Loading...
2004-1471-Minutes for Meeting December 08,2004 Recorded 12/29/2004COUNTY OFFICIAL TES NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS IBJ COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 12/29/2004 03;01;15 PM 1111111111tiIIII1111111 1111III2004-1i DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK CERTIFICATE PAGE E S C9 0 V �AA This page must be included if document is re-recorded. Do Not remove from original document. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2004 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St.., Bend Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tom De Wolf. Also present were Mike Maier, County Administrator; Kevin Harrison and Catharine White, Community Development; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; media representative Chris Barker; and five other citizens. Chair Daly opened the meeting at 10: 05 a.m. 1. Before the Board was Citizen Input. None was offered. 2. Before the Board was the Continuation of a Public Hearing (from December 6), and Consideration of the Adoption of a Text Amendment to the Landscape Management Combining Zone regarding Rimrock Setback Exceptions. Catharine White gave an overview of the item. She said that each Commissioner went to the site with staff independently; this resulted in a memorandum that includes ideas to handle the issue from this point forward. The biggest issues are how to measure the rimrock setback and how to deal with the building height. Part of the text of the memorandum includes the Commissioners' responses at the public hearing. (She then read this portion of the document, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 8, 2004 Page 1 of 8 Pages Commissioner Luke stated that after the site visits, they need to determine where the rimrock is. It may not show up on the plot plan. He asked if it is the responsibility of the applicant to determine this for each lot. Commissioner DeWolf said that may be the case, if the Board chooses to measure from the rimrock. He stated a second option would be to ignore the rimrock and use the average of the two adjacent properties, and split the difference. Catherine White said there is another option, as presented by the applicant, which is to take the average of the setback of the adjacent lots. Another option is to measure from the rimrock and property lines to the furthest point and closest point, then average it, with the house to be located twenty feet back from that. Commissioner Luke noted that the problem is where the rimrock is located. Perhaps they could measure form the street to the adjacent houses and split the difference. If it is located at some point from the rimrock, they would still have to determine where that actually is. Commissioner DeWolf suggested they ignore the rimrock. Commissioner Luke said the street line is straighter, but this could affect other lots. Commissioner DeWolf suggest that the ordinance change be limited to lots of less than one-half acre with lawfully established homes on both sides, in existence from 1992. There probably are no others. Laurie Craghead noted that it appears that Commissioner Luke is stating what is on page 4, measuring from the street side and ignoring the rimrock. Commissioner Luke stated that the rimrock isn't being ignored; they are just not measuring from it. Catharine White then pointed out the properties on an oversized map. Commissioner Daly said that he did a site visit with Ms. White after the other Commissioners went out. He decided to test it. Ms. White crawled out on the rimrock and measured using both scenarios. Commissioner DeWolf s scenario would put the house about four feet closer to the rimrock. Commissioner Daly also noted that there are tall pine trees in front of the lot, and it would be difficult for anyone on the river to see a building. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 8, 2004 Page 2 of 8 Pages Commissioner Luke explained that the subdivision has a house located on every lot. He said he believes there is a consensus of the Commissioners that this situation needs to be fixed. He doesn't see a problem with a house being built on the lot. The only possible problem would be unintended consequences; he would like to limit this possibility as much as possible. The question is, how far back should the house be placed. Commissioner DeWolf noted that one of the adjacent homes is significantly taller than the other one. He has no problem with a 24 -foot height limit, but the roof should slope away from the river - parallel to the river - to reduce the impact. Commissioner Luke added that the roof should be of a natural color. Commissioner Daly agreed. Ms. Craghead asked if the Board is saying that this would still comply with the comprehensive plan and requirements of the EEC. Commissioner DeWolf said yes, because of the limited impact. Commissioner Daly agreed, but added that he doesn't want to make a habit of this type of decision. Commissioner Luke noted that this is a very limited application, and it is unlikely that there is another lot that will fall into this category. Kevin Harrison stated that working from the property line along the street would be easier for the applicant and staff, since there would be an easily identifiable point. Commissioner Luke asked about decking; he suggested the same process. Each property has a deck. Mr. Harrison said that if decks are less than 20" above the ground, no permit is required. However, the setback pertains to both decks and houses. Ms. Craghead stated that it would be necessary to take out the wording, "not including decks". Commissioner DeWolf added that it could instead say that decks can't extend over the rimrock. Ms. Craghead noted that right now they can't go beyond the setback. Mr. Harrison said that what the Board is considering in terms of decking is a right that no one else has. Commissioner DeWolf stated that this is a single situation. If they apply the rest of the deck setback to this, there can be no deck. He suggested that it be stated that it can't protrude past the closet point of the rimrock. This will make it easier to administer. