2002-916-Ordinance No. 2002-001 Recorded 6/20/2002REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
REVI ,WED
CODE REVIEW COMMITTEE
COUNTY OFFICIAL
MARYHSUE SPENHOLLOW, COUNTYRCLERKS CJ 2002-916
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNA
` 06/20/2002 08:00:00 AM
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Title 23, Comprehensive
Plan, of the Deschutes County Code.
ORDINANCE NO. 2002-001
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners (Board) has determined that to comply with
Periodic Review and OAR 660-022, amendments to the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan are
required; and
WHEREAS, to comply with Periodic Review and OAR 660-022, File No. PA -99-3 was
initiated by Deschutes County to amend the Comprehensive Plan regarding Rural Service Centers; and
WHEREAS, after notice and hearing as required by law, the Board has considered the
recommendation of the Planning Commission; now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
as follows:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. Chapter and section headings are amended for portions of Title 23,
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, as shown in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference.
Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCC 23.24, Rural Development, is amended to read as described in
Exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and
language to be deleted in otr-iketiac th-eL'Cggh.;
Section 3. AMENDMENT. DCC 23.36, Rural Service Centers, is amended to read as described in
Exhibit "C," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and
language to be deleted in �.
Section 4. AMENDMENT. DCC 23.40.010, Unincorporated communities, is amended to read as
described in Exhibit "D," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language
underlined and language to be deleted in str-iketkreugh.
Section 5. REPEAL AND REPLACEMENT OF MAPS. Comprehensive plan maps for Alfalfa,
Brothers, Hampton and Millican, formerly found in DCC 23.36.040, attached hereto and incorporated herein as
Exhibits "E," "G," "I," and "K," are hereby repealed and replaced with new comprehensive plan maps in DCC
23.40.060, attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as Exhibits "F," "H," "J," and "L."
PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2002-001 (06/05/02)
Section 6. FINDINGS. The Board adopts the Staff Report for File No. PA -99-3, attached hereto as
Exhibit "M," and incorporated herein by this reference, as its findings in support of this Ordinance.
DATED this day of 12002.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
--- A)D ✓6 1�-7
TOM DEW F, Chair
d?
bRNN
IS R. LUKE, Commissioner
MI AEL M. DALY, Comm' loner
Date of 1St Reading: � day of , 2002.
Date of 2°a Reading: J da of Wri�.2., 2002.
� Y
Record of Adoption Vote
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Tom DeWolf
Dennis R. Luke
Michael M. Daly il�
Effective date: Y day of '2002.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2002-001 (06/05/02)
EXHIBIT "A"
Old Chapter or
Old Title
New Chapter or
New Title
Section Number
Section Number
23.24
Rural
No change
Development
23.24.010
Rural development
No change
23.24.020
Goals
No change
23.24.030
Policies
No change
23.24.040
Unincorporated
23.40.010
No change
communities
23.24.050
Definition- Rural
Delete
community
23.36.030
Rural communities
23.24.050
Rural communities
23.28
Terrebonne Rural
Delete
Community
23.28.010
Terrebonne rural
23.40.030(A)
Terrebonne rural
community
community
23.28.020
Maps
23.40.060
Maps
23.32
Tumalo Rural
Delete
Community
23.32.010
Tumalo rural
23.40.030(B)
Tumalo rural
community
community
23.32.020
Maps
23.40.060
Maps
23.36
Rural Service
No change
Rural Service
Centers
Center
23.36.010
Alfalfa Rural
Delete
Service Center
23.36.020
Brothers, Hampton,
Delete
Millican Rural
Service Centers
23.36.040
Maps
23.40.060
No change
23.36.030
Spring River Rural
23.36.010
Spring River
Service Center
23.40
Urban
No change
Unincorporated
unincorporated
Communities
communities
23.40.010
La Pine urban
No change
Unincorporated
unincorporated
communities
community
23.40.020
Urban
unincorporated
communities — La
Pine and Sunriver
23.40.010
La Pine urban
23.40.020(A)
La Pine UUC
unincorporated
community
23.40.020
Sunriver urban
23.40.020(B)
Sunriver UUC
Page 1 of 2 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2002-001 (06/05/02)
EXHIBIT "A"
Page 2 of 2 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2002-001 (06/05/02)
unincorporated
community
23.40.030
Figures
No change
Rural communities
— Terrebonne and
Tumalo
23.28;
Terrebonne rural
Deleted
23.32
community: Tumalo
rural community
23.28.010
Terrebonne rural
23.40.030(A)
Terrebonne rural
community
community
23.32.010
Terrebonne rural
23.40.030(B)
Tumalo rural
community
community
23.40.040
Rural service centers
— Alfalfa, Brothers
Hampton and
Millican
23.40.050
Resort communities
— Black Butte Ranch
and Inn of the 7 t
Mtn./Widgi Creek
23.28.020;
Maps
23.40.060
Maps
23.32.020; and
Maps
23.40.030
Figures
Page 2 of 2 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2002-001 (06/05/02)
EXHIBIT `B"
Chapter 23.24 RURAL
DEVELOPMENT
23.24.010.
Rural development.
23.24.020.
Goals.
23.24.030.
234.050.
Policies.
