2003-1305-Ordinance No. 2003-080 Recorded 10/8/2003REVTLEWED
LEGAL CO SEL
REVIEWED
(in
CODE REVIEW COMMITTEE
COUNTY OFFICIAL
NANCYUTES BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS Vy 2003��305
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 10/08/2003 04;53;52 PM
11il][I II�311111111111111111
Z13
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Title 18 of the
Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County * ORDINANCE NO. 2003-080
Zoning Ordinance, to change the zoning of
eight (8) tax lots from Rural Residential to the
Rosland Rural Commercial Zone.
WHEREAS, in Ordinance No. 2003-079, incorporated by reference herein, the Board of County
Commisoners (Board) approved the Comprehensive Plan (Plan) amendment requested in Land Use Files
TA -02-13 and ZC-02-5; and
WHEREAS, the Board's Plan amendment approval requires the adoption of amendments to
Deschutes County Code (DCC) Title 18 in order to implement the Plan amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Board's Plan amendment approval requires a revision to the County's zoning
map to zone the subject property Rural Commercial; and
WHEREAS, on June 4, 2003 the Board held a duly noticed public hearing on the Zoning
Ordinance and zoning map amendments in conjunction with the hearing for Ordinance No. 2003-079;
now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON,
ORDAINS as follows:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.74, Rural Commercial Zone, is amended to read as
described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language
underlined.
Section 2. AMENDMENT. The Deschutes County zoning map in DCC Title 18.74.050, Maps
is amended as shown on Exhibit "B," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference to zone
the subject property Rural Commercial.
Page 1 of 2 — ORDINANCE NO. 2003-080 (09/17/03)
Section 3. FINDINGS. The Board adopts its Decision in TA -02-13 and ZC-02-5, attached hereto
and by this reference incorporated as Exhibit"C" of this ordinance, as its findings to support adoption of
this ordinance. The Hearings Officer's decision in TA -02-13 and ZC-02-5 is attached as Exhibit "D" of
this ordinance.
DATED this Y day of , 2003.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESC1 UTES COUNTY, OREGON
4��L z I S�4
D IS R. LUKE, Chair
TOM DEWOLF, Commissioner
—Z - Vw- �4
M C EL M. "DAL , "ommis 'oner
Date of 1 st Reading: e�day of 2003.
Date of 2nd Reading: P, day of 0-6t-, 2003.
Record of Adoption Vote
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Dennis R. Luke ✓
Tom DeWolf t/
Michael M. Daly
2Z 0
Effective date: day of .
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Page 2 of 2 — ORDINANCE NO. 2003-080 (09/17/03)
EXHIBIT "A"
Chapter 18.74. Rural Commercial Zone B.
18.74.010.
Purpose.
18.74.020.
Uses permitted — Deschutes Junction
and Deschutes River Woods Store.
18.74.025
Uses permitted — Spring River.
18.74.027
Uses Permitted — Rosland.
18.74.030.
Development standards.
18.74.010. Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to establish standards
and review procedures for development in the Rural
Commercial Zone. The Rural Commercial (RC)
zone provisions implement the comprehensive plan
policies for rural commercial development and
associated uses outside of unincorporated
communities and urban growth boundaries.
(Ord. 2003-080 § 1, 2003, Ord. 2002-019 § 2, 2002)
18.74.020. Uses permitted.
A. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses
and their accessory uses are permitted outright
and do not require site plan review:
1. Single-family dwelling.
2. Manufactured home subiect to DCC
18.116.070.
3. Two-family dwelling.
4. Home occupation that:
a. is carried on within a dwelling only by
members of the family who reside in
the dwelling;
b. does not serve clients or customers on-
site;
c. does not produce odor, dust, glare,
flashing lights or noise;
d. does not occupy more than 25 percent
of the floor area of the dwelling; and
e. does not include the on -premises
display or sale of stock in trade.
5. Agricultural uses.
6. Class I and R road or street project subject
to approval as part of a land partition or
subdivision, or subject to the standards and
criteria established in DCC 18.116.230.
7. Class III road or street project.
8. A lawfully established use existing as of
11/05/02, the date this chapter was adopted,
not otherwise permitted by this chapter.
Uses Permitted Subject to Site Plan Review.
The following uses and their accessory uses are
permitted subject to the applicable provisions of
this chapter and DCC 18.116 and 18.128:
1. A building or buildings not exceeding 2,500
square feet of floor space to be used by any
combination of the following uses.
a. Restaurant, caf6 or delicatessen.
b. Grocery store.
c. Tavern.
d. Retail sporting goods and guide
services.
e. Barber and beauty shop.
f. General store.
g. Video store.
h. Antique, art, craft, novelty and second
hand sales if conducted completely
within an enclosed building.
2. Expansion of a nonconforming use listed
under section B(1)(a-h), existing as of
11/05/2002, the date this chapter was
adopted, shall be limited to 2,500 square
feet or 25 percent of the size of the building
as of said date, whichever is greater.
3. A building or buildings not exceeding 3,500
square feet of floor space to be used by any
combination of the following uses.
a. Retail sales of agricultural or farm
products.
b. Farm machinery sales and repair.
c. Kennel.
d. Veterinary clinic.
e. Automobile service station and repair
garage, towing service, fuel storage and
sales.
f. Public or semi-public use.
g. Residential use in the same building as
a use permitted by this chapter.
h. Park or playground.
4. Expansion of a nonconforming use listed
under section B(3)(a-h), existing as of
11/05/2002, the date this chapter was
adopted, shall be limited to 3,500 square
feet or 25 percent of the size of the building
as of said date, whichever is greater.
C. Conditional Uses. The following uses and their
accessory uses are permitted subject to the
applicable provisions of this chapter and DCC
18.116, 18.124 and 18.128:
Page 1 of 5 - EXHIBIT "A" to ORDINANCE NO. 2003-080 (09/10/03)
EXHIBIT "A"
1. A building or buildings not exceeding 3,500
square feet of floor space to be used by any
combination of the following uses.
a. Home occupation as defined in DCC
18.04.
b. Utility facility.
c. Wireless telecommunications facilities,
except those facilities meeting the
requirements of DCC 18.116.250(A) or
(B)• -
d. Child care center.
e. Church.
f. School.
2. Recreational vehicle park.
(Ord. 2002-019 § 2, 2002)
18.74.025. Uses allowed in Spring River Rural
Commercial/Limited Use
Combining Zone.
A. Uses Permitted subject to Site Plan Review.
The following uses and their accessory uses are
permitted subject to the applicable provisions of
this chapter and DCC 18.116 and 18.128:
1. A building or buildings not exceeding 2,500
square feet of floor space to be used by any
combination of the following uses:
a. Fishing supplies and equipment.
b. Snowmobiling accessories.
c. Marine accessories.
d. General store.
e. Hardware store.
f. Convenience store with gas pumps.
g. Fast food restaurant, cafe, or coffee
shop.
h. Recreational rental equipment store.
i. Excavation business.
j. Landscaping business/service.
k. Health care service.
1. Beauty shop.
m. Video store.
o. Post office.
p. Party supply.
q. Equipment sales and rental.
r. Appliance store.
s. Bank.
t. Exterminator.
u. Private mailing and packaging store.
v. Bakery.
2. Expansion of a nonconforming use listed in
section A(1)(a-v), existing as of 11/05/02,
the date this chapter was adopted, shall be
limited to 2,500 square feet or 25 percent of
the size of the building as of said date,
whichever is greater.
3. A building or buildings not exceeding 3,500
square feet of floor space to be used by any
combination of the following uses:
a .Pet and livestock supply.
b. Farm machinery sales and repair.
4. Expansion of a nonconforming use listed in
section A(3)(a-b), existing as of 11/05/02,
the date this chapter was adopted, shall be
limited to 3,500 square feet of floor space
or 25 percent of the, size of the building as
of said date, whichever is greater.
B. Conditional Uses. The following uses and their
accessory uses are permitted subject to the
applicable provisions of this chapter and DCC
18.116, 18.124 and 18.128:
1. A building or buildings not exceeding 2,500
square feet of floor space to be used by any
combination of the following uses:
a. Full service gas station with automobile
repair services.
b. Welding shop.
c. Mini -storage units
2. Expansion of a nonconforming use listed in
section B(1)(a-c), existing as of 11/05/02,
the date this chapter was adopted, shall be
limited to 2,500 square feet or 25 percent of
the size of the building as of said date,
whichever is greater.
C. Definitions. For the purposes of DCC
18.64.120, the following definitions shall apply:
1. Landscaping business/service: Includes
designing landscapes, site grading and
preparation, placing boulders, planting trees
and shrubbery, installing sod, installing
irrigation systems and equipment, installing
fencing, and landscape maintenance, but
does not include on-site cultivation of
plants or plant materials or any on-site retail
sales.
2. Health care service: A business providing
the diagnosis, treatment and care of
physical and/or mental disease, injury
and/or disability, but not including a
Page 2 of 5 - EXHIBIT "A" to ORDINANCE NO. 2003-080 (09/10/03)
EXHIBIT "A"
hospital facility or a nursing home as
defined in DCC 18.04.
3. Beauty Shop: A full service beauty salon
which would include haircuts, permanents,
washes, nails, etc., and the retail sales of
incidental beauty supplies typical of any
beauty salon.
4. Mini -storage units: Self service mini -
storage units of various sizes from 5' x 10'
up to 12' x 24'.