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 8, 2004 Page 3 of 8 Pages Commissioner Luke suggested that they take the average of the other decks. Decks are not permitted but a setback is required. If a complaint comes in, it becomes a code enforcement issue. The Board needs to establish where it should or could be. Commissioner Daly suggested wording that an average of the two adjacent decks be used, but it is not allowed to protrude over the edge of the rimrock. Ms. White said records don't show the height of the homes on either structure, and it will be the applicant's burden to show what they are. She added that solar ramifications would be applicable as well. At this time Chair Daly opened the public hearing. Jim Johnson, the applicant, stated that there are no solar ramifications, per the planners, since solar would be towards the river. He added that he appreciates the Board working towards a solution. His only concern was having the roof slope away from the river. He would like to have a dormer on that side of the house. Commissioner Luke replied that these are details that need to be worked out by the architect during the building permit process. Commissioner DeWolf added that the Board is doing its best, and it may be that Mr. Johnson will have to compromise a little on the design of the house. Kevin Harrison said that in a landscape management zone, on the side of the house facing the river, the chimney is the highest point. Commissioner DeWolf said that's the same situation on the other homes. The chimney needs to be higher than the peak of the house. He suggested it be a maximum of 26 feet. Commissioner Luke agreed that the ridge shouldn't be higher than 24 feet, with other protrusions at 26 feet maximum. That would be the same as the one adjacent house. Ms. White asked if the word "infill" should be eliminated. Ms. Craghead indicated it should. Ms. White noted that in the staff report, another section of the Code addresses rimrock setbacks, and duplicates what is in the landscape management zone, but is not located within a landscape management zone. Commissioner Luke said that common sense needs to be used. There are homes on both sides of the river in this location, and this home will not have an adverse affect on the river corridor. This is one problem with the current land use process. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 8, 2004 Page 4 of 8 Pages Commissioner Daly added that he is amazed this has taken two years, hundreds of hours of staff time, and a lot of the applicant's funds. Something is wrong with the system, and this is what triggered the passage of Measure 37. Commissioner DeWolf noted that if Mr. Johnson had hired a land use attorney two years ago, this probably would have been solved earlier. Commissioner Daly replied that this isn't necessarily so. Ms. Craghead asked if this should be adopted by emergency. Ms. White indicated the documents should be done by December 29. Otherwise the numbering sequence will have to change. Citizen Phil Philiben asked what happens if the front of the lot isn't a straight line. Commissioner Luke replied that it is. All of the other restrictions will bring this down to just the one lot anyway. Commissioner DeWolf said that it could be addressed on January 5 if the December 29 won't work. 3. Before the Board was a Discussion and Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2004-133, Supporting an Application for City of Bend CDGB Grant Funds for the Oregon Microenterprise Network. Allan Flood, the Coordinator of the Central Oregon Microenterprise Program, read a letter of introduction relating to expanding the program. The program now includes Bend, Redmond and Sisters, and he would like to see it expanded to include Deschutes County, Redmond and Sisters, with Bend being handled separately. At this point ten micro -entrepreneurs have been convinced to participate. These companies are those with five or fewer employees. A CDGB grant is being applied for, with Sisters being the lead applicant and Redmond and the County as supporting partners. Bend can no longer act as lead applicant. DEWOLF: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 8, 2004 Page 5 of 8 Pages 4. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2004- 130, Transferring Appropriations within the Deschutes County Solid Waste Equipment Reserve Fund. LUKE: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. (Commissioner DeWolf was not in the room.) 5. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Resolution No. 2004- 131, Transferring Appropriations within the Sheriffs Office Fund. LUKE: Move.approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. (Commissioner DeWolf was not in the room.) 6. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Letter Appointing Mike Shiel to the Board of Howell's Hilltop Acres Special Road District, through December 31, 2007. LUKE: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. (Commissioner DeWolf was not in the room.) CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE 9-1-1 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 7. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the 9-1-1 County Service District in the Amount of $6,204.85. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 8, 2004 Page 6 of 8 Pages LUKE: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. CONVENED AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE EXTENSION/4-11 COUNTY SERVICE DISTRICT 8. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for the Extension/4-11 County Service District in the Amount of $387.24. LUKE: Move approval. DALY: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. RECONVENED AS THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 9. Before the Board was Consideration of Approval of Weekly Accounts Payable Vouchers for Deschutes County in the Amount of $418,090.60. LUKE: Move approval, including a lottery grant to Bend Education Foundation, and the elimination of a bill that was duplicated in error. DALY: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Abstain. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. (Split vote: Luke and Daly, yes; De Wolf abstained.) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 8, 2004 Page 7 of 8 Pages 10. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of a Letter Appointing Heather Risseeuw to the Board of Special Road District #1, through December 31, 2008. LUKE: Move approval. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Being no further discussion, the hearing adjourned at 11:30 a.m. DATED this 8th Day of December 2004 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Attachment ennis R. Luke, Commissioner v Tom eWolf, Co ner Exhibit A: Staff memorandum dated December 6, 2004 (16 pages) Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Meeting Wednesday, December 8, 2004 Page 8 of 8 Pages Memorandum To: Board of County Commissioners From: Catharine White, Associate Planner (ext. 6719; email: cathyw@deschutes.org)d�&N�' U CC: Kevin Harrison, Principal Planner Date: 12/06/04 Re: Proposed text amendment to the rimrock exceptions code in the Landscape Management Combining Zone, Chapter 18.84, of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance. (File No. TA -04-3) On November 30, 2004, the Board held a public hearing on the proposed text amendment to amend the exceptions language in the rimrock section of the Landscape Management Combining zone. The Board continued the public hearing to December 8, 2004 at the regularly scheduled Board meeting. In addition, each Board member conducted a separate site visit with staff to the applicant's property located in the River Bend Estates along the Deschutes River prior to the December 8, 2004 meeting. Attached are suggested options for the Board's consideration in response to the site visits conducted with staff. Attached: - Applicant's proposed text amendment - Options Exhibit Page �_ of\ Lp APPLICANT'S PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT 18.84.090. Setbacks. D. Rimrock Setback. New structures (including decks or additions to existing structures) shall be set back 50 feet from the rimrock in an LM Zone. An exception to this setback may be granted to as close as 20 feet of the rimrock pursuant to the provisions of DCC 18.84.090(E). E. Rimrock Setback Exceptions. An exception to the 50 -foot rimrock setback may be granted by the Planning Director or Hearings Body, subject to the following standards and criteria: 1. An exception shall be granted when the Planning Director or Hearings Body finds that: a. A lesser setback will make the structure less visible or completely screened from the river or stream; or b. The subject lot or parcel was a lot of record prior to the adoption of this ordinance, or c. Dwellings (including decks) on both lots or parcels abutting the subject lot within 50 feet of the rimrock and the adjacent buildings are within 100 feet of the lot line of the subject property; or d. Adherence to the 50 -foot setback would prevent the structure from being sited on the lot. 2. A dwelling qualifying for a rimrock setback exception under the criteria set forth above shall be located as follows. a. The structure shall be designed and sited to minimize the visual impact when viewed from the ordinary high water mark on the far side of the river. This shall be determined by viewing the property from the ordinary high water mark immediately across from the center of the river frontage on which the structure is proposed with like evaluations being made 300 feet upstream and downstream on either side of that point over the entire length of river frontage on which the structure is proposed. b. Existing trees and shrubs which reduce the visibility of the proposed structure shall be retained. c. The height of the structure shall not exceed the setback from the edge of the rimrock, except in an infill situation as described in (d), below. d. No structure (including decks) shall be located closer than 20 feet from the edge of the rimrock unless the Planning Director or Hearings Body finds that the lesser setback will make the structure less visible or the structure is completely screened from the river or e. Where multiple nonagricultural structures are proposed on a lot or parcel, the structures shall