Definition RUFal
23.24.010. Rural development.
The primary duty of this comprehensive plan is to
guide growth and development in the rural areas
of Deschutes County. The Urbanization chapter
discusses urban area growth, but the primary
plans for the County's major communities are the
three urban area plans. The Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan is focused upon the changes
that will be taking place outside the urban growth
boundaries. This chapter is meant to tie together
the various more specific chapters that deal with
resource and growth management so that an
integrated plan for the development of the County
may be obtained.
Being the fastest growing County in Oregon has
meant many changes for Deschutes County.
Some of the changes, such as improved social,
cultural and economic opportunities, are seen as
beneficial. Others, such as traffic congestion, loss
of scenic views, and rising taxes to pay for public
services, are changes most people would like to
do without.
Recent years have witnessed Countywide growth
occurring at about 6.3 per cent annually. The
present population of Deschutes County is
estimated at 49,700. Growth is expected to
continue at a slower rate (4.5 per cent annually) to
the year 2000. By that time, the County will
likely have about 128,200 residents. Of that
number, 84,000 will be in the Bend Urban Area;
another 23,093 will be in and around Redmond;
2,135 are expected for Sisters; and La Pine will
have incorporated and reached an urban area
population of 3,620. That leaves a rural
population of 15,350 people, up from an
estimated 8,300 presently.
To accommodate the new rural population will
require 3,039 lots (assumes 2.32 persons per
household). There were available in Deschutes
County, as of January 1, 1979, 17,377
undeveloped rural tract and recreational lots. It
appears that Countywide there is in excess of
14,000 lots beyond the public's housing needs
until the year 2000. That does not preclude the
possibility of certain areas needing new lots, since
the vast majority of those existing lots are in the
La Pine area, but it does indicate the County must
give serious review before approving any further
rural development.
Much of the development that has occurred
locally has been the standard parcelization of land
into small (less than 10 acres) lots. This
dispersed pattern is often the most costly to serve;
the most wasteful of energy, land and resources;
the least esthetic; and the most destructive to rural
character. Planned Developments, such as Indian,
Ford Planned Development, often provide a more
efficient and beneficial manner in which to -serve.
the public demand for rural recreational or
residential experience. Destination resorts, such
as Black Butte Ranch and dude ranches, have
been found locally to be economically and
socially desirable land uses, when located and
developed consistent with the capabilities of the
land and the abilities of various public and private
agencies to serve that area.
Recreational subdivision was originally seen as a
benefit to the County as the non-resident
landowners would be contributing to the County
tax base. This probably resulted in areas like La
Pine subsidizing other portions of the County.
Now the recreation subdivisions are filling up
with retirees and younger people seeking less
expensive building lots. The result is a call for
more services in areas far from existing service
facilities and in subdivisions where roads and
other improvements were meant only for seasonal
and limited use. As demand continues to grow, to
provide adequate service levels it will be
necessary for other areas to subsidize the
recreational areas for many years. Studies by
Oregon State University indicate that Deschutes
County is likely faced with such a situation
presently.
Page 1 of 5 — EXHIBIT `B" To ORDINANCE No. 2002-001 (06/05/02)
EXHIBIT "B"
The County has witnessed losses of agricultural,
forest and other resource lands, as well as seen
the expense and esthetic losses created by urban
sprawl. Studies such as "The Costs of Sprawl"
have emphasized the greater efficiencies that can
be obtained by a more condensed and planned
development pattern. When these factors were
combined with State requirements to contain
development in urban areas, there was no
question to the Overall CAC that the updated
comprehensive plan would have to address the
issue of containing urban sprawl and protecting
the rural character of the County.
The predominant rural land uses in the County
are open spaces, pasture and limited crop
production, livestock production, natural resource
utilization and wildlife cover. There is also
residential use and some commercial and
industrial activity in the rural service centers.
Unfortunately, the unrestrictive zoning permitted
in- the rural service centers has allowed
incompatible adjacent land uses and not resulted
in providing the needed services for the
surrounding rural areas. In the case of Deschutes
Junction this result is combined with another
factor in that Bend's urban sprawl is augmented
by development at the junction.
Interestingly, the residents of the rural service
centers, except for La Pine, have expressed
concern that higher levels of development in their
locales would be incompatible with the existing
rural nature of the area. They agree that there is a
need for limited and controlled growth, but that
the rural character of the community must be
maintained.
To guide development into appropriate patterns
the following goals have been prepared.
(Ord. 2002-005 § 1, 2002; Ord. 2000-017 § 1,
2000; Ord. 92-051, 1992; PL -20, 1979)
23.24.020. Goals.
A. To preserve and enhance the open spaces,
rural character, scenic values and natural
resources of the County.
B. To guide the location and design of rural
development so as to minimize the public
costs of facilities and services, to avoid
unnecessary expansion of service boundaries,
and to preserve and enhance the safety and
viability of rural land uses.
C. To provide for the possible long-term
expansion of urban areas while protecting the
distinction between urban (urbanizing) land
and rural lands.
(Ord. 2002-005 § 1, 2002; Ord. 2000-017 § 1,
2000; Ord. 92-051, 1992; PL -20,1979)
23.24.030. Policies.
The policies needed to accomplish the identified
goals were largely developed by the Overall CAC
during its deliberations on the preliminary plan.