5. Video store: The sale and rental of
videotapes, compact disc movies and audio
books.
6. Laundry and dry cleaners: Dry cleaners,
shirt laundry and laundromat with self-
service washers and dryers along with the
sale of detergents, bleaches, etc.
7. Post office: United States Postal Service
office including mail pick-up and
distribution.
8. Party supply: The sale and rental of party
supplies such as balloons, streamers,
costumes, dishes, linens and silverware.
9. Equipment sales and rental: The rental of
construction, home repair and maintenance
equipment such as ladders, mowers, saws,
gardening supplies, etc., and the sales of
related equipment.
10. Appliance store: The sale and service of
household appliances such as televisions,
ranges, refrigerators, etc.
11. Bank: Full service consumer bank for
checking, savings, loans, safety deposit
boxes, etc.
12. Exterminator: Exterminator of insects and
other pests such as rodents, spiders, etc.
13. Private mailing and packaging store:
Private mail boxes and packaging services,
which would include the holding and
distribution of mail, packing, mailing
supplies, FEDEX and UPS pick-up, and
FAX and copy machine availability.
14. Bakery: The manufacture and sale of
bread, donuts and pastries.
15. Pet and livestock supplies: The sale of pet
supplies such as dog and cat food, collars,
grooming needs, shelters and some large
animal supplies such as hay, feeds and
grains.
(Ord. 2002-019 § 2, 2002; Ord. 97-015 § 1, 1997;
Ord. 96-046 § 1, 1996; Ord. 96-023 § 1, 1996)
Section 18.74.027, Uses allowed in Rosland Rural
Commercial Zone.
A. Uses Permitted Outdift. Any use listed as a
use permitted outright by DCC 18.74.020(A).
B. Uses Permitted subject to Site Plan Review.
The following uses and their accessory uses are
permitted subject to the applicable provisions of
this chanter and DCC 18.116 and 18.124:
1. A building or buildings each not exceeding
2,500 square feet of floor space to be used
by any combination of the followigg uses
that serve the surrounding rural area or the
travel needs of persons passing through the
area:
a. Eating and drinking establishments.
b. Retail store, office and service
establishments.
2. Expansion of a nonconforming use existing
as of 11/05/2002 shall be limited to 2,500
square feet or 25 percent of the size of the
building (or portion of the building)
housing the nonconforming use as of said
date, whichever is Preater.
3. A building or buildings each not exceeding
3,500 square feet of floor space to be used
by combination of the following uses:
a. Sales of agricultural or farm products.
b. Farm machinery sales and repair.
c. Kennel or veterinary clinic.
d. Automobile service station, repair
garage, towing service, fuel storage and
fuel sales.
e. Public or semi-public use.
f. Residential use in the same building as
a use permitted in this chapter.
g. Park or play rg ound.
4. Expansion of a nonconforming use existing
as of 11/05/2002 shall be limited to 3,500
square feet each or 25 percent of the size of
the building (or portion of the building)
housing the nonconforming; use as of said
date, whichever isegr ater.
C. Conditional Uses. The following uses and their
accessory uses are permitted subject to the
Page 3 of 5 - EXHIBIT "A" to ORDINANCE NO. 2003-080 (09/10/03)
EXHIBIT "A"
applicable provisions of this chanter and DCC
18.116. 18.124 and 18.128:
I. A building or buildings each not exceeding
3,500 square feet of floor space to be used
by any of the following uses:
a. Home occupation as defined in DCC
18.04.
b. Utility facility.
c. Wireless telecommunications facilities
except . those facilities meeting the
requirements of DCC 18.116.250(A) or
d. Child care center.
e. Church.
f. School.
2. Recreational vehicle park.
(Ord. 2003-080, § 1, 2003)
18.74.030. Development standards.
A. Yard Standards.
1. Front Yard. The front yard shall be 20 feet
for a property fronting on a local road. right-
of-way, 30 feet for a property fronting on a
collector right -0f --way and 80 feet for a
property fronting on an arterial right-of-
way.
2. Side Yard. A side yard shall be a minimum
of 10 feet, except a lot or parcel with a side
yard adjacent to land zoned exclusive farm
use or forest use shall have a minimum side
yard of 50 feet.
3. Rear Yard. The minimum rear yard shall be
20 feet, except a lot or parcel with a rear
yard adjacent to land zoned exclusive farm
use or forest use shall have a minimum side
yard of 50 feet.
B. Existing Residential and Commercial Lots.
On-site sewage disposal. For existing lots or
parcels, an applicant shall demonstrate that the
lot or parcel can meet DEQ on-site sewage
disposal rules prior to approval of a site plan or
conditional use permit.
C. New Lot Requirements
1. Residential Uses.
a. The minimum lot size is one (1) acre.
b. On-site sewage disposal. For new lots
or parcels, an applicant shall
demonstrate that the lot or parcel can
meet DEQ on-site sewage disposal
rules prior to final approval of a
subdivision or partition.
c. Lot coverage for a dwelling and
accessory buildings used primarily for
residential purposes, shall not exceed
twenty-five (25) percent of the total lot
area. Lot coverage for buildings used
primarily for commercial purposes shall
be determined by spatial requirements
for sewage disposal, landscaping,
parking, yard setbacks and any other
elements under site plan review.
2. Commercial and Public Uses.
a. The minimum lot size for a commercial
use served by an on-site septic system
and individual well or community
water system shall be the size necessary
to accommodate the use.
b. Each lot shall have a minimum width of
150 feet.
c. On-site sewage .disposal. For new lots
or parcels, an applicant shall
demonstrate that the lot or parcel can
meet DEQ on-site sewage disposal
rules prior to final approval of a
subdivision or partition:
d. for existing lots.
B.D. Solar Setback. The setback from the north
lot line shall meet the solar setback
requirements in DCC 18.116.180.
&E. Building Code Setbacks. In addition to the
setbacks set forth herein, any greater setbacks
required by the applicable building or structural
codes adopted by the State of Oregon and/or the
County under DCC 15.04 shall be met.
DT. Lot Coverage. Except where otherwise
noted, the primary and accessory buildings
located on any lot or parcel shall not cover more
than 30 percent of the total lot or parcel.
E -G. Building Height. No building or structure
shall be erected or enlarged to exceed thirty (30)
feet in height, except as allowed under DCC
18.120.040.
1.H. Off -Street Parking and Loading. Off-street
parking and loading shall be provided subject to
Page 4 of 5 - EXHIBIT "A" to ORDINANCE NO. 2003-080 (09/10/03)
EXHIBIT "A"
the provisions of DCC 18.116, Supplementary
Provisions.
GJ.Outdoor Lighting. All outdoor lighting on site
shall be installed in conformance with DCC
15. 10, Outdoor Lighting Control.
H—. Signs. All signs shall be constructed in
accordance with DCC 15.08, Signs.
(Ord. 2003-080§ 1, 2003, Ord. 2002-019 § 2, 2002)
18.74.050. Maps.
(Ord. 2002-019 § 2, 2002)
(Ord, 2003-080 § 1, 2003)
Page 5 of 5 - EXHIBIT "A" to ORDINANCE NO. 2003-080 (09/10/03)
�, . .
�W ...
. _.s, _ ,�_., _t�.� .N
"EXHIBIT C"
DECISION OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FILE NUMBERS:
APPLICANT:
FOR DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
TA -02-13 and ZC-02-5
Karen Demaris
52427 River Pine Road
La Pine, Oregon 97739
REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a plan amendment and zone
change from Rural Residential to Rural Commercial for eight lots
in the Ahern Acres Subdivision west of Wickiup Junction. The
applicant also requests approval of text amendments to the
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to designate the subject
property as the Rosland Rural Commercial Zone and to add
supporting findings.
SUBJECT PROPERTY: Lots 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Block 2, Ahern Acres
Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 4, Ahern Acres
STAFF REVIEWER: IJon Skidmore, Associate Planner
HEARINGS OFFICER: Karen Green
The Board of Commissioners makes the following findings of fact and law to support its
decision to approve the above -referenced land use applications:
I. PROCEDURE
Procedural Backeround
On December 27, 2002 the applicant submitted plan amendment and zone change applications to
rezone seven lots of land in the Ahern Acres Subdivision from RR -10 to Rural Commercial
(RC). Upon filing the application, the County required the applicant to post the subject property
with a land use action sign. The sign was posted, for the period required by code, on the subject
property on a building in a location where the sign was plainly visible from Burgess Road, the
arterial road that passes by the subject property.
The County set the hearing for March 4, 2003.before Hearings Officer Karen Green. Notice of
the hearing was provided, by mail, to owners of lots within 250 feet of the seven lots. The
County also published a notice of the hearing in The Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation
within Deschutes County, on February 9, 2003.
On March 4, 2003 a public hearing was held. At the hearing, the Hearings Officer received
testimony and evidence about the proposed changes. The Hearings Officer questioned whether
one additional lot, Lot 6, Block 2, Ahern Acres should be included in the land use application
Page 1 of 10 — Decision of Board of Commissioners (Demaris, TA-02-131ZC-02-5)
"EXHIBIT C"
based upon its commitment to use for utilities that serve existing commercial development on the
seven lots included in the land use application. In response, the applicant asked that the Hearings
Officer recommend that the Board of Commissioners include that lot as one of the properties to
be included in the proposed Rosland Rural Commercial area.