be grouped or clustered so as to maintain a general appearance of open landscape for the affected area. This shall require a maintenance of at least 65 percent open space along hmrocks within subject lots or parcels. • Page 2 Exhibit Page _-2-- of 1 -P STAFF'S SUGGESTED TEXT Staff suggests the following changes to the proposed text in response to the Board's comments at the public hearing and to better reflect the applicant's situation of building a home on a vacant lot less than one acre where residences are located within 100 feet on either side: d. No structure (including decks) shall be located closer than 20 feet from the edge of the rimrock unless the Planning Director or Hearings Body finds that the lesser setback will make the structure less visible or the structure is completely screened from the river or stream. Exception: For VACANT lots or parcels less than ONE-HALF acre, existing prior to the adoption of ORDINANCE 92-034 WITH UNDULATING RIMROCK , AND where there arerilsliR�►s LAWFULLY ESTABLISHED RESIDENCES WITHIN 100 FEET OF THE LOT LINE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY on both of the abutting lots with RIMROCK earw♦ ; setbacks less than the required depth (NOT INCLUDING DECKS), the setback CANNOT BE LESS THAN met exceed the average setback on the abutting RESIDENTIAL buildings. OPTIONS FOR RIMROCK SETBACK AND BUILDING HEIGHT In response to the site visits, staff has provided the following options for the Board's consideration regarding the rimrock setback and the height of the proposed dwelling. SETBACKS: In addition to the applicant's proposed text, the following are suggestions to determining the rimrock setback of the dwelling. Option 1: The rimrock setback is determined by a licensed engineer by taking the average of the furthest and the closest points of the rimrock on the property as measured from the front yard line and then applying a 20 foot setback from this line. See drawing below: �SGku�eS 12i��(Z.. • Page 3 'RtVP.Ip -Drive F-CVK eoc K ftVefa�2 t W VC0c r - = --Pi S+A Vl( f 1 f✓ey-4 ya►c� Lcwe +o �(mv6ckC SQ iia G Ic t5 ZCs' aril A4.& -Ayr' wVoC-l: Exhibit_ Page �--,) of JLV Option 2: The setback is measured as the average distance between the abutting houses on the side facing the river or stream. See diagram below: V2SC-ln.v4eS R-% Ve-IZ �roPns�a exec-r�� rrwt pmt,_ . � _ _ 1Ju32.lt(n k, 'DTZ =.Set)DMCK HEIGHT: The applicant's�proposal eliminates the height restriction for rimrock setbacks. In addition to the applicant's proposal, the following are suggestions to address building height: 1. Limit the height of the dwelling to 20 feet. 2. The height of the building is the average height of the abutting residences as determined by a licensed engineer. ROOFLINE: The roofline of the house is sloped away from the river and the peak of the roofline is no closer to the river than the average distance between the roofline peaks of the adjacent homes. [Staff comment: If the Board selects a rimrock setback that results in locating the new home an average distance between the adjacent homes, the roofline peak will also be setback provided the roofline slopes away from the river.] e Page 4 Exhibit Page _ of I l_o 18.128.200. Cluster development (single-family residential uses only). A. Such uses may be authorized as a conditional use only after consideration of the following factors: 1. Need for residential uses in the immediate area of the proposed development. 2. Environmental, social and economic impacts likely to result from the development, including impacts on public facilities such as schools and roads. 3. Effect of the development on the rural character of the area. 4. Effect of the development on agricultural, forestry, wildlife or other natural resource uses in the area. B. The conditional use shall not be granted unless the following findings are made: 1. Human *i-fies, inelu inn a All development and alterations of the natural landscape, will be limited to 35 percent of the land and at least 65 percent shall be kept in open space uses. .,rte etea .. e., 150 re ,. either- side of any let b,,;,aing, .ea or -ether- s „a, f edit.,. In cases where the natural landscape has been altered or destroyed by a prior land use, such as surface mining, dam construction or timber removal, the County may allow reclamation and enhancement of the open space area if enhancement creates or improves wetlands, creates or improves wildlife habitat, restores native vegetation or provides for agricultural or forestry use of theproperty after reclamation. 2. The area not dedicated to open space or common use may be platted as residential dwelling lots or parcels that are a minimum of two acres and a maximum of three acres in size. Their use shall be restricted to single-family use. Single-family use may include accessory uses and County authorized home occupations. Uses permitted in the open space area may include the management of natural resources, trail systems or other outdoor uses that are consistent with the character of the natural landscape. 