It was obvious that some policies were needed to
pull the various resource and management
chapters together and to fill in some gaps so that
an integrated and cohesive 'plan was available.
Rural Development policies are meant to pertain
to all non- urban areas (areas outside urban
growth boundaries) and are the basic policies to
be followed in guiding rural growth. Specific
resource or management policies from other
chapters shall augment these policies so that the
plan must be viewed as an integrated whole rather
than a series of individual chapters.
• Residential/recreational
development.
Because 91 percent of the new County
population will live inside an urban area,
with only 3,039 new rural lots required,
and in light of the 17,377 undeveloped
rural tracts and lots as well as the energy,
environmental and public service costs,
all future rural development will be
stringently reviewed for public need
before approval. As a guideline for
review if a study of existing lots within
three miles of the proposed development
indicates approximately 50 per cent or
more of those lots have not had structures
constructed thereon, then the developer
shall submit adequate testimony
justifying additional lots in that area.
This will permit development in areas
Page 2 of 5 — EXHIBIT "B" To ORDINANCE No. 2002-001 (06/05/02)
2
4
EXHIBIT `B"
where such is needed (other policies
considering energy, public facilities,
safety and other development aspects
shall also be considered) while restricting
future division in areas where many
undeveloped lots already exist.
To further restrict subdivision outside
urban areas the minimum parcel size
shall be 10 acres, except where other
policies supercede this minimum (see
Unincorporated Communities, Rural
Service Centers, Agriculture and Forest
Lands).
Cluster or planned development offers
significant savings to the developer
because of reduced roadway, utility and
construction costs. Public costs to serve
cluster developments are also usually
lower. Therefore, to encourage
development and planned developments,
rather than parcelization, the county shall
permit an increase in density up to 33 per
cent above the density permitted in the
zone for cluster and planned
developments.
Cluster and planned developments shall
maintain a minimum of 65 per cent of the
land in open space, timber or agricultural
uses compatible with the surrounding
area and the development area. The open
space of the development may be platted
as a separate parcel or in common
ownership of some or all of the clustered
units; however, the open area shall not be
subject to development unless the whole
development is brought inside an urban
growth boundary. Also, service
connections shall be the minimum length
necessary and underground where
feasible. Roads shall meet County
standards, be dedicated to the public and
may be accepted in the County Road
System by the County for maintenance.
Destination resorts are important
elements of the local economy. These
developments shall not be permitted in
exclusive farm use districts except in
EFU-20 and EFU-40 zones pursuant to
the County's Destination Resort Siting
Map and Destination Resort Siting
Combining Zone and in forest districts
only in the F-2 zone pursuant to the
County's Destination Resort Siting
Combining Zone. They may be allowed
in the County's rural areas if compatible
with the environmental capabilities of the
site, near existing transportation and
utility facilities, consistent with the rural
character of the area, and unlikely to
create undue public service burdens.
Other than as outlined in Policy 5 and the
Goals and Policies set forth for
Destination Resorts, no further
recreational (seasonal) subdivision will
be approved in rural areas.
Parcels legally existing at the time of this
plan's adoption shall continue to function
as legal lots and will not be unduly
affected by the new lot size.
• Commercial and industrial
development.
8. Within one milq of acknowledged urban
growth boundaries, use of the planned or
cluster development 'concepts shall
permit to an increase of 100 per cent in
density for development in Multiple Use
Agriculture or Rural Residential zones
(not under a combining zone which
would prevent such) resulting in a
density of one unit per five acres.
9. Temporary on-site processing and
storage of either mineral and aggregate
materials or agricultural products shall be
permitted as appropriate, in order to
support the continued productivity of the
County's natural resources.
10. Certain industrial uses, such as research
and development facilities (requiring
quiet and open surroundings) and
manufacturers of hazardous materials
(requiring long distances between the
plant and neighbors) are more suitably
located in rural areas. The County shall
consider making provision for such uses
as the need is found to exist (see
Tumalo).
11. Certain industrial uses, such as research
and development facilities (requiring
quiet and open surroundings), wrecking
Page 3 of 5 — EXHIBIT `B" To ORDINANCE No. 2002-001 (06/05/02)
EXHIBIT "B"
or salvage yards and manufacturers of
hazardous materials (requiring long
distances between the plant and
neighbors) are more suitably located in
rural areas. The County shall consider
making provision for such uses as the
need is found to exist (see Tumalo).
a. To ensure that the uses in the
Rural Industrial zone on tax lot
16-12-26C-301 are limited in
nature and scope, the Rural
Industrial zoning on the subject
parcel shall be subject to a
Limited Use Combining Zone,
which will limit the uses to
storage, crushing, processing,
sale and distribution of pumice.
12. Because large scale recreation facilities
cannot normally be accommodated in
urban areas, uses such as motor cross
tracks, rodeo grounds and livestock
arenas shall be conditional uses which
may be approved in rural areas adjacent
to existing highways and other public
facilities.
amass.
• Other.
4-513. Construction on open lands shall be
in a manner least intrusive to the
aesthetic and natural character of those
lands and neighboring lands (fences and
access roads shall not be considered
structures).