On April 15, 2003, Hearings Officer Green approved the application and recommended that the
Board of Commissioners also rezone and designate Lot 6, Block 2, Ahern Acres for RC zoning.
The Hearings Officer's decision was mailed on April 16, 2003. In her decision, Hearings Officer
Karen Green determined that the posted, mailed and published notice provided by the County
complied with the requirements of DCC 22.24.030. That decision and the determination of
compliance with DCC 22.24.030 were not appealed by any party on or before the appeal
deadline of April 28, 2003.
Board Hearing Procedures
DCC 22.28.030, below, is the procedural law that prescribes the legal effect of the Hearing
Officer's decision:
DCC 22.28.030. Decision on plan amendments and zone changes.
A. Except as set forth herein, the Hearings Officer or the Planning Commission when acting
as the Hearings Body shall have authority to make decisions on all quasi-judicial zone
changes and plan amendments. Prior to becoming effective, all quasi-judicial plan
amendments and zone changes shall be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners.
FINDING: Hearings Officer Karen Green made the land use decision in this quasi-judicial zone
change and plan amendment application. The Board is adopting ordinances to implement Ms.
Green's decision.
B. In considering all quasi-judicial zone changes and those quasi-judicial plan amendments
on which the Hearings Officer has authority to make a decision, the Board of County
Commissioners shall, in the absence of an appeal or review initiated by the Board, adopt
the Hearings Officer's decision. No argument or further testimony will be taken by the
Board.
FINDING: The Hearings Officer has authority to make a final decision on all matters before her
other than the inclusion of Lot 6, Block 2 in the zone change and comprehensive plan map
amendment request. As Lot 6, Block 2 was not included in the notice of the hearing before the
Hearings Officer, the Hearings Officer recommended inclusion of Lot 6, Block 2 upon the
assumption that a hearing would be held on the matter by the Board of Commissioners. The
Board, therefore, provided notice and held a hearing on this issue on June 4, 2003.
The notice complied with ORS 215.060 that requires that notice be published in a newspaper of
general circulation in LaPine or Deschutes County a minimum of ten days prior to the hearing.
The County Community Development Department published notice of the hearing in The Bulletin,
a newspaper of general circulation in Deschutes County. The notice appeared on May 18, 2003.
Page 2 of 10 — Decision of Board of Commissioners (Demaris, TA-02-13/ZC-02-5)
"EXHIBIT C"
The Deschutes County Community Development Department also mailed. notice of the June 4,
2003 public hearing to property owners who owned property within 260 feet of Lot 6, Block 2,
Ahern Acres on May 14, 2003.
On June 4, 2003, the Board of Commissioners held a public hearing regarding Ms. Green's
recommendation that Lot 6, Block 2, Ahern Acres be included in the Rosland Rural Commercial
zoning area. As required by this section of DCC 22.28.030, the scope of the hearing before the
Board was limited to the issue of whether to include Lot 6, Block 2, Ahern.Acres as a part of the
Rosland Rural Commercial zoning district and plan map amendments.
C. Plan amendments and zone changes requiring an exception to the goals or concerning
lands designated for forest or agricultural use shall be heard de novo before the Board of
County Commissioners without the necessity of filing an appeal, regardless of the
determination of the Hearings Officer or Planning Commission. Such hearing before the
Board shall otherwise be subject to the same procedures as an appeal to the Board under
DCC Title 22.
FINDING: The Demaris property is in an acknowledged goal exception area. It is not
agricultural or forest land. The RC zoning requested by Ms. Demaris is a rural zone that limits
uses to rural uses. It does not require a goal exception. As a result, it was appropriate for the
Board to allow its hearings officer to make the decision in this case for all issues other than the
appropriate zone and plan designation of Lot 6, Block 2, Ahern Acres. Hearings Officer Karen
Green made an unchallenged finding to that effect in her April 16, 2003 decision.
Procedural Obiections Raised at Board Hearing
At the June 4, 2003 land use hearing, opponent Wayne Roan argued that the location of the land
use posting was inadequate. He said the sign was not posted on Lot 6 and that the sign was not
readily visible from Lost Ponderosa, the road that Lot 6 adjoins.
The County law that governs posted notice is DCC 22.24.030.
DCC 22.24.030 Notice of hearing or administrative action.
B. Posted Notice.
1. Notice of a land use action application for which prior notice procedures are
chosen shall be posted on the subject property for at least 10 continuous days
prior to any date set for receipt of comments. Such notice shall, where
practicable, be visible from any adjacent public way.
DCC 22.24.030 requires that notice be posted on the subject property. "Where
practicable," it is to be visible from a_y adjacent public way. This code provision is
ambiguous. There are two possible interpretations. First, the code may be read to require
that the sign, where practicable, be visible from all of the public ways that adjoin it.
Second, the code may be read to say that the sign must, where practicable, be visible
Page 3 of 10 — Decision of Board of Commissioners (Demaris, TA-02-131ZC-02-5)
"EXHIBIT C"
from one of the adjoining roadways. The Board finds that the second interpretation is the
correct reading as practical difficulties would not logically prevent a property owner from
posting property so that it is visible from one adjoining roadway. Posting property to be
seen from all adjoining roadways is a situation that would often present practical
difficulties.
The "subject property" is one large area that consists of eight adjacent platted lots,
including Lot 6, Block 2, Ahern Acres. The subject property adjoins or is bisected by
Burgess Road, Lost Ponderosa Road and River Pine Road. Lost Ponderosa Road and
River Pine Road approximately parallel each other and are separated by over 500 feet.
This means that a sign posted to face either road would not be visible from the other. As
a result, it is not practicable nor is it possible to post a sign on this property that is visible
from all of the adjoining roadways.
The applicant's decision to post the sign where it was visible from Burgess Road
provided good, actual notice of the application to the general public. In that location, it
would be visible to residents who live on Lost Ponderosa because they must travel past
the notice on Burgess Road when coming and going from the center of LaPine, Wickiup
Junction or points on Highway 97, including the City of Bend. Burgess Road is an
arterial road that carries a considerable amount of traffic, including traffic bound for
River Pine Road and Lost Ponderosa — both local streets located within the Ahern Acres
subdivision. As a result, even if there were a violation of the posted notice requirement,
Mr. Roan failed to establish any prejudice occurred. Mr. Roan was not prejudiced as he
knew the legal issues, filed detailed written objections to application materials and the
staff report and testified at both land use hearings.
Additionally, no party was prejudiced by any alleged irregularity in the posted notice as
the County mailed notice to owners within 250 feet of the subject property and published
two notices regarding the public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. ORS
215.060 requires only that the County hold a hearing and publish notice in a newspaper
of general circulation in the County ten days prior to the hearing. In the case of both
hearings, the County provided the notice required by ORS 215.060.1
Decision by Board of Commissioners
On June 11, 2003, the Board of Commissioners voted to include Lot 6, Block 2, Ahern Acres as
a part of the Rosland Rural Commercial zoning area.
II. HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECISION AND ADOPTION BY REFERENCE
The Board finds that the Hearings Officer's decision is final, as written, as to Lots 2 through 5,
Block 2, Ahern Acres and Lots 1 through 3, Block 4 Ahern Acres. No further findings are
required to support that decision. The fact that the decision was not appealed means that the
1 ORS 215.431 authorizes the County to allow its hearings officer to hold the required hearing and make the
decision on this land use application. This was the procedure used by the County for the text amendments to the
zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan and the map amendments to the comprehensive plan and zoning maps.
Page 4 of 10 —Decision of Board of Commissioners (Demaris, TA-02-13/ZC-02-5)
"EXHIBIT C"
Board must do the following: (a) amend the comprehensive plan to recognize the Rosland Rural
Commercial center; and (b) amend the text of the County's zoning ordinance to create the
Rosland Rural Commercial zoning district; and (c) amend the Deschutes County comprehensive
plan map and zoning maps to designate Lots 2 through 5, Block 2, Ahern Acres and Lots 1
through 3, Block 4, Ahern Acres as Rosland Rural Commercial.
The Board finds that the findings in the Hearings Officer's decision also support inclusion of Lot
6, Block 2, Ahern Acres in the Rosland Rural Commercial area. As a result, the Board hereby.
adopts that report as findings of the Board to support approval of the zone and comprehensive
plan map change for Lot 6, Block 2, Ahern Acres. A copy of that decision is marked Exhibit D,
attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
III. FINDINGS REGARDING HEARING TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE RE LOT 6
The Board has considered the evidence in the record of TA-02-13/ZC-02-5, including but not
limited to the findings and legal conclusions of the County's Hearings. Officer in Exhibit D and
all evidence presented to it at its hearing on June 4, 2003. Based on the evidence, the Board
makes the following supplemental findings of fact:
DCC 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.
FINDINGS: The Rural Commercial zoning is consistent with the Rural Commercial plan
designation approved for this and adjoining properties in this land use action. The findings in
Exhibit D demonstrate that a Rural Commercial plan designation is appropriate for Lot 6, Block
2, as well as other adjacent lots owned by Ms. Demaris.
The change is also consistent with the introductory statement of the comprehensive plan. That
statement indicates land use decisions should be made after adequate consideration of
alternatives] or consequences following the orderly process established by the county's plan and
ordinance. The Board finds the applicant's proposal is consistent with the plan's introductory
statement because the process contemplated in the plan is being used to evaluate the applicant's
proposal, and the proposed zone change can occur only after this process has been completed.