3. In the Wildlife Area Combining Zone, in addition to compliance with the WA zone development restrictions, uses and activities must be consistent with the required Wildlife Management Plan. The Plan shall be approved if it proposes all of the followingin n the required open space area: a. Preserves, protects and enhances wildlife habitat for WA zone protected species as specified in the County Comprehensive Plan (DCC Title 23), and b. Prohibits golf courses, tennis courts, swimming_ pools, marinas, ski runs or other developed recreational uses of similar intensity. Low intensity recreational uses such as properly located bicycle, equestrian and pedestrian trails, wildlife viewing areas and fitness courses may be permitted: and c. Provides a supplemental, private open space area on home lots by imposing Mecial yard setback of 100 feet on yards adjacent to required open space areas. In this yard, no structures other than fences consistent with DCC 18.88.070 may be constructed. The size of the yard may be reduced during development review if the County finds that, through the review of the wildlife management plan, natural landscape protection or wildlife values will achieve equal orer after protection through the approval of a reduced setback. In granting an adjustment, the County may require that a specific building envelope be shown on the final plat or may impose other conditions that Exhibit {� Page _C�_ of I( assure the natural resource values relied upon to justify the exception to the special yard requirements will be protected. d. Off-road motor vehicle use shall be prohibited in the open space area. e. Adequate corridors on the cluster property to allow for wildlife passage through the development. 3 4. All lots within the development shall be contiguous to one another except for occasional corridors to allow for human passage, wildlife travel, natural features such as a stream or bluff or development of property divided by a public road which shall not be wider than the average lot width, unless the Planning Director or Hearings Body finds that special circumstances warrant a wider corridor. r_�s�sfeers�rn��� 5. All applicable subdivision or partition requirements contained in DCC Title 17, the Subdivision/Partition Ordinance, shall be met. 6. The total number of units may shall be established by reference to the lot size standards of the applicable zoning district and combining zones e*eeed the ever -all density established by the nikimuffl lot size ef the zene in whieh the develepm&4 is pfepesed by not me than ZZ p ent 7. The open space of the proposed development shall may be platted as a separate parcel or in common ownership of some or all of the clustered lots or parcels its. For any open space or common area provided as a part of the cluster development, the owner shall submit proof of deed restrictions recorded in the County records. The deed restrictions shall preclude all future rights to construct a residential dwelling on the lot, parcel or tract designated as open space or common area for as long as the lot, parcel or tract remains outside an urban growth boundary. The deed shall also assure that the use of the open space shall be continued in the use allowed by the approved cluster development plan, H the open e&ea shag unless the whole development is brought inside an urban growth boundary. If open space is to be owned by a homeowner's association or if private roads are approved, a homeowner's association must be formed to manage the space and/or road areas. The bylaws of the association must be recorded prior to or concurrent with the filing of the final plat. If the open space is located within the Wildlife Area Combining Zone, the management plan for the open space must be recorded with the deed restrictions or bylaws of the homeowner's association. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in other parts of the County's land use regulations, Rroads within a cluster the development shall meet the mquimmerAs of th may be private roads and lots or parcels MU be created that front on private roads only. These roads must meet the private road standards of DCC Title 17, and are not subject to public road standards under DCC Title 17. An agreement acceptable to the Road Department and County Legal Counsel shall be required for the maintenance of pdvLate thew roads. Public roads may be required where street continuation standards of DCC Title 17 call for street connections and the County finds that the benefits of street extension are significant and needed in the future, given the established pattern of street development on adjoining properties and transportation distribution needs. The area dedicated for public road rights of way within or adjacent to a Exhibit P� Page _(D— of I l planned or cluster development or required by the County during cluster development review shall be subtracted from the gross acreage of the cluster development prior to calculating compliance with open space requirements. 4-89.All service connections shall be the minimum length necessary and underground where feasible. 10. The number of new dwelling units to be clustered does not exceed 10. 11. The number of new lots or parcels to be created does not exceed 10. 12. The development is not to be served by a new community sewer system or by any new extension of a sewer system from within an urban growth boundary or from within an unincorporated community. 13. The development will not force a sig i ficant change in accepted farm or forest practices on nearby lands devoted to farm or forest use, and will not significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices there. 14. All dwellings in a cluster development must be setback a minimum of 100 feet from the boundary line of an adjacent lot zoned Exclusive Farm Use that is receiving special assessment for farm use. C. All applications shall be accompanied by a plan with the following information: A plat map meeting all the subdivision requirements of DCC Title 17, the Subdivision/Partition Ordinance. 