4-614. Because there have been problems in
obtaining community centers in some
areas, centers approved on the original
subdivision plat or development plan
shall be permitted uses in rural residential
zones.
4-715. Due to the more dispersed pattern of
dwellings in rural areas the notice
requirement area for public hearings on
quasi-judicial land use actions shall be
larger than in urban areas.
4-916. More effective dog control program
should be considered by the County to
counter existing problems.
4-917. Pre-existing status shall be granted to
Wm
on
subdivisions and partitions with at least
preliminary approval and buildings with
at least an issued building permit at the
time of plan adoption by the Board of
County Commissioners.
-2018. All development in Deschutes
County shall comply with all applicable
state and federal rules, regulations and
standards.
(Ord 2002-001§ 2; Ord. 2002-005 § 1, 2002;
Ord. 2000-017 § 1, 2000; Ord. 92-051, 1992;
PL -20, 1979)
(Note: Pursuant to Exhibit "A" of this Ordinance
this section of text has been moved to DCC
23.40.010 with text amended pursuant to Exhibit
"D" of this Ordinance.)
Page 4 of 5 — EXHIBIT "B" To ORDINANCE No. 2002-001 (06/05/02)
• Other.
4-513. Construction on open lands shall be
in a manner least intrusive to the
aesthetic and natural character of those
lands and neighboring lands (fences and
access roads shall not be considered
structures).
4-614. Because there have been problems in
obtaining community centers in some
areas, centers approved on the original
subdivision plat or development plan
shall be permitted uses in rural residential
zones.
4-715. Due to the more dispersed pattern of
dwellings in rural areas the notice
requirement area for public hearings on
quasi-judicial land use actions shall be
larger than in urban areas.
4-916. More effective dog control program
should be considered by the County to
counter existing problems.
4-917. Pre-existing status shall be granted to
Wm
on
subdivisions and partitions with at least
preliminary approval and buildings with
at least an issued building permit at the
time of plan adoption by the Board of
County Commissioners.
-2018. All development in Deschutes
County shall comply with all applicable
state and federal rules, regulations and
standards.
(Ord 2002-001§ 2; Ord. 2002-005 § 1, 2002;
Ord. 2000-017 § 1, 2000; Ord. 92-051, 1992;
PL -20, 1979)
(Note: Pursuant to Exhibit "A" of this Ordinance
this section of text has been moved to DCC
23.40.010 with text amended pursuant to Exhibit
"D" of this Ordinance.)
Page 4 of 5 — EXHIBIT "B" To ORDINANCE No. 2002-001 (06/05/02)
I WARRAM 0i
Page 5 of 5 — EXHIBIT `B" To ORDINANCE No. 2002-001 (06/05/02)
M 14M
Page 5 of 5 — EXHIBIT `B" To ORDINANCE No. 2002-001 (06/05/02)
EXHIBIT "C"
Chapter 23.36 RURAL SERVICE
CENTERS
23.36.020. Brothers,Hampton,
Milhean
23.36.030010. Spring River Rural c,,... iee
Center.
the -leeal seheel—f4eilitie are nefaI � .
a= -vbelieved te be adequate.
23.36.030010. Spring River u, Fal Set- iee
Seater.
A. Introduction.
The area within the boundaries of the Spring
River Rural Service Center was designated
and zoned for residential use under the 1979
comprehensive plan under exception to Goals
3 and 4. This rural service center was
approved by the Board of County
Commissioners in 1990 after an exception for
the subject land was taken from Goal 14.
(See Ordinances 90-009 and 90-010.) The
Spring River Rural Service Center was
created to serve the needs of residents in
nearby subdivisions and its scope limited by
the limited uses listed in Ordinances 90-009
and 90-010. In conjunction with taking an
additional reasons exception to Goal 14, the
limitations were amended in 1993 by
Ordinance 96-022 to allow for an additional
use.
To ease administration, this text was added to
the Plan in conjunction with the 1993
changes. The text reflects the limitations set
forth in the findings and decision adopted by
the Board of County Commissioners by
Ordinances 90-009 and 90-010, as those
limitations were altered by the 1993 changes.
The M etiyib,„tho
grieulture, }maser ieeto transients an B. Policies.
e
Highway 20- sae—pr-euides relatively To ensure that uses in the Spring River Rural
Service Center will be limited to uses that
Page 1 of 2 — EXHIBIT "C” To ORDINANCE No. 2002-001 (06/05/02)
EXHIBIT "C"
will serve the residents of nearby
subdivisions and not the needs of the public
generally. The rural service center zoning
shall be subject to a Limited Use Combining
zone, which shall have the effect of limiting
uses in the Spring River Rural Services
Center to the following uses:
1. Fishing supplies and equipment;
2. Snowmobiling accessories;
3. Marine accessories;
4. General store;
5. Hardware store;
6. Convenience store with gas pumps;
7. Full service gas station with automobile
repair services;
8. Welding shop;
9. Fast food restaurant, cafe, or coffee shop;
10. Recreational rental equipment store;
11. Excavation business;
12. Landscaping business/service; and
13. Health care service.
These uses may be further defined in the
zoning ordinance.