The alternatives and consequences of leaving the property zoned Rural Residential have been
considered by the Board. The retention of RR zoning would have acted as a disincentive to
proper stewardship of the property. Even small changes of benefit to the public, like the paving
of a parking area on Lot 6 to serve existing commercial development on adjoining lots in the RC
zone would require County land use approval.
Page 5 of 10 — Decision of Board of Commissioners (Demaris, TA-02-131ZC-02-5)
"EXHIBIT C"
The public interest would be served by rezoning. Lot 6, Block 2 is currently devoted to Rural
Commercial use by its development with wells that serve commercial uses on adjoining Demaris
lots that are being zoned Rural Commercial. This change will make it clear that the use of Lot
6, Block 2 for wells to serve commercial uses on adjoining RC zoned property is legal, can
continue and can be altered without need for County approval of an application to alter a
nonconforming use. As the limited commercial use of this property provides a service of benefit
to many area residents and reduces vehicle trip lengths, its continuation is in the public interest.
RC zoning will allow appropriate future rural commercial development to occur and to serve the
large surrounding rural population.
B. That the change in classification for the subject property is consistent with the
purpose and intent of the proposed zone classification.
FINDINGS: The purpose of the RC Zone is to establish standards and review procedures for
development of rural commercial uses outside of unincorporated communities and urban growth
boundaries. Approval of the zone change will apply the RC Zone to the property and will limit
future commercial development to a rural, rather than urban level, as intended by the Rural
Commercial policies of the comprehensive plan.
At the hearing before the County Hearings Officer, opponent Wayne Roan argued the applicant's
proposal is not consistent with the purpose of the RC Zone because the lots that make up the
subject property are too small for commercial development. The inclusion of Lot 6 in Block 2
makes lots adjacent to Burgess Road deeper, making it easier for the applicant to meet the LM
zoning district and other setbacks if and when new development is proposed for the subject
property and adjoining RC zone lots.
Mr. Roan argued that the Burgess Road lots were too shallow to allow redevelopment in
compliance with LM zone setback requirements that are measured from Burgess Road.2 The
addition of Lot 6, Block 2 to the Rosland RC district will make it easier for the applicant or a
future owner to site new buildings further back from the roadway and comply with the LM
zoning district.
The addition of Lot 6, Block 2, Ahern Acres to the RC zone will allow the applicant to continue
to use Lot 6 for wells to serve the existing commercial development on the Block 2 lots. That
use is a historical use that has not disrupted the neighborhood. Any change in the character of
this historical use will require County land use approval. In that process, the rights and concerns
of neighbors will be addressed by the County when it reviews the development proposed.
Additionally, the public's interests will be protected by the LM Combining Zone siting and
landscape regulations.
C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public health, safety and welfare
considering the following factors:
2 The existing development occurred prior to the adoption of the LM zoning district and was not governed by its
setback requirements.
Page 6 of 10 —Decision of Board of Commissioners (Demaris, TA-02-13/ZC-02-5)
"EXHIBIT C"
1. The availability and efficiency of providing necessary public services and
facilities.
FINDINGS: The findings in Exhibit D establish that there are adequate public services
and facilities available to serve the subject property once it is zoned RC.
2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with the specific
goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS: The impacts of applying RC zoning on surrounding land use will be
minimal and consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Plan and addressed in
Exhibit D. The subject property is already a part of an existing rural commercial
development. The RC zoning may allow some increase in the intensity of the
commercial use but said changes must comply with County site plan review criteria that
mitigate impacts on neighbors. The evidence shows that redevelopment of the subject
property will be constrained by the need to be served by septic systems, by the lack of a
public or community water service and by issues with the water table in the La Pine area.
The Board finds that these issues have not precluded the development that exists on the
property and that the proposed changes will allow the applicant to continue these uses.
These factors will, however, limit future development so that it, like the existing
commercial uses on adjoining properties, will remain rural in character.
Some neighbors expressed concern that the addition of Lot 6 to the Rosland RC district
would increase traffic on Lost Ponderosa north of Lot 6, Block 2, Ahern Acres. They
claim commercial traffic will drive through Ahern Acres. One opponent claimed that
traffic associated with the fitness salon on River Pine increased traffic through the
neighborhood. The applicant testified that new homes have been built in the
neighborhood, thereby increasing traffic. The Board finds that the applicant's position
more credible.
Maps in the record show that Ahern Acres has two outlets only. Both outlets are on
Burgess Road. One is Lost Ponderosa Road and the other is River Pine Road. It is
possible for motorists to drive north in the subdivision but they must, ultimately, loop
back to the south and return to Burgess Road. This loop requires a great deal of out -of -
direction travel. No reason was provided by opponents to explain why motorists might
use this route rather than traveling directly south to reach Burgess Road. Additionally,
the County code requires site plan review of any development of RC zoned property. At
that time, the County would be able to determine and control accesses to minimize
development impacts on neighbors. Access limits might include a prohibition against
access to Lost Ponderosa Road if such a restriction is deemed appropriate to protect the
neighbors to the north of Lot 6, Block 2, Ahern Acres.
D. That there has been a change in circumstances since the property was last zoned, or
a mistake was made in the zoning of the property in question.
Page 7 of 10 — Decision of Board of Commissioners (Demaris, TA-02-131ZC-02-5)
"EXHIBIT C"
FINDINGS: The findings in Exhibit D demonstrate compliance with this approval criterion.
Title 23 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive
Plan
Chapter 23.36, Rural Development
Goals:
1. To preserve and enhance the open spaces, rural character, scenic values and natural
resources of the county.
2. 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.
3. To provide for the possible long term expansion of urban areas while protecting the
distinction between urban (urbanizing) land and rural lands.
FINDINGS: The proposed plan amendment recognizes the history and existence of rural
commercial development on the subject property. The current uses of the property are of low
intensity. The intensity of future uses will be limited by septic feasibility, lot sizes, minimum
setbacks and the restrictions of the RC zoning district. The wells on Lot 6, Block 2 provide
water for commercial uses on adjoining lots. This is the only commercial use presently
conducted on this lot.
Allowing commercial development of a property that is already used as a well site for adjoining
commercial uses helps preserve and enhance open spaces by providing needed rural commercial
services where they already exist, rather than on other property that has not been developed.
County landscape management subzone criteria will assure that the scenic qualities of Burgess
Road are not harmed.
The subject property is centrally located to serve a large rural population. It is located near a
rural arterial road — a location where traffic is expected. This location minimizes the public costs
of providing needed services as an existing major road provides excellent access to the RC
center... No new roads are required. For these reasons, the applicant's proposal is consistent with
these plan policies.
IV. DECISION TO AMEND THE TEXT OF TITLE 23, THE DESCHUTES COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO RECOGNIZE AND SUPPORT ADOPTION OF
THE ROSLAND RURAL COMMERCIAL CENTER
DCC 22.28.030 makes the Exhibit D Hearings Officer's decision binding as to all issues other
than the issue of whether to include Lot 6, Block 2, Ahern Acres in the RC zoning district.3 The
3 The issue of whether to include Lot 6, Block 2, Ahern Acres in the RC zoning district includes the decision
whether to amend the comprehensive plan maps to designate the property "Rosland Rural Commercial Center."
Page 8 of 10 — Decision of Board of Commissioners (Demaris, TA-02-131ZC-02-S)
"EXHIBIT C"
Board of Commissioners, therefore, finds that the text of Title 23, the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan, should be amended as provided in Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2003-
079. Additionally, the Board finds that Lot 6, Block 2, Ahern Acres should be included in the
rural commercial center. The addition of this lot changes the size of the Rosland Commercial
area from approximately 4.07 acres to approximately 4.5 acres. The text of Title 23 adopted in
the ordinance that implements the approved text amendment shall be revised to indicate that the
area is approximately 4.5 acres in size.
V. DECISION TO CREATE THE ROSLAND RURAL COMMERCIAL CENTER
ZONING DISTRICT AND ADOPT REGULATIONS FOR SAID ZONING
DISTRICT
As DCC 22.28.030 makes the Exhibit D Hearings Officer's decision binding as to all issues
other than the issue of whether to include Lot 6, Block 2, Ahern Acres in the RC zoning district,
the Board of Commissioners hereby finds that the text of Title 18, the Deschutes County Zoning
Ordinance, should be amended for all lots other than as provided in Deschutes County Ordinance
No. 2003-080.
VI. DECISION TO AMEND THE DESCHUTES COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN MAPS TO DESIGNATE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS THE ROSLAND
RURAL COMMERCIAL CENTER
As DCC 22.28.030 makes the Exhibit D Hearings Officer's decision binding as to all issues
other than the issue of whether to include Lot 6, Block 2, Ahern Acres in the RC zoning district,
the Board of Commissioners hereby finds that the comprehensive plan maps of Deschutes
County should be amended to designate the subject property, other than Lot 6, Block 2 as the
Rosland Rural Commercial Center, in the manner described in Deschutes County Ordinance No.
2003-079.
As the findings contained in this Decision and Exhibit D support inclusion of Lot 6, Block 2,
Ahern Acres in the RC zoning district, the Board finds that the comprehensive plan maps of
Deschutes County should be amended to designate Lot 6, Block 2, Ahern Acres as "Rosland
Rural Commercial Center."
