Loading...
2002-10-Ordinance No. 2002-007 Recorded 1/4/2002REVI WED LEGAL COUNSEL REVIEWED CODE REVIEW COMMITTEE DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ 1041'4 MARY SUE PENHOLLOW, COUNTY CLERK COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 01/04/2002 42;59;45 PM For Recording Stamp Only BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, to Amend the Comprehensive Plan Map to Change the Plan Designation for Certain Property from Forest to Agriculture. ORDINANCE NO. 2002-007 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 (File No. PA -01-2); 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. 2002-007 (1/3/02) Section 2. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings in support of this ordinance, the Recommendation of Deschutes County Hearings Officer, attached hereto as Exhibit "C," and the Findings of the Board of County Commissioners on DCC 23.40.020(8)(b) attached hereto as Exhibit "D," and incorporated herein by reference. DATED thisd� day of )2002. ATTEST: 6�L� �L Recording Secretary BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNT`(, OREGON Tom Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner MiAaef M. Daly, Commi loner PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2002-007 (1/3/02) EXHIBIT "A" S89 11' 4T'E SB9 1 Z 58..E 240.54' 661.05' � N2J 56'OYV/ Subject Site: 16-11-20-100, 200, 300 Parcel 1 Comprehensive Plan Change from Forest to Agriculture ®B3' Tn1 t 10, 3 2j F N 3 Parcel Vim_; Parcel �m A S g' 521.97 21356' 447.31 N89 10'03'W N89 14 02'W Taxlots N COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS Proposed Plan Designation qty E I� Forest Agriculture S Map P-- By. Deechubee CoUnty Cevunu,Ry Wr�bq,wK .G. mn egviawmew on M_ dmr cunN'• �Nco�rw az.d. �we�wMn s:. �er��: s�w•eu•i+rarxr- weM.w�d•. i umgw. me wammy d rmcnnroury a Mxa b a pnnrtr pn,me,exmrrurry.q ave prmud. Ibwiar, rcYurtmdam errwe w+l b a,pxSNE. 00 SN One Inch = 500 Feet December 28, 2001 N:\CUSTOM\COUNTY\CDD\PLANNI NG\DAMIANS\te 1120100-200-300\EXHIBITA.APR PAGE 1 OF 1 - EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2002-007 (01/03/02) EXHIBIT "B" Legal Description PARCEL I: 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 the Section corner common to.Sections 17, 18, 19 and 20; thence South 89012158" East 661.05 feet; thence South 00'38'33" West 921.69 feet; ttience North 51°53126" West 1106.27 feet to the Easterly right-of-way line of SL semore 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; ttsence along said right-of-way on a 293.88 foot radius curve lef t 143.83 feet, the long chord of which bears North 09'54'46" West 142.40 feet; thence .along S. -old right-of-way North 23°55_!12".-9-.st-.3.9,02 feet; -thence . South 89"11147" East 240.54 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL II: i A p- a celof 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 51'53126" 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 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 3419126" 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 29°47'15" 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 13'06127" West 193.62 feet; thence along said right of way line North 21'39'44" 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 10'46111" West 369.74 feet; thence along said right of way line North 00"0723" 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 86°07127" 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" Nast 216.13 feet to the point of beginning. PAGE 1 OF 1 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2002-007 (1/3/02) im a 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 m It OCT 2001 DESC j( f$ COUAW 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 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 PExhibit Page 1 t Page of Ordinance 2001 -510 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 Count gad Department: Submitted a response of No Comments. PA -01-2 and ZC-01-2 r� PExhibit Page 2 Page Ordinance 2ooz-DO'7 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. R -TIT Fw W.T111-II-I-k 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 Exhibit Page 3 Page— of `I Ordinance 1061-007 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. b. Section 18,136,020. Rezoning Standards. 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 j du icial 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 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-01-2Exhi bit Page 4 Page —±t-- Of = -7 Ordinance 2ooa � 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 E=astern 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 nDJ 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 Exhibit Page 5 Page r of Ordinance 2a�z -on7 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 situ 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. (co 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 Page 6 Page of < < Ordinance ?coz - 00'7 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. (fl 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 Exhibit it e Page 7 Page -_ of / < Ordinance 7-4>01-0077 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 Page --Y-_ of Ordinance 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, min Sol 1 • � l - • 1 � - 1 1 1 � � ' (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: 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 Exhibit Page 9 Page — of of Ordinance Z-oo z -007 (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 Summa[y, 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 Staffs 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 Exnibi" Page I ID of if Ordinance a0a2 - 007 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 day of October, 2001. MAILED this 1&t�day of October, 2001. a M. Lewis, Hearings THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL TWELVE DAYS AFTER MAILING UNLESS TIMELY APPEALED. PA -01-2 and ZC-01-2 if • % Page 11 E- ., bit Page « of i Ordinance adz -007 Findings of the Board of County Commissioners on DCC 23 40 020(8)(b) The Board finds that the site does not constitute forested lands that maintain soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife resources. The Board concurs with the finding of the hearings officer on this criterion, and supplements it with our own finding on this application. The record includes testimony from opponents that argue the subject properties constitute forested lands. The Board finds that the soils descriptions in the record, and the December 11, 2001 letter from applicant's attorney show that this is not the case. These documents, and the record of the Hearings Officer's site visit, confirm that the soils, juniper woodland, and understory of bitterbrush, sage, and bunch grasses are typical of rangeland in Deschutes County and do not constitute forested lands. The soil data submitted by the applicant indicates the soils present at the subject properties are not rated for woodland suitability. The record before the Board also includes documentation submitted by the applicant, including aerial photos showing the subject property to be only sparsely covered with timber and including letters from a consulting forester and staff of the Oregon Departments of Forestry and Land Conservation and Development that provide expert testimony as to whether the lands that are the subject of these application are forested lands. The record before the Board includes substantial evidence to conclude that the subject properties do not constitute forested lands. Exhibit Page .--L-- of i Ordinance Z 0O2 -�`'