(Ord. 2002-002, § 3, 2002; Ord. 2002-005 § 1,
2002; Ord. 2000-017 § 1, 2000; Ord. 96-045,
1996; Ord. 96-022, § 1, 1996; Ord. 1990-009, §
"2", 1990; Ord. 1990-010 § 1, 1990; PL -20,
1979)
"f frrl
..
0
Page 2 of 2 — EXHIBIT "C" To ORDINANCE No. 2002-001 (06/05/02)
EXHIBIT "D"
Chapter 23.40 UNINCORPORATED
COMMUNITIES
23.40.^'v vz0 ha Pine UFban
UnineOFPorated Community.
23.40.020Sunr-i ver Urban
UHiRe0FP0Fftted Community.
23.40.030 Figures.
23.40.010 Unincorporated Communities.
23.40.020 Urban Unincorporated
23.40.010. Unincorporated Communities.
The 1979 comprehensive plan designated the
following rural service centers (RSC): Alfalfa,
Brothers, Hampton, Millican, La Pine, Whistle
Stop, Wickiup Junction, Terrebonne, Wild Hunt
and Tumalo. These areas were designated in that
plan as exception areas from Goals 3 and 4.
Zoning under the Comprehensive Plan allowed
for a mix of residential uses and commercial uses
to support nearby residential uses. The scope of
those uses was never clearly defined but, until the
early 1990's, was never much of an issue since
there was little development pressure.
In 1994, LCDC adopted a new administrative
rule, OAR 660 Division 22, to clarify what uses
could be allowed in "unincorporated
communities;" ,
without violating Statewide Planning Goals 11
and 14 relating to public facilities and urban uses.
The purpose of the fule was to assist in the
implementation of Statewide Planning Goals 4
and 14 by defining the upper- limits of ifftensity of
uses -allowable unTPLEor'pVrC[[ eem1TILR17CIGJ
defined under- the Fdle.—The rule is set f fth in
OAR n 660 Division 22 and identifies 4 different
kinds of rural communities: Resort Community,
Urban Unincorporated Community, Rural
Community and Rural Service Center. In
addition to the RSCS listed above the following
developments were identified as communities
that Deschutes County has been required to
review for compliance with the rule: Black Butte
Ranch and Inn of the Seventh Mountain/Widgi
Creek resorts, Deschutes Junction RSC, Spring
River RSC, lands zoned for Rural Industrial
development and the Deschutes River Woods
Country Store development.
The following eommunities are designated as
-ated , mites under- OAR v 660 21
table shows the plan desianation for each area is
Unincorporated Community, and indicates which
type of community the area is defined as and the
year when review for compliance with OAR 660
Division 22 was completed.
Page 1 of 5 — EXHIBIT "D" To ORDINANCE No. 2002-001 (06/05/02)
Communities - La Pine and
Sunriver.
23.40.030
Rural Communities — Tumalo
and Terrebone.
23.40.040
Rural Service Centers —
Alfalfa, Brothers, Hampton and Millican.
23.40.050
Resort Communities - Black
Butte Ranch and Inn of the 71h
Mountain/Widgi Creek.
23.40.60
Maps.
23.40.010. Unincorporated Communities.
The 1979 comprehensive plan designated the
following rural service centers (RSC): Alfalfa,
Brothers, Hampton, Millican, La Pine, Whistle
Stop, Wickiup Junction, Terrebonne, Wild Hunt
and Tumalo. These areas were designated in that
plan as exception areas from Goals 3 and 4.
Zoning under the Comprehensive Plan allowed
for a mix of residential uses and commercial uses
to support nearby residential uses. The scope of
those uses was never clearly defined but, until the
early 1990's, was never much of an issue since
there was little development pressure.
In 1994, LCDC adopted a new administrative
rule, OAR 660 Division 22, to clarify what uses
could be allowed in "unincorporated
communities;" ,
without violating Statewide Planning Goals 11
and 14 relating to public facilities and urban uses.
The purpose of the fule was to assist in the
implementation of Statewide Planning Goals 4
and 14 by defining the upper- limits of ifftensity of
uses -allowable unTPLEor'pVrC[[ eem1TILR17CIGJ
defined under- the Fdle.—The rule is set f fth in
OAR n 660 Division 22 and identifies 4 different
kinds of rural communities: Resort Community,
Urban Unincorporated Community, Rural
Community and Rural Service Center. In
addition to the RSCS listed above the following
developments were identified as communities
that Deschutes County has been required to
review for compliance with the rule: Black Butte
Ranch and Inn of the Seventh Mountain/Widgi
Creek resorts, Deschutes Junction RSC, Spring
River RSC, lands zoned for Rural Industrial
development and the Deschutes River Woods
Country Store development.
The following eommunities are designated as
-ated , mites under- OAR v 660 21
table shows the plan desianation for each area is
Unincorporated Community, and indicates which
type of community the area is defined as and the
year when review for compliance with OAR 660
Division 22 was completed.