VII. DECISION TO AMEND TITLE 18, THE DESCHUTES COUNTY ZONING
ORDINANCE, TO APPLY THE ROSLAND RURAL COMMERCIAL CENTER
ZONING DISTRICT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
As DCC 22.28.030 makes the Exhibit D Hearings Officer's decision binding as to all issues
other than the issue of whether to include Lot 6, Block 2, Ahern Acres in the RC zoning district,
the Board of Commissioners hereby finds that the Deschutes County zoning map should be
amended to designate the subject property, other than Lot 6, Block 2 as the Rosland Rural
Commercial Center, in the manner described in Deschutes County Ordinance No. 2003-080.
Both actions are required to apply Rural Commercial zoning to Lot 6. Where the act of rezoning Lot 6 is discussed
in this decision, it refers to both actions.
Page 9 of 10 — Decision of Board of Commissioners (Demaris, TA-02-131ZC-02-5)
"EXHIBIT C"
As the findings contained in this Decision and Exhibit D support inclusion of Lot 6, Block 2,
Ahern Acres in the RC zoning district, the Board finds that the Deschutes County zoning map
should be amended to designate Lot 6, Block 2, Ahern Acres as "Rosland Rural Commercial
Center."
VIII. IMPLEMENTING ORDINANCES
The Board's decision and the decision of County Hearings Officer Karen Green are implemented
by the ordinances referenced herein.
DATED THIS DAY OF .2003
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Dennis Luke, Chair
Page 10 of 10 — Decision of Board of Commissioners (Demaris, TA-02-13/ZC-02-5)
EXHIBIT "D"
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF
DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER
FILE NUMBERS: TA -02-13 and ZC-02-5
APPLICANT: Karen Demaris
52427 River Pine Road
La Pine, Oregon 97739
ATTORNEY: Liz Fancher
644 N.W. Broadway
Bend, Oregon 97701
Attorney for Applicant
REQUEST: The applicant requests approval of a plan amendment and zone
change from Rural Residential to Rural Commercial for eight lots
in the Ahern Acres Subdivision west of Wickiup Junction. The
applicant also requests approval of text amendments to the
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance to designate the subject
property as the Rosland Rural Commercial Zone and to add
supporting findings.
STAFF REVIEWER: Jon Skidmore, Associate Planner
HEARING DATE: March 4, 2003
RECORD CLOSED: March 28, 2003
I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
A. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
1. Chapter 18.74, Rural Commercial Zone
* Section 18.74.010, Purpose
2. Chapter 18.136, Amendments
* Section 18.136.010, Amendments
* Section 18.136.020, Rezoning Standards
B. Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Development Procedures Ordinance
1. Chapter 22.08, General Provisions
* Section 22.08.005, Preapplication Conference
* Section 22.08.010, Application Requirements
2. Chapter 22.20, Review of Land Use Action Applications
* Section 22.20.010, Action on Land Use Action Applications
3. Chapter 22.24, Land Use Action Hearings
Demaris
TA-02-13/ZC-03-5
1
* Section 22.24.030, Notice of Hearing or Administrative Action
4. Chapter 22.28, Land Use Action Decisions
* Section 22.28.030, Decision on Plan Amendments and Zone Changes
C. Title 23 of the Deschutes County Code, the Comprehensive Plan
1. Chapter 23.40, Unincorporated Communities
D. Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660
1. Division 12, Transportation Planning
2. Division 22, Unincorporated Communities
IL FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. Location: The subject property consists of Lots 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in Block 2, and Lots 1, 2
and 3 in Block 4, of the Ahern Acres Subdivision located west of Wickiup Junction and
north of La Pine. The subject property also is identified as Tax lots 6700, 6900, 7000,
7200, 7300, 7400, 7500 and 7600 on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 21-10-35C.
The original application did not include Lot 6 in Block 2 of Ahern Acres (Tax Lot 6700).
At the public hearing, the Hearings Officer asked the applicant why she had not included
Lot 6 in her applications since it abuts the subject property and is developed with a well
serving Lots 2 and 4 in Block 2 which are included in the application. In response, in her
March 17, 2003, submission the applicant's attorney requested that Lot 6 in Block 2 be
added to the applications because its inclusion would facilitate development of the
abutting Lots 1, 2 and 3 in Block 2. She also argued the failure to give notice that Lot 6
would be included in the plan amendment and zone change applications could be cured
by new notice given before the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners holds the
required hearing to adopt my decision. The applicant's attorney stated county planning
staff had no objection to the inclusion of Lot 6 in the applications.
The Hearings Officer finds that under the circumstances presented here, it is appropriate
to include in this decision Lot 6 in Block 2. I also find sufficient notice of this change
will be provided both through my decision and in the notice required prior to the public
hearing before the board of commissioners.
B. Zoning and Plan Designation: The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR -10)
and is designated Rural Residential Exception Area on the comprehensive plan map.
C. Site Description: The eight tax lots that comprise the subject property total
approximately 4.5 acres in size and are developed as follows:
1. Tax Lot 6700 has a shed, well house and wells serving Tax Lots 7400 and 7600.
2. Tax Lot 6900 has a duplex, parking area and septic drainfield.
Demaris
TA-03-13/ZC-02-5
2
3. Tax Lot 7000 has an overflow parking area, an electric meter and a water line to
serve the duplex on Tax Lot 6900.
4. Tax Lot 7200 has a commercial building developed as a small gym, a carport,
parking area, sign, well and septic drainfield.
5. Tax Lot 7300 has a sign frame.
6. Tax Lot 7400 has two commercial buildings one of which is developed with a
barber shop, a parking area, water lines and septic tank.
7. Tax Lot 7500 has a parking area and water lines.
8. Tax Lot 7600 has a commercial building currently developed as Mountain
Country Homes, a shed, parking area, septic tank and water lines.
The topography of the subject property generally is level with vegetation consisting of
native trees, brush and grasses as well as introduced landscaping. Half of the tax lots take
access from Burgess Road and the other half from River Pine Road. The record indicates
Burgess Road is classified as a rural arterial road and River Pine Road is classified as a
rural local road.
D. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: Property to the north is zoned RR -10 and consists
of remainder of the Ahern Acres Subdivision developed with residential uses. To the
south directly across Burgess Road from the subject property is land zoned Exclusive
Farm Use -La Pine Subzone (EFU-La Pine) and developed with a seasonal campground.
To the east along Burgess Road is the Little Deschutes River and the associated Flood
Plain Zone. Further east on the north side of Burgess Road is land zoned EFU-La Pine.
Further east on the south side of Burgess Road is land zoned RR -10 and developed with
residential uses. Further to the east is the Wickiup Junction Planning Area developed with
several commercial uses. To the west of the subject property is land zoned RR -10 and
developed with residential uses.
E. Procedural History: The record indicates the Ahern Acres Subdivision was recorded in
1961 and was platted by the applicant's mother, Betty Ahern. When the subdivision was
platted deed restrictions were recorded that designated Lots 1 through 7 in Block 2 and
Lots 1 through 4 in Block 4 for "multiple residences, light commercial or light industry."
Some of the subject lots were developed with commercial uses. When the county adopted
PL -15 and the accompanying zoning maps in 1979, the subject property was designated
and zoned RR -10 because it was found to be committed to non -resource uses. However,
the property was not designated or zoned Rural Service Center (RSC) which would have
allowed commercial uses. Consequently, the commercial uses that were on the subject
property in 1979 became nonconforming uses.
In 2002, the county adopted amendments to Titles 18 and 23 of the Deschutes County
Code authorizing the creation of the Rural Commercial (RC) Zone and the designation of
rural commercial areas that would allow commercial uses outside the boundaries of both
unincorporated communities and rural service centers. The applicant submitted the
subject plan amendment and zone change applications from RR -10 to RC on December
27, 2002, and they were deemed complete on January 27, 2003. Under ORS 215.427,
plan amendments and dependent zone changes are not subject to the 150 -day period for
issuance of a final local land use decision.
Demaris
TA-03-13/ZC-02-5
3
A public hearing on the applications was held on March 4, 2003. At the hearing the
Hearings Officer received testimony and evidence and established the following schedule
for the submission of post -hearing evidence and argument:
* March 18 -- staff comments, opponents' evidence and applicant's response to evidence
submitted at the public hearing
* March 25 — evidence in response to staff comments and post -hearing evidence
submitted by March 18
* April 1 — applicant's final arguments
By a letter dated March 28, 2003, the applicant waived her right to file final arguments,
and the record closed on that date.
F. Proposal: The applicant proposes to change the plan designation and zoning of the
subject property from RR -10 to RC. The proposal would amend the comprehensive plan
map as well as the text of the plan and zoning ordinance to create the Rosland Rural
Commercial Zone. The applicant concluded, and the Hearings Officer concurs, that a
goal exception is not required for the proposed plan amendment and zone change because
the proposed RC Zone is a rural zone and therefore would not create "urban"
development outside an unincorporated community.
G. Public/Private Agency Comments: The county sent written notice of the applicant's
proposal to a number of public and private agencies and received responses from the
Deschutes County Road Department, Environmental Health Division and Code
Enforcement. In addition, the county provided written notice to the Department of Land
Conservation and Development (DLCD) as required for all plan amendments. DLCD did
not comment on the applicant's proposal.