2. A draft of the deed restrictions required by DCC 18.128.200(B)(7). An—epen spaee ffiai�gemefA plan and deed Y-estfie4iefts that retain the . . pefpetttRy. 3. A written document establishing an acceptable homeowners association assuring the maintenance of common property i. f any, in the development. 4. In the WA Combining Zone, the applicant shall submit an evaluation of the property with a Wildlife Management Plan for the open space area, prepared by a wildlife biologist that includes the following: a. A description of the condition of the property and the current ability of the property to support use of the open space area by wildlife protected by the applicable WA zone during the periods specified in the comprehensive plan; and b. A description of the protected species and periods of protection identified by the comprehensive plan and the current use of the ppen space area; and c. A managementplan that contains prescriptions that will achieve compliance with the wildlife protection guidelines in the comprehensive plan. In overlay zones that are Exhibit 1� Page -1 of �� keyed to seasons or particular times of the year, restrictions or protections may varX based on the time of year. The management plan may also propose protections or enhancements of benefit to other types of wildlife that may be considered in weighing use impacts versus plan benefits. 5. Photog ohs and a narrative description of the natural landscape features of the open space areas of the subject properly. If the features are to be removed or developed, the applicant shall explain why removal is appropriate. 6. A description of the forestry or agricultural uses proposed, if anx D. Dimensional Standards: 1. Setbacks and height limitations shall be as prescribed in the zone in which the development is proposed unless adequate justification for variation is provided the Planning Director or Hearings Body, bt# in ne ease shall the setbaeks be less than 25 fiaet or- the heigM gFeat than 40 aet. 2. Minimum area for a cluster development shall be determined by the zone five aer-es uFA other -wise fireAted by the zaae in which it is proposed. E. Conditions for phased development shall be specified and performance bonds shall be required by the Planning Director or Hearings Body to assure completion of the project as stipulated, if required improvements are not completed prior to plattin& F. Prime Ddevelopments with private roads shall provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities that comply with the private road requirements of Title 17. if the bikeways e e eens4fueted . of the private feadway, 4hey shall be at least feef fiaet wide en eaeh side of the uneth-be een tnaeted to the ffii�fftwn standafd width ef 20 fiaet, sepafated bike paths built to GeupAy stande&ds shall be pfeNided. if separated paths are meant te be she&ed by pedestfians or- et eser-9, the miriftnuffi width shall be 12 feet. Bieyele end pedestrian f6eilifies shall eemeFA with G. Bicycle and pedestrian connections shall be provided at the ends of cul-de-sacs, at mid -block, between subdivision plats, etc., in the following situations. Connections shall have a 20 -foot right of way, with at least a 10 -foot wide useable surface, shall be as straight as possible, and shall not be more than 400 feet long. Wwhere the addition of a connection would reduce the walking or cycling distance to an existing or planned transit stop, school, shopping center, or neighborhood park by 400 feet and by at least 50 percent over other available routes. 2. For schools or commercial uses where the addition of a connection would reduce the walking or cycling distance to an existing or planned transit stop, school, shopping center, or neighborhood park by 200 feet or by at least 50 percent over other available routes. 3. For cul-de-sacs or dead end streets where a street connection is determined by the Hearings Officer or Planning Director to be unfeasible or inappropriate provided that a biUcle or pedestrian connection is not required where the logical extension of the road that terminates Exhibit A Page R_ of kLo_ in a cul de sac or dead end street to the nearest boundary of the development would not create a direct connection to an area street, sidewalk or bikeway. The County may pprove a cluster development without bicycle or pedestrian connections if connections interfere with wildlife passage through the subdivision harm wildlife habitat or alter landscape approved for protection in its natural state. H. A Conditions of Approval Agreement for the cluster development shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the final plat for the development. Exhibit A Page q of �� DCC 18.04.030, Definitions. "Cluster development" means a plapme development, at 'eas4 five , permitting the clustering of single or multi -family residences on eee part of the property, with individual lots of not less than two acres in size and not exceeding two three acres in size. Ifidi-A"! lots tr el eat '' b {r No commercial �- _�� �� ��u cal or industrial uses not allowed by the applicable zoning ordinance are permitted. "Open space" means lands used for agricultural or forest uses and any land area that would, if preserved and continued in its present use,-- A. se, A. Ceonserve and enhance natural or scenic resources; B. !!protect air, streams or water supply; C. PPpromote conservation of