Page 1 of 5 — EXHIBIT "D" To ORDINANCE No. 2002-001 (06/05/02)
EXHIBIT "D"
COMMUNITY
PREAZ40US PLAN
DESIGNATION
UNINCORPORATED
APPROVAL DATE
COMMUNITY
DESIGNAT TYPE
La Pine
Rum! 9
GenterUnincorporated
Community
UUGUrban
Unincorporated
Community
1996
Wickiup Junction
D... -.,'z
Q -H Unincorporated
Communit
Rural Service Center
1996
Terrebonne
D,,...,1 S.R.: o ro^+or
Rural Community
1997
Tumalo
Rural Sen,iee Cente
Unincorporated
Rural Community
1997
ComMqnity
Sun erSunriver
Planned
Unincorporated
Urban Unincorporated
Community
1997
Community
La Pine — expansion to
include Wickiup Junction
and BLM land
Rufal Sen4ee rentor
Ferest
Unincorporated
Urban Unincorporated
Community
2000
Commgnity
Black Butte Ranch
Rufal Residential
Unincorporated
Resort Community
2001
Community
Inn of the 7` Mountain/
Widgi Creek
Serest
Unincorporated
Resort Community
2001
Communi
Alfalfa
Unincorporated
Rural Service Center
2002
Communi
Brothers
Unincorporated
Rural Service Center
2002
Communi
Hampton
Unincorporated
Rural Service Center
2002
Commqnijy
Millican
Unincorporated
Rural Service Center
2002
Community
s
(Ord 2002-001 § 4; Ord. 2002-005 § 1, 2002;
Ord. 2001-047 § 2; 2001; Ord. 2000-017 § 1,
2000; Ord. 98-014 § 1, 1998; Ord. 97-076 § 2,
1997)
23.40.020. Urban Unincorporated
Communities - La Pine and
Sunriver.
A. La Pine Urban Unincorporated Community
(Note: Pursuant to Exhibit "A" of this Ordinance
the text formerly in DCC 23.40.010 will be
placed here in its entirety and is not shown in
this exhibit.)
Page 2 of 5 — EXHIBIT "D" To ORDINANCE No. 2002-001 (06/05/02)
EXHIBIT "D"
surrounding rural area or to persons traveling
(Ord. 2002-001 § 1, 2002; Ord. 2002-005 § 1, through the area, but which also includes some
2002; Ord. 2001-046 § 1 & 2, 2001; Ord. 2001- permanent residential dwellings.
036 § 1, 2001; Ord. 2000-017 § 1, 2000) A. Introduction.
B. Sunriver Urban Unincorporated
Community
(Note: Pursuant to Exhibit "A" of this
Ordinance the text formerly in DCC
23.40.020 will be placed here in its entirety
and is not shown in this exhibit.)
(Ord. 2002-001 § 1, 2002; Ord. 2002-005 § 1,
2002; Ord. 2000-017 § 1, 2000; Ord. 98-014 § 1,
1998; Ord. 97-076 § 2, 1997)
23.40.030. Rural Communities —
Terrebonne and Tumalo.
A. Terrebonne Rural Community
(Note: Pursuant to Exhibit "A" of this
Ordinance the text formerly in DCC
23.28.010 will be placed here in its entirety
and is not shown in this exhibit.)
(Ord. 2002-001, § 1, 2002; Ord. 2002-005 § 1,
2002; Ord. 2000-017 § 1, 2000; Ord. 97-001,
1997; Ord. 92-051, § 3, 1997; PL -20, 1979)
B. Tumalo Rural Community
(Note: Pursuant to Exhibit "A" of this
Ordinance the text formerly in DCC
23.32.010 will be placed here in its entirety
and is not shown in this exhibit.)
(Ord. 2002-001 § 1, 2002; Ord. 2002-005 § 1,
2002; Ord. 2000-017 § 1, 2000; Ord. 97-031,
1997; PL -20, 1979)
23.40.040 Rural Service Centers —
Alfalfa, Brothers, Hampton and Millican.
A Rural Service Center is characterized as an
unincorporated community consisting
primarily of commercial or industrial uses
providing goods and services to the
The predominant land use in the areas
surrounding the Alfalfa, Brothers, Hampton
and Millican, Rural Service Centers is
farming and ranching. The unincorporated
rural service centers serve the needs of the
surrounding rural areas as well as the needs
of the traveling_ public. Three of the
communities are located on Highway lway 20 east
of Bend. Millican is 26 miles, Brothers is 42
miles and Hampton is 64 miles east of Bend.
Alfalfa is located approximately 11 miles east
of Bend on Willard Road. All of these
communities, as well as the surrounding
areas, areeg nay flat to rolling with native
vegetation consisting of scrub/shrub and
juniper.
The communities of Alfalfa, Brothers and
Hampton have approved public water
systems that serve the school and
combination store/cafe/post office in Brothers
and the stores in Alfalfa and Hampton. The
Central Oregon Irrigation District provides
water for agricultural uses surrounding
Alfalfa. The land around Millican, Brothers
and Hampton is part of large ranches or is
Bureau of Land Management land. Most of
the land is used for dry land gazing. Well
water provides irrigation for land adjacent to
Hampton. Millican Brothers and Hampton
are surrounded by land that is designated as
antelope habitat.
The area surrounding these communities is
sparsely populated. Each commurifty has a
few residences within its boundary.