H. Public Notice and Comments: The county mailed individual written notice of the
applicant's proposal and the public hearing to the owners of record of all property located
within 250 feet of the subject property. In addition, notice of the public hearing was
published in the "Bend Bulletin" newspaper, and the subject property was posted with a
notice of proposed land use action sign. The county did not receive any letters in response
to these notices. However, two members of the public testified at the public hearing. In
addition, one letter in support of the application, and one letter and a petition with 54
signatures in opposition to the application, were submitted into the record following the
public hearing.
Opponent Wayne Roan testified that the applicant's posting of the proposed land use
action sign in the window of one of the buildings on the subject property did not
constitute adequate notice because that sign location did not provide adequate visibility.
1 The applicant argues the Hearings Officer should give little if any weight to the petition in opposition to
her proposal because the signatures may have been obtained by false pretenses. In support of her
argument, the applicant submitted two letters to that effect from persons who signed the petition. The
Hearings Officer finds this evidence, coupled with the very broad and unfocused language of the petition,
substantially diminishes the credibility and weight of this document.
Demaris
TA-03-13/ZC-02-5
4
However, Mr. Roan did not offer any evidence that the placement of the notice deprived
interested parties of the opportunity to participate in these proceedings.
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
PROCEDURES
A. Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Development Procedures Ordinance
1. Chapter 22.08, General Provisions
a. Section 22.08.005, Pre -application Conference
FINDINGS: The Staff Report states the applicant conferred with members of county planning
staff prior to submitting the subject applications.
b. Section 22.08.020, Acceptance of Application
Development action and land use action applications shall not be
accepted until the planning director has determined that (1) the
requirements of DCC22.08.010 have been met and (2) the application
is complete or application is deemed to be complete under state law.
FINDINGS: The Staff Report states, and the Hearings Officer concurs, that the applicant
submitted a complete application.
2. Chapter 22.20, Review of Land Use Action Applications
a. Section 22.20.010, Action on Land Use Action Applications
(A) Except for comprehensive plan amendments and zone changes
and other instances where a hearing is required by state law or
by other ordinance provisions, the Planning Director may
decide upon a land use action application administratively
either with prior notice, as prescribed under DCC 22.20.020 or
without prior notice, as prescribed under DCC 22.20.030 or he
may refer the application to the Hearings Body for hearing.
The Planning Director shall take such action within 30 days of
the date the application is accepted or deemed accepted as
complete. This time limit may be waved at the option of the
applicant.
FINDINGS: A public hearing on the subject applications was held on March 4, 2003. The
applications are quasi-judicial rather than legislative because they affect only eight tax lots and
one property owner. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the requirements of this
section have been met.
Demaris
TA-03-13/ZC-02-5
5
3. Chapter 22.24, Land Use Action Hearings
a. Section 22.24.030, Notice of Hearing or Administrative Action
FINDINGS: As discussed above, the owners of record of all property located within 250 feet of
the subject property received individual written notice of the applicant's proposal and the public
hearing. In addition, the subject property was posted with a notice of land use action sign and
notice of the public hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation. For these
reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the requirements of this section have been met.
4. Chapter 22.28, Land Use Action Decisions
A. Except as set forth herein, the Hearings Officer or the Planning
Commission when acting as the Hearings Body shall have authority to
make decisions on all quasi-judicial zone changes and plan
amendments. Prior to becoming effective, all quasi-judicial plan
amendments and zone changes shall be adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners.
B. In considering all quasi-judicial zone changes and those quasi-judicial
plan amendments on which the Hearings Officer has authority to
make a decision, the Board of County Commissioners shall, in the
absence of an appeal or review initiated by the Board, adopt the
Hearings Officer's decision. No argument or further testimony will be
taken by the board.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds my findings and recommendation may be appealed to
the Board of County Commissioners. In the absence of an appeal the board must adopt my
decision approving the proposed plan amendment and zone change.
ZONE CHANGE
B. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
1. Chapter 18.74, Rural Commercial Zone
a. Section 18.74.010, Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to establish standards and review
procedures for development in the Rural Commercial Zone. The
Rural Commercial (RC) zone provisions implement the
comprehensive plan policies for rural commercial development and
associated uses outside of unincorporated communities and urban
growth boundaries.
FINDINGS: The subject property is located outside any city limits and the boundaries of the La
Demaris
TA-03-13/ZC-02-5
6
Pine unincorporated community. The applicant proposes to rezone the subject property from RR -
10 to RC to reflect the current commercial uses on the property and to allow future rural
commercial development consistent with the standards in the RC Zone. Therefore, the Hearings
Officer finds the applicant's proposal is consistent with the purpose of the RC Zone.
2. Chapter 18.136, Amendments
a. Section 18.136.010, Amendments
DCC Title 18 may be amended as set forth in DCC 18.136. The
procedures for text or legislative map changes shall be as set forth in
DCC 22.12. 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 DCC Title 22.
FINDINGS: The applicant submitted an application for a quasi-judicial comprehensive plan text
and map amendment .and zone change by filing the required county application forms and
submitting the required fees. The applicant's compliance with the provisions of Title -22 of the
Deschutes County Code is discussed in the findings above.
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.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this paragraph establishes three zone change approval
criteria, discussed in the findings below.
1. Conformance with Comprehensive Plan. The subject property currently is designated and
zoned rural residential. As discussed above, the subject property has been developed with rural
commercial uses since before the county adopted PL -15 in 1979. The applicant submitted an
application to rezone the subject property from RR -10 to RC and a plan amendment to create the
Rosland Rural Commercial Zone to conform the property's zoning to its plan designation.
2. Consistent with Plan's Introductory Statement. The introductory statement of the
comprehensive plan indicates land use decisions should be made after adequate consideration of
alternative[s] or consequences following the orderly process established by the county's plan and
ordinance. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal is consistent with the plan's
introductory statement because the process contemplated in the plan is being used to evaluate the
applicant's proposal, and the proposed zone change can occur only after this process has been
Demaris
TA-03-13/ZC-02-5
7
completed.
3. Public Interest. The applicant argues the public interest would be served by rezoning the
subject property from RR -10 to RC for three reasons. First, the property has been developed with
rural commercial uses since prior to the county's adoption of PL -15 and the subject property's
RR -10 zoning. Second, the RC zoning will eliminate the need for the applicant and subsequent
property owners to verify the existing non -conforming uses in order to authorize the commercial
uses that have been on the subject property for decades. Third, the RC zoning will allow
appropriate future commercial development to serve the large surrounding rural population.
Opponent Wayne Roan argued in his oral and written testimony that the applicant did not meet
her burden of proving the public interest would be served by the proposed zone change because
she failed to show a need for additional commercial -zoned land in the La Pine/Wickiup Junction
area. Mr. Roan asserted there are 20-25 area lots available for commercial development. The
Hearings Officer finds Mr. Roan's argument without merit. The approval criteria for a zone
change do not include a requirement that the applicant demonstrate a need for the proposed
zoning. Moreover, if additional parcels would qualify for RC zoning, nothing in this decision
will prevent the owners of those parcels from applying for a zone change.
For the foregoing reasons the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies the
approval criteria in this paragraph.
B: That the change in classification for the subject property is
consistent with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone
classification.
FINDINGS: As discussed above, the purpose of the RC Zone is to establish standards and
review procedures for development of rural commercial uses outside of unincorporated
communities and urban growth boundaries. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal
is consistent with this purpose because the subject property is located outside any urban growth
boundary and unincorporated community, and has for decades been developed with the very
types of commercial uses intended to serve surrounding rural residents.
Opponent Wayne Roan argues the applicant's proposal is not consistent with the purpose of the
RC Zone because the lots that make up the subject property are too small for commercial
development. As discussed above, the applicant does not propose any new development on the
subject property in conjunction with the zone change application. Rather, she seeks to rezone the
subject property to reflect its historic and current development with commercial uses. In any
event, the Hearings Officer finds the lots the applicant has proposed for rezoning to RC —
particularly with the inclusion of Lot 6 in Block 2 -- are large enough to allow future commercial
development within required minimum setbacks either by themselves or in conjunction with
other lots comprising the subject property.
C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public
health, safety and welfare considering the following factors:
1. The availability and efficiency of providing necessary
Demaris
TA-03-13/ZC-02-5
8
public services and facilities.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds necessary public services and facilities for commercial
development on the subject property consist of sewer, water, transportation facilities, and police
and fire protection. Each of these is discussed separately in the findings below.
1. Sewage Disposal. The subject property is located outside the boundaries of the area served by
the La Pine sewer system, and therefore existing commercial development is served by on-site
septic systems. Opponent Wayne Roan argues no commercial development should be located
outside La Pine because sewer should be required for commercial uses. The Hearings Officer
finds the RC Zone does not require that rural commercial uses be served by a sewer system. Mr.
Roan also asserts the county did not issue permits for the existing septic systems, and therefore
the applicant failed to establish these systems are adequate to provide sewage treatment for
existing commercial development. In response, the applicant submitted evidence concerning the
status of these systems in her March 25, 2003 memorandum. This evidence indicates the septic
system that serves the commercial use on Tax Lot 7200 (the gym) was installed in the 1960's
before the county required or issued septic permits. However, the applicant's evidence indicates
all other septic systems on the subject property have received county permits.
