concludes that the proposal has met or can meet all applicable criteria for the proposed plan map amendment and zone change. V. RECOMMENDATION APPROVAL, of application PA -01-2 to amend the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan map designation of the subject properties from Forest Use to Agriculture. APPROVAL, of application ZC-01-2 to amend the Deschutes County Zoning Map by changing the zoning on the subject properties from Forest Use 2 to Exclusive Farm Use. DATED this C' day day of October, 2001. MAILED this10t, day of October, 2001. M. Lewis, Hearings Officer THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL TWELVE DAYS AFTER MAILING UNLESS TIMELY APPEALED. PA -01-2 and ZC-01-2 i( UPage 11 Exhibit , L Page r I of Ordinance 'Zoo I -D Exhibit A ance 2001-050 & 2001-051 N S89.11 47"E _ .S$9.12'58 E - 240.54' - — - N23 56'02"W E _ 39.02' Parcel 1 \ N43 33' 17"E \ 117.25' Parcel 2 Parcel3' Map Symbols �'- Taxlots 100, 200, 300 OTaxlots Date: November 19, 2001 M M EO M Deschutes County Geographic Information System Service Center �3 300 0 300 600 Fee t O Copyright © 2001 by Deschutes County, Oregon. All Rights Reserved. Printed in the United States of America. U File: n:\custom\county\cdd\planning\damian\161120100-200-300\exhibita.apr DISCLAIMER: The information on this map was derived from digital databases on Deschutes County's G.I.S. Care was taken in the creation of this map, W d O CO but it is provided "as is". Deschutes County cannot accept any responsibility for errors, omissions, or positional accuracy in the digital data or the underlying records. There are no warranties, express or implied, including the warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, accompanying this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated. Exhibit "B" Legal Description PARCEL I: A parcel of land located in Sections Nineteen (19) and Twenty (20) in TOWNSHIP S LXTEEN (16) SOUTH, RANGE ELEVEN (11) EAST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, Deschutes County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at the Section corner common to. Sections 17, 18, 19 and 20; thence South 89°12'58" East 661.05 feet; thence South 00038133" West 921.69 feet; thence North 51`53'26" West 1106.27 feet to the Easterly right-of-way line of Sisemore Road; thence along said right-of-way on a 213.81 foot radius curve left 78.31 feet, the long chord of which bears North 14036'02" East 77.87 feet; thence along said right-of-way on a 293.88 foot radius curve left 143.83 feet, the long chord of which bears North 09054'46" West 142.40 feet; thence along s.. -m {d . right -of -w--y North 23355'02"-"-st.-.39.02 feet; - theace . South 89'31147" East 240-54 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL II: A parcel of land located in Sections Nineteen (19) and Twenty (20) of TOWNSHIP SIXTEEN (16) SOUTH, RANGE ELEVEN (11) EAST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN,. Deschutes County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at a point from whence the Section corner common to Sections 17, 18, 19 and 20 bears North 41033131" East 331.33 feet; thence South 51053'26" East 1106.27 feet; thence South 00°38133" West 404.94 feet; thence North 89°14'02" West 447.31 feet; thence North 29°47115" West 1083.18 feet to the Easterly right of way line of Sisemore Road; thence along said right of way line North 43"33'17" East 117.25 feet; thence along said right of way line on a 213.81 foot radius curve left 68.89 feet, the long chord of which bears North 34"19126" East 68.60 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL III: A parcel of land located in Sections Nineteen (19) and Twenty (20) in TOWNSHIP SIXTEEN (16) SOUTH, RANGE ELEVEN (11) EAST OF THE WILLAMETTE MERIDIAN, Deschutes County, Oregon, described as follows: Beginning at a point from whence the Section corner common to Sections 17, 18, 19 and 20 bears North W03112" East 516.57 feet; thence South 29°47'15" East 1083.18 feet; thence North 89°14102" West 213.56 feet; thence North 89010105" West 521.97 feet to the Easterly right of way line of Sisemore Road; thence along said right of way line on a 650.80 foot radius curve left 194.34 feet, the long chord of which bears North 13"06127" West 193.62 feet; thence along said right of way line North 21039944" West 117.19 feet; thence along said right of way line on a 978.31 foot radius curve right 371.98 feet, the long chord of which bears North 10046111" West 369.74 feet; thence along said right of way line North 00"07'23" East 117.44 feet; thence along said right of way line on a 78.02 foot radius curve right 127:66 feet, the long chord of which bears North 46059'58" East 113.88 feet; thence along said right of way line South 86007127" East 68.83 feet; thence along said right of way line on a 254.18 foot radius curve left 223.24 feet, the long chord of which bears North 68'42155" East 216.13 feet to the point of beginning. PAGE 1 OF 1 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2001-051 (12/26/01)