1. Periodic Review
In order to comply with OAR 660-022,
Deschutes County updated the
Comprehensive Plan and implementing
zoning_ regulations in 2002 for the
communities of Alfalfa, Brothers, Hampton
and Millican. The Comprehensive Plan and
zoning map boundaries for all of the Rural
Service Centers were amended to comply
with the requirements of the administrative
Page 3 of 5 — EXHIBIT "D" To ORDINANCE No. 2002-001 (06/05/02)
EXHIBIT "D"
rule and to reconcile historic mapping
inconsistencies between the plan designation
and zoning, and inconsistencies between
community boundaries and historic
development patterns.
2. Community Boundary
The Alfalfa Rural Service Center
boundary includes 21.83 acres, with
Willard Road as the predominant
northern boundary and the remainder
surrounded by agricultural lands zoned
Exclusive Farm Use.
The Brothers Rural Service Center
boundary includes 48.95 acres. Hi lg iway
20 bisects the community from east to
west, while Camp Creek Road enters
from the north and connects with the
highway. The entire community is
surrounded by agricultural land zoned
Exclusive Farm Use.
The Hampton Rural Service Center
boundary includes 35.37 acres. Highway
20 forms the southern boundary with the
remainder surrounded by agricultural
lands zoned Exclusive Farm Use.
The Millican Rural Service Center
boundary includes 29.55 acres. Highway
20 forms the northern boundary with the
remainder surrounded by agricultural
lands zoned Exclusive Farm Use.
B. Land Use Planning
1. Existing Land Uses
The existing land uses in all of the Rural
Service Centers is commercial and
residential surrounded by agricultural
uses. In addition to a few residences
each of the communities includes
commercial development. Alfalfa has a
store/gas station and a church/community
hall. Brothers includes a school, a
combination market/caf6/post office/gas
station, a state highway maintenance
field office, and a highwLay rest area.
Hampton has a cafe and recreational
vehicle park. Millican has a market/gas
station.
2. Comprehensive Plan Designations
The Deschutes County Comprehensive
Plan designates each of the communities
of Alfalfa, Brothers, Hampton and
Millican as an Unincorporated
Community.
C. Policies
1. Land use regulations shall conform to the
requirements of OAR 660, Division 22 or
any successor.
2. Rural Service Center zoning shall be
applied to Alfalfa, Brothers, Hampton
and Millican and shall consist of three
districts: Commercial/Mixed Use;
Residential; and Open Space.
3. The area in the Brothers Rural Service
Center Boundary that is north of
Highway lway 20 and east of Camp Creek
Road shall be zoned as Rural Service
Center - Open Space District (RSC -OS).
4. In April 2002, Alfalfa area residents
expressed a desire to keep the community
"the way it is" and to limit commercial
activity to 2 -acres south of Willard Road
that is the site of the Alfalfa Community
Store and the community water system.
These two acres are designated as a
mixed used commercial district in the
Comprehensive Plan and shall be zoned
mixed use commercial. The remaining
20 acres of the Rural Service Center will
continue to be zoned Rural Service
Center — Residential District, with a 5 -
acre minimum lot size.
Since the Board of County
Commissioners finds it may be necessary
to accommodate the need for future
commercial expansion 2 acres north of
Willard Road are being designated on the
Comprehensive Plan for future
commercial uses. A zone change to
mixed use commercial can be considered
only for a specific use and upon findings
that the existing commercial area is full
developed.
Page 4 of 5 — EXHIBIT "D" To ORDINANCE No. 2002-001 (06/05/02)
EXHIBIT "D"
5 CounAy Comprehensive Plan policies and
land use regulations shall ensure that new
uses authorized within the Alfalfa,
Brothers Hampton and Millican Rural
Service Centers do not adversely affect
bicultural uses in the surrounding
areas.
6 Zoning in the area shall promote the
maintenance of the area's rural character.
New commercial uses shall be limited to
small-scale low impact uses that are
intended to serve the community and
surrounding rural area or the travel needs
of people passingthrough hrou the area.
7 The Commercial/Mixed use zoning
regulations shall allow a mixed use of
residential or small-scale commercial
uses.
8. Residential and commercial uses shall be
served by DEQ approved on-site sewage
disposals stems.
9. Residential and commercial uses shall
be served by on site wells or public
water systems.
10 Community water systems, motels,
hotels and industrial uses shall not be
allowed.
11 Recreational vehicle or trailer parks and
other uses catering to travelers shall be
permitted.
12. The County shall consider way to
improve services in the area consistent
with the level of population to be served.
404 -he Qe��-shall eensidef ways- to
imefeve sefyiees in the afea eensistefA
,tethr «��-ire-yci �� apnlgA«:ato be e~a
(Ord 2002-001 § 4 2002. Ord. 2002-005 § 1,
2002. Ord. 2000-017 § 1, 2000; Ord. 96-045,
1996
23.40.050 Resort Communities - Black
Butte Ranch and Inn of the Seventh
Mountain/Widti Creek.
A. Black Butte Ranch
(Ord. 2001-047 § 2, 2002)
B. Inn of the Seventh
Mountain/Wid ig Creek
(Note: Pursuant to Exhibit `B" of Ordinance ..
2001-047 the text for these communities
becomes effective on March 13, 2002 and
was to be placed in DCC 23.36.020,
Unincorporated communities. Instead the
text will be placed in DCC 23.40.050 as
shown herein in this exhibit.)