Mr. Roan argues no further septic systems could be installed on the subject property, and
therefore the property is not suitable for further commercial development under the proposed RC
Zone. He asserts no new septic systems could be approved on any of the subject property's lots
that are less than one acre in size. The applicant responds, and the Hearings Officer concurs, that
to the extent the half -acre minimum lot size applies to the subject property, she can satisfy that
requirement by consolidating any lots that are less than one-half acre.2
Finally, Mr. Roan argues the lots comprising the subject property would not qualify for new
septic systems because of the nature of the soils and the property's proximity to the Little
Deschutes River. The applicant responds, and I also concur, that Mr. Roan's claims are
speculative and have no factual basis. Attached to the applicant's March 17, 2003 memorandum
is a summary she prepared of the status of septic systems for all lots in the Ahern Acres
Subdivision. This report indicates that approximately half of the subdivision lots currently have
septic systems, that a significant number of lots qualified for "standard" septic systems, that a
number of systems have received approved upgrades in the last ten years, and that no subdivision
lots have been denied septic approval. Mr. Roan offered no evidence to dispute this report.
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant has demonstrated the subject
property is and in the future can be served by approved septic systems.
2. Water. Existing uses on the subject property are served by private wells.3 Opponent Wayne
2 The applicant's March 25"' memorandum states, and the Hearings Officer is aware, that newer septic
systems approved by the Department of Environmental Quality for the south part of Deschutes County
may not require half -acre lots.
'As discussed above, the Hearings Officer has concluded it is appropriate to include in this decision Lot 6
in Block 2 of Ahern Acres because it is developed with a well that serves the uses on Lots 2 and 4.
Demaris
TA-03-13/ZC-02-5
9
Roan argues the subject property should not be rezoned RC because it must be served by a public
water system. Mr. Roan offers no authority for such a requirement. In fact, the comprehensive
plan provisions governing rural commercial development expressly allow such development to
be served by private wells. Section 23.40.060(2)(c), Policy 11. For these reasons, the Hearings
Officer finds the applicant has demonstrated the subject property is and in the future can be
served by private wells.
3. Transportation Facilities. The subject property abuts Burgess Road and River Pine Road,
both public roads maintained by the county. The record indicates Burgess Road recently was
designated a rural arterial road, and River Pine Road is a designated rural local road. The lots
that comprise the subject property take access either from Burgess Road or from River Pine
Road. The record indicates Burgess Road has a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour and
currently functions at Level of Service (LOS) C. Opponent Wayne Roan argues the subject
property should not be rezoned to RC because existing and future commercial development will
require patrons to back their vehicles onto Burgess Road, creating a safety hazard. In response,
the applicant asserts there is sufficient area at the front of all lots taking access from Burgess
Road to allow vehicles to maneuver entirely on the subject property. The Hearings Officer finds
the photographs in the record of the existing commercial uses on the subject property supports
this assertion. Therefore, I find the applicant has demonstrated the subject property is and in the
future will be served by adequate transportation facilities.
4. Police and Fire Protection. Because the subject property is located outside any city limits it
receives police protection from the Deschutes County Sheriff. The record indicates fire
protection is provided by the La Pine Rural Fire District. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds
the subject property has and in the future will have adequate police and fire protection.
2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent
with the specific goals and policies contained within the
Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS: The applicant has proposed a zone change from RR -10 to RC in order to reflect the
historic commercial use of the subject property. She does not propose any new development in
conjunction with the zone change. However, the RC zoning would allow further commercial
development on the property consistent with the RC Zone standards. With respect to existing
development, as discussed in the findings above the subject property is served by adequate
public services and facilities. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds there will be no adverse
impacts on surrounding land from existing development. I also find potential future development
also will not have adverse impacts on surrounding land. Commercial development must satisfy
the standards in the RC Zone that are designed to assure such development remains "rural" in
nature. In addition, the size and intensity of development will be limited by the availability and
4 The Hearings Officer is aware the county and the Oregon Department of Transportation recognize six
levels of service for transportation facilities — LOS A through LOS F — with LOS A designating the best
level of service and LOS F designating the worst level of service. I also am aware that the county road
department considers LOS D to be the minimum adequate level of service.
Demaris
TA-03-13/ZC-02-5
10
capacity of septic systems and the size limitations resulting from the LM Zone.
Opponent Wayne Roan argues future development on the subject property will harm nearby
wells and the Little Deschutes River because of sewage runoff. As with many of Mr. Roan's
arguments, there is no evidence in the record to support such a claim. With the exception of one
septic system that predates county regulation, all septic systems on the subject property have
been permitted and inspected by the county, and all future septic systems will receive similar
scrutiny.
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies this zone
change standard.
D. That there has been a change in circumstances since the
property was last zoned, or a mistake was made in the zoning
of the property in question. ,
FINDINGS:
1. Change in Circumstances. The applicant argues the proposed zone change from -RR -10 to
RC is justified by a change in circumstances consisting of the county's adoption of the
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance provisions creating the RC Zone. She argues the RC
Zone was adopted specifically to authorize the type of commercial development present on the
subject property and that otherwise would be considered a nonconforming use outside an
unincorporated community. The Hearings Officer concurs that the change in state land use law
reflected in the county's adoption of the RC Zone expresses a strong policy for the creation of
low -intensity commercial development to serve rural populations living outside unincorporated
areas.
Opponent Wayne Roan argues the commercial uses on the subject property should remain
nonconforming uses under the current RR -10 zoning because these uses thereby would be
subject to tighter regulation and could not be expanded. The Hearings Officer disagrees. I find
Mr. Roan's argument is inconsistent with the state policy reflected in the RC Zone.
2. Mistake. As discussed above, the subject property was designated and zoned RR -10 with the
adoption of PL -15 in 1979. The applicant argues this zoning was a mistake for the following
reasons:
a. deed restrictions were recorded with the platting of the Ahern Acres Subdivision in the 1960's
specifically to designate certain lots for commercial uses;
b. commercial uses were established on the subject property prior to 1973;
c. in 1996 the applicant saw a copy of the 1973 zoning map for the subject property showing it
was zoned A -S, Rural Service Center, which allowed commercial uses;
d. in June 1973 the county issued an access permit to Burgess Road for commercial development
Demaris
TA-03-13/ZC-02-5
11
on the subject property; and
e. the 1979 zoning map adopted with PL -15 zoned RSC a parcel further west on Burgess Road —
the Whistle Stop RSC — that was less developed with commercial uses than the subject property.
Opponent Wayne Roan argues the applicant's evidence is insufficient to establish the subject
property should have been zoned RSC in 1979, particularly because the 1973 zoning map for the
subject property on which the applicant relies in part cannot be located. The Hearings Officer
disagrees. I find the circumstances described by the applicant clearly support a finding that the
county's 1979 zoning of the subject property to RR -10 rather than RSC was a mistake.
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant has demonstrated the
proposed zone change from RR -10 to RC is justified both by a change in circumstances and
because the RR -10 zoning was a mistake. Therefore, I find the county zoning map should be
amended to rezone the subject property to RC and the text of the RC Zone should be amended to
reflect this change. The applicant proposed revised zoning ordinance text. Planning staff
reviewed the applicant's proposed language and recommended minor changes. I find staff -s
recommended changes are appropriate. Therefore, I find the provisions of the RC Zone in
Chapter 18.74 of the Deschutes County Code should be amended to include the following new
language:
Section 18.74.027, Uses allowed in Rosland Rural Commercial Zone
A. Uses Permitted Outright. Any use listed as a use permitted outright by DCC
18.74.020(A).
B. Uses Permitted subiect to Site Plan Review. The following uses and their
accessory uses are permitted subiect to the applicable provisions of this
chapter and DCC 18.116 and 18.124:
1. A building or buildings each not exceeding 2,500 sauare feet of floor
space to be used by any combination of the following uses that serve
the surrounding rural area of the travel needs of persons passing
through the area:
a. Eating and drinking establishments
b. Retail store, office and service establishments
2. Expansion of a nonconforming use existing as of 11/05/2002 shall be
limited to 2,500 square feet or 25 percent of the size of the building (or
portion of the building) housing the nonconforming use as of said
date, whichever is greater.
3. A building or buildings each not exceeding 3,500 square feet of floor
space to be used by any combination of the following uses.
Demaris
TA-03-13/ZC-02-5
12
a. Sales of agricultural or farm products
b. Farm machinery sales and repair
C. Fennel or veterinary clinic
d. Automobile service station, repair garage, towing service, fuel
storage and fuel sales
e. Public or semi-public use
f. Residential use in the same building as a use permitted in this
chapter
g. Park or playground
4. Expansion of a nonconforming use existing as of 11/05/2002 shall be
limited to 3,500 square feet each or 25 percent of the size of the
building (or portion of the building) housing the nonconforming use
as of said date, which ever is greater.
C. Conditional Uses. The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted
subiect to the applicable provisions of this chapter and DCC 18.116, 18.124
and 18.128:
1. A building or buildings each not exceeding 3,500 square feet of floor
space to be used by any of the following uses.
a. Home occupation as defined in DCC 18.04
b. Utility facility
C. Wireless telecommunications facilities, except those facilities
meeting the requirements of DCC 18.116.250(A) or (B)
d. Child care center
e. Church
f. School
2. Recreational vehicle park
PLAN AMENDMENT
C. Title 23 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Year 2000
Comprehensive Plan
1. Chapter 23.36, Rural Development
Goals:
1. To preserve and enhance the open spaces, rural character, scenic
values and natural resources of the county.