soils, wetlands, beaches or marshes; D. Ceonserve landscaped areas such as public or private golf courses, that reduce pollution and enhance the value of adjoining or neighboring property; E. Eenhance the value to the public of adjoining or neighboring parks, forests, wildlife preserves, nature reservations or other open space; F. Eenhance recreation opportunities; G. Ppreserve historic, geological and archeological sites; H. Ppromote orderly urban development; and I. Mminimize conflicts between farm and nonfarm uses. Exhibit Y--\ Page �i of l �p 17.22.030. Improvement requirements. In the approval of a land partition, the County shall consider the need for street and other improvements, and may require as a condition of approval any improvements that may be required for a subdivision under the provisions of DCC Title 17. All roads in partitions shall be dedicated to the public without reservation or restriction, except where private roads are allowed by the applicable zoning law, such as in planned or cluster developments. 17.36.180. Frontage. A. Each lot or parcel shall abut upon a public road, or when located within a planned development or cluster development, a private road, for at least 50 feet, except for lots or parcels fronting on the bulb of a cul-de-sac, then the minimum frontage shall be 30 feet, and except for partitions off of U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management roads: In the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area Residential Center District, lot widths may be less than 50 feet in width, as specified in DCC 18.61, Table 2: La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area Zoning Standards. B. All side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines or radial to curved streets wherever practical. Exhibit Page of ( O 17.48.180. Private roads. The following minimum road standards shall apply for private roads: A. The minimum paved roadway width shall be 204 feet in planned unit developments and cluster developments Yr :dedin „w developments, thminifoom„a r-eadway width Shall be 28 feet, ifielUdifig with two -foot wide gravel shoulders; B. Minimum radius of curvature, 50 feet; C. Maximum grade, 12 percent; D. At least one road name sign will be provided at each intersection for each road; E. A method for continuing road maintenance acceptable to the County; F. Private road systems shall include provisions for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. In cluster and planned developments limited to ten dwelling units, the bicycle and pedestrian traffic can be accommodated within the 20 -foot wide road. In other developments, £shoulder bikeways shall be a minimum of four feet wide, paved and striped, with no on -street parking allowed within the bikeway, and AZwhen private roads are developed to a width of less than 28 feet, bike paths constructed to County standards shall be required. (Ord. 2001-016 § 1, 2001; Ord. 93-012 § 53, 1993; Ord. 81-043 § 1, Exhibit A, § 8.130, 198 1) Exhibit_ Page J'Z of I Lp Chapter 23.24 RURAL DEVELOPMENT 23.24.010. Rural Development. 23.24.020. Goals. 23.24.030. Policies. 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 publics 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. Chapter 23.24 Exhibit Page ? of I to 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 neral 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. 1. 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 Chapter 23.24 2Exhibit--ft- Page 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 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. 2. 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). 3. 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 cluster depvelepmet4 and planned developments, rather than parcelization, the county shall permit smaller lot sizes and the continued use of special lot size requirements in cluster and planned developments in rural residential exception areas develepmenAs. 4. Cluster and planned developments shall maintain a minimum of 65 per cent of the land in open space, forest tier 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 may be private roads and shall meet County standards, be dedieeAed to the publie and may 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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 mile of acknowledged urban growth boundaries, use of the planned or cluster development concepts shall permit development w e e of 100 per- eenA in density develepmei# in Multiple Use Agriculture or Rural Residential zones (not under a combining zone which would prevent such) with a minimum lot size or equivalent 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 or salvage yards and manufacturers of hazardous materials (requiring long Chapter 23.24 3 ----- `fICII"n^"- - - Exhibit R Page _ArD_ of j�l 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. • Other. 13. 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). 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. More effective dog control program should be considered by the County to counter existing problems. 17. Pre-existing status shall be granted to 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. 18. All development in Deschutes County shall comply with all applicable state and federal rules, regulations and standards. (Ord. 2002-001 § 2, 2002, Ord. 2002-005 § 1, 2002, Ord 2002-001§ 2; 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.)4- Chapter 23.24 4 - Exhibit Page �ko— of u