(Ord. 2001-047 § 2, 2002)
23.40.060 Maps.
(Note: Pursuant to Exhibit "A" to this
Ordinance the existing comprehensive plan
maps for the unincorporated communities of
Terrebonne, Tumalo, La Pine, Sunriver will
be moved in their entirety from DCC
23.28.020, DCC 23.28.020, and 23.40.030 to
this section and are not shown in this exhibit.)
(Ord. 2002-001 §1, 2002; Ord. 20001-047 § 2,
2001; Ord. 2000-017 § 1, 2000)
Page 5 of 5 - EXHIBIT "D" To ORDINANCE No. 2002-001 (06/05/02)
/\/ PARCELS
M3 ALFALFA RURAL SERVICE CENTER BOUNDARY
ALFALFA RURAL SERVICE CENTER - EXISTING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS
COMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIAL
PUBLIC
DearLuee��I�
EXHIBIT "E"
ALFALFA RURAL SERVICE CENTER
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
Exhibit "E" to Ordinance 2002-001
mg&
300 0 300 Feet
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
Tom DeWolf, Chair
Dennis R. Luka, Comm—.,
Michael M. Daly, Cammissio
ATTEST: Recording Secretary
Dated chis _ day of April, 2002
Effecfi a Date: July_, 2002
PARCEL
ALFALFA UNINCORPORATED
COMMUNITY BOUNDARY
ALFALFA UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY -
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION
UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY
MIXED USE COMMERCIAL
MIXED USE COMMERCIAL - FUTURE EXPANSION
Doechuto County ��
mmm�nitt n�rropiwrt .0.mar—
EXHIBIT "F"
ALFALFA UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
300
Exhibit "F" to Ordinance 2002-001
M
300 Feet
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
- ;,'L- - P, %E.
Tom Ds d Ch.o
=�/_
nis R. Luke, Comn'aWanr
Mx: NI M. Da , Cam"' —
ATTEST: Rotor Mg S -.try
:5..
Dried Obisy "" day of June, 2002
Eff-W. Dcb: Sopbmb.r 2002
EXHIBIT "H"
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COON/TY, OREGON
Tom Ds sY �
nn R. Luys, Comndsdons
l / %
d
Mlch M. D/sly, Com ssiomr
ATTEST: Recmd'nBSsustvy
AL,
Deted this ' � day o/ June, 2002
Eff"d- Dns: September 2002
BROTHERS UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY
/V PARCELS
BROTHERS UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY BOUNDARY
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
BROTHERS UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY -
COMPREHENSIVEPLANDESIGNATION
Exhibit "H" to Ordinance 2002-001
7-7 UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY
N
WE
DbChu�s County
S
fanumm �OerrleVrssnt �,
_
500 0 500 Feet
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COON/TY, OREGON
Tom Ds sY �
nn R. Luys, Comndsdons
l / %
d
Mlch M. D/sly, Com ssiomr
ATTEST: Recmd'nBSsustvy
AL,
Deted this ' � day o/ June, 2002
Eff"d- Dns: September 2002
/\/ PARCELS
HAMPTON RURAL SERVICE CENTER BOUNDARY
HAMPTON RURAL SERVICE CENTER
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION
= RURAL SERVICE CENTER
DesNuld County / .. .
Cannunity pewlopnrrit .p.
EXHIBIT "I"
HAMPTON RURAL SERVICE CENTER
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
Exhibit "I" to Ordinance 2002-001
500 0 500 Feet
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY. OREGON
Tom DeWolf, Chair
Dennis R. Luke, Commise-
Michael M. Daly. Commissioner
ATTEST: Recording Seaetary
Dated this day of April, 2002
Effective Date: July_ 2002
IV PARCELS
HAMPTON UNINCORPORATED
COMMUNITY BOUNDARY
HAMPTON UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION
0 UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY
DeaChutea Courts /L71
�er�u.ah'e�e.reeraaoe .¢.
EXHIBIT "J"
HAMPTON UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
Exhibit "J" to Ordinance 2002-001
E
400 0 400 Feet
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DES�h.w
EGON
Tom D
annia R. Luka, Commissprr�
Micl wl Da "�onar�
ATTEST: Recording Secretary
rt
Dated Chia , day of J—, 2D02
Mcbw Data: September,, 20M
h�G\
\Y20
PARCELS
MILLICAN RURAL SERVICE CENTER BOUNDARY
MILLICAN RURAL SERVICE CENTER
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS
0 COMMERCIAL
RESIDENTIAL
D—h.t. Cantly A&'%
EXHIBIT "K"
MILLICAN RURAL SERVICE CENTER
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
Exhibit "K" to Ordinance 2002-001
Ri?.a
K$
400 0 400 Feet
-1 2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
Tom DeWolf, Chair
Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner
Michael M. Daly, Commissioner
ATTEST: Recording Secretary
Dated Ibis day of April, 2002
Effective Date: July 2002
/V PARCELS
MILLICAN UNINCORPORATED
COMMUNITY BOUNDARY
MILLICAN UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION
UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY
Dswh a
EXHIBIT "L"
MILLICAN UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITY
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP
400
Exhibit "L" to Ordinance 2002-001
400 Feet
N�"VV!
AY20