2. To guide the location and design of rural development so as to
minimize the public costs of facilities and services, to avoid
Demaris
TA-03-13/ZC-02-5
13
unnecessary expansion of service boundaries, and to preserve and
enhance the safety and viability of rural land uses.
3. To provide for the possible long term expansion of urban areas while
protecting the distinction between urban (urbanizing) land and rural
lands.
FINDINGS: The proposed plan amendment would recognize the history and existence of rural
commercial development on the subject property. The current uses of the property are of
relatively low intensity and the intensity of future uses will be limited by septic feasibility, lot
sizes and minimum setbacks. The lots comprising the subject property have access from Burgess
Road, a designated rural arterial. The subject property is centrally located to serve a large rural
population. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal is consistent
with these plan policies.
a. Section 23.36.080, Transportation
Policies:
15. Deschutes County shall consider roadway , function,
classification and capacity as criteria for plan map
amendments and zone changes to assure that proposed land
uses do not exceed the planned capacity of the transportation
system.
FINDINGS: The subject property is located at the intersection of Burgess Road, a designated
rural arterial, and River Pine Road, a designated rural local road. The record indicates Burgess
Road currently functions at LOS C, well above the minimum LOS acceptable to the county. The
Hearings Officer finds that the low intensity commercial uses that could be developed on the
subject property under the RC plan designation will not generate traffic exceeding the capacity of
Burgess Road.
2. Chapter 23.40, Unincorporated Communities
FINDINGS: As discussed in the zone change findings above, incorporated by reference herein,
the Hearings Officer has found the applicant has demonstrated the proposed zone change
satisfies all of the applicable approval criteria in Chapter 18 of the Deschutes County Code. The
same findings and conclusions support the applicant's proposed plan amendment.
The applicant proposed amended comprehensive plan language to include findings describing
and supporting the creation of the Rosland Rural Commercial Zone. Planning staff submitted
alternate language including minor revisions. The Hearings Officer finds staff's proposed
revisions are appropriate. Therefore, I find the provisions of Chapter 23.40 should be amended to
include the following new underscored language:
a. Section 23.40.010, Unincorporated Communities
Demaris
TA-03-13/ZC-02-5
14
The Rosland Rural Commercial area was zoned Rural Commercial in
2003 because it was recognized as a small rural center that was
established prior to the adoption of statewide zoning rules by
Deschutes County. The County designated the subiect property as
Rural Residential Exceptions Area on the 1979 PL -15 zoning maps.
This designation does not reflect the nature of the historically
committed land uses on the subiect property. In 2002 the County
changed the designation of the smallest acknowledged RSC areas to
Rural Commercial zoning to comply with the new state administrative
rules for Rural Communities. The Rosland Rural Commercial area
was mistakenly left off the 1979 PL -15 zoning maps. Since 1979, State
law regarding Rural Community Centers has changed. The County
has changed the designation of the smallest acknowledged RSC areas
to Rural Commercial zoning to comply with the new state
administrative rules for Rural Communities. The small size and rural
nature of the development in the Rosland Rural Commercial area
makes it appropriate to apply an RC rather than an RSC designation.
OAR 660-022-0010(10)(b) states that in order for an area to be zoned
"Rural Service Center" under the Unincorporated Communities rule,
it must be identified in a county's acknowledged comprehensive plan
as a "rural service center prior to the adoption of OAR 660-022
(October 28, 1994) or be listed with the Department of Land
Conservation and Development's January 30, 1997 "Survey of
Oregon's Unincorporated Communities." The Rosland Rural
Commercial area does not meet either of these requirements and the
level of development on the subiect property is rural in character and
intensity.
b. Section 23.040.060, Rural Commercial - Deschutes Junction,
Deschutes River Woods Store, Rosland and Spring River
The County has also applied the new Rural Commercial plan
designation to the Rosland commercial center which has historically
been committed to commercial type uses and has served the area as
such since prior to adoption of zoning regulations. No new exceptions
are required as the subiect properties are in an acknowledged
exception area.
A. Introduction
2. Post -Acknowledgment Plan Amendment
The owner of the Rosland commercial center sought
approval of a post -acknowledgment plan amendment in
Demaris
TA-03-13/ZC-02-5
15
2002. The amendment was sought to confirm her right
to continue to operate the commercial center as it has
been operated since 1973. The center was recognized
because it is small and rural in character and would
qualify for a goal exception as the land is physically
developed with rural commercial uses.
3. Rural Commercial
The Rosland Rural Commercial boundary includes
approximately 4.07 acres near the intersection of
Bureess and River Pine Roads. The remainder is
surrounded by exceutions land zoned RR -10.
B. Land Use Planning
1. Existing Land Uses.
The Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan designates
Deschutes Junctions Deschutes River Woods Store,
Rosland and Spring River as Rural Commercial.
C. Policies
2. Rural Commercial zoning shall be applied to Deschutes
Junction, Deschutes River Woods Store, Rosland and
Spring River.
4. County Comprehensive Plan policies and land use
regulations shall ensure that new uses authorized within
the Deschutes Junction, Deschutes River Woods Store,
Rosland and Spring River areas do not adversely affect
agricultural and forest uses in the surrounding areas.
D. Oregon Administrative Rules
1. Division 660-22, Unincorporated Communities
a. Section 660.22.000, Purpose
(1) The purpose of this division is to establish a policy for the
planning and zoning of unincorporated communities that
recognizes the importance of these communities in rural
Oregon. It is intended to expedite the planning process for
counties by reducing their need to take exceptions to statewide
planning goals when planning and zoning unincorporated
Demaris
TA-03-13/ZC-02-5
16
communities.
(2) This division interprets Goals 11 & 14 concerning urban and
rural development outside urban growth boundaries and
applies only to unincorporated communities defined in OAR
660-22-0010.
FINDINGS: The proposed Rosland Rural Commercial Zone is comprised of property that
received an exception to Goals 3 or 4 when it was designated and zoned RR -10 in 1979. The
proposed plan amendment will allow this exceptions area to be zoned RC and therefore will
maintain uses that are rural in character and intensity. The subject property is located outside any
urban growth boundary and city limit.
b. Section 660-22-0010, Definitions
(10) Unincorporated Community means a settlement with the
following characteristics:
(a) It is made up primarily of lands subject to an exception
to Statewide Planning Goal 3, Goal 4 or both;
FINDINGS: The subject property is comprised entirely of property designated Rural Residential
Exceptions Area in the county's comprehensive plan. Therefore, exceptions from Goals 3 and 4
were taken when the county adopted its 1979 comprehensive plan.
(b) It is either identified in a county's acknowledged
comprehensive plan as a "rural community", "service
center", "resort community", or similar term before
this division was adopted (October 28, 1994) or it is
listed in the Department of Land Conservation and
Development's January 30, 1997 "Survey of Oregon's
Unincorporated Communities";
FINDINGS: The subject property is not identified as a rural community, service center, resort
community or similar term in the comprehensive plan and therefore does not constitute an
"unincorporated community."
(c) It is outside of the urban growth boundary of any city.
FINDINGS: The subject property is not located within a UGB of any city. The closest UGB is
the Bend UGB which is approximately 20 miles north of the subject property.
(d) It is not incorporated as a city.
FINDINGS: The subject property is not within an incorporated city.
(e) It met the definition of one of four types of
unincorporated communities in sections (6) through (9)
Demaris
TA-03-13/ZC-02-5
17
of this rule, and included the uses described in those
definitions, prior to the adoption of this definition
(October 28, 1994).
FINDINGS: The subject property does not meet the definition of any of the four types of
unincorporated communities in sections 6 through 9 of this section. Therefore, the Hearings
Officer finds the property is not an unincorporated community subject to OAR 660 Division 22.
2. Chapter 660-12, Transportation Planning
a. Section 660-12-060, Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments
(1) Amendments to functional plans, acknowledged
comprehensive plans, and land use regulations which
significantly affect a transportation facility shall assure that
allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function,
capacity and performance standards (e.g. level of service,
volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the identified facility.
FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, the subject property has access from both
Burgess Road, a designated rural arterial street, and River Pine Road, a designated rural local
road. The record indicates the Burgess Road currently operates at LOS C and that the county has
issued access permits on Burgess Road for the existing commercial uses on the subject property.
The applicant is not proposing any new development in conjunction with the proposed plan
amendment and zone change. The Hearings Officer has found the size of the lots comprising the
subject property, the required minimum setbacks and the feasibility of septic systems will serve
to limit the amount and intensity of commercial development on the subject property. Therefore,
I find the proposed plan amendment and zone change will not significantly affect a transportation
facility.
IV. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearings Officer hereby
RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the applicant's proposed plan amendment redesignating the
subject property, including Lot 6 in Block 2 of Ahern Acres, from Rural Residential Exception
Area to Rural Commercial, and the proposed zone change from Rural Residential — 10 Acre
Minimum to Rural Commercial, through the following actions:
1. amending the comprehensive plan and zoning map to create the Rosland Rural
Commercial Zone on the subject property;
2. amending the text of the comprehensive plan to include the new findings and policies set
forth in the findings above; and
3. amending the text of the zoning ordinance to include new RC Zone provisions set forth in
the findings above.
Demaris
TA-03-13/ZC-02-5
18
Dated this day of April, 2003.
Mailed this day of April, 2003.
Karen H. Green, Hearings Officer
Demaris
TA-03-13/ZC-02-5
19
a