The URL can be used to link to this page

2004-1474-Minutes for Meeting November 30,2004 Recorded 12/29/2004DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS Cd 1004'1414 NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 12/2912004 03;01;15 PM 1111111111111111111111111111111 2004-1 DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK CERTIFICATE PAGE This page must be included if document is re-recorded. Do Not remove from original document. �vTES C 0 { Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orp- MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2004 Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend The purpose of the hearing was to discuss File #T4 -04-3, regarding rimrock setbacks currently allowed in the Landscape Management Combining Zone by allowing structures to be located closer than twenty feet from the edge of the rimrock. Present were Commissioners Dennis R. Luke, Tom De Wolf and Michael M. Daly. Also present were Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Catharine White, Melanie Moss and Kevin Harrison, Community Development; and three other citizens. No representatives of the media were present. Chair Daly opening the hearing at 3:05 p.m., and read the opening statement (a copy is attached as Exhibit A.) In regard to the disclosure of bias, prejudgment or personal interest, there were none offered. There were no challenges from the public. Catharine White then reviewed the staff report, and summarized her previous memorandum regarding the process and issues raised before the Planning Commission. She referred to an oversized map showing areas located around various waterways and the lots that may be affected by the proposed changes. (She referred to documents submitted by the applicant, a copy of which is attached as Exhibits B and C.) Commissioner Daly asked if the average setback would be determined by stretching a line between the neighboring houses. Ms. White noted that the rimrock undulates and is not a straight line. Calculating the average is more accurate; stretching a line could end up with a structure being closer to the rimrock. Minutes of Public Hearing regarding a Text Amendment to the Rimrock Setback Zone Tuesday, November 30, 2004 Page 1 of 8 Pages Commissioner Daly pointed out that in this case, no one seems to be sure where the rimrock really is. Ms. White stated that a planner staked it, and a definition for rimrock is available, and is in the documents the Board has. The applicant can hire a surveyor to figure out where the 45 -degree slope is located. The County stakes the property for courtesy purposes, but if someone disagrees, a professional can be hired. Jim Johnson, the applicant, asked staff that if it is possible to formally appeal the locations where staff staked the rimrock. Kevin Harrison replied that the rimrock setback is stated in the decision and can be appealed. Commissioner Luke asked that if an applicant has a certified engineer survey and show where the 45 -degree portion starts, would this be acceptable. Mr. Harrison replied that it would become part of the land use application. Ms. White stated that there only one person testified at the hearing; that was Phil Philiben of the Friends of Bend, who was concerned about unintended consequences of allowing this to go forward. There was a public hearing on August 26, and on September 9 a site visit was conducted. The Planning Commission met again on September 23 and a motion to approve failed. There was no Planning Commission agreement on this issue. The landscape management plan was adopted in 1992. In findings at that time, one of the most controversial items was the rimrock setback standard. It was a balance between scenic values and property owners' rights. The Planning Commission at that time proposed something similar to what the applicant has proposed, but it wasn't adopted. The Department of Fish & Wildlife submitted comments prior to the August 26 hearing. They and Oregon State parks opposed the change primarily because the existing code was a collaborative effort at the time. As a part of the process, several GIS studies were done. The Planning Commission requested staff do a more cumulative analysis. Depending upon the method used, there could be anywhere from four to forty lots that could be impacted. The GIS study proved inconclusive. Every lot should be examined from the ground, but this is cost prohibitive. Minutes of Public Hearing regarding a Text Amendment to the Rimrock Setback Zone Tuesday, November 30, 2004 Page 2 of 8 Pages Ms. White said that page 5 has recommendations and suggestions. It needs to be consistent with the Deschutes River study from 1986 and with the comprehensive plan. Another section of the Code deals with the landscape management zone, and that text would need to be made consistent. Commissioner Luke pointed out that it would be important to know if the adjacent structures were lawfully established, if averages are going to be used. Laurie Craghead stated that this has an impact on a qualified resource, and that is why the comprehensive plan is involved. An ECEE analysis under Goal 5 may be required since many properties could be affected, and the burden would be on the applicant. An on -the -ground study could be done to look at each lot. Commissioner Daly asked if common senses mattered at all in this case. Commissioner Luke said he remembers when this started, and people couldn't even put in a farm building without public access. Red barns weren't allowed. These and other requirements were pulled out. He asked Melanie Moss about the GIS study. She replied that they looked at a limited list of criteria in an effort to get an idea of how many properties were similar to this one. They only examined those along the Deschutes River. The second part of the analysis was done at the request of the Planning Commission and staff. The first was to determine through GIS which 45 -degree areas there were and which parcels were affected. With the available data, this could not be accurately determined. There were results but they were inconclusive. Ms. Moss said the second study looked at all the listed rivers. The slope information was not accurate enough in the first analysis. The second part showed generally how many lots this could affect. These were lots that are one acre or less in size, vacant and adjacent to those with structures. This was an estimate and none of the properties were viewed. It is difficult to provide an absolutely conclusive answer using GIS information. (She referred to an oversized map at this time.) Chair Daly then opened the hearing for public testimony. Jim Johnson, the applicant, spoke. He asked about the criteria used to examine the forty lots referenced. Minutes of Public Hearing regarding a Text Amendment to the Rimrock Setback Zone Tuesday, November 30, 2004 Page 3 of 8 Pages Ms. White said that the Planning Commission had asked for a more comprehensive analysis in order to determine potential cumulative effect. These were for lots less than an acre, vacant, that existed prior to the adoption of the ordinance, with buildings on adjacent lots. Two different studies resulted, neither of which gives a complete picture. The data available cannot produce the results the Planning Commission wanted. Someone would have had to look at all of the properties. Ms. Moss added that forty lots were selected, based on a few criteria. Not even a thorough analysis of all of the criteria lined out, and slope was not considered; it was a general guess. The analysis also didn't include information on accessibility. Commissioner DeWolf reiterated that the Planning Commission asked this question, but there was not enough information to make it useful. Mr. Johnson pointed out that only forty lots met the criteria of the study in regard to lot size. Commissioner Luke stated that even if there were only three lots, the effect would still have to be considered. Clearly this needs more study. Commissioner DeWolf stated that the information is not valid on a system -wide basis. It appears that no one knows for sure. Commissioner Daly pointed out that just producing the maps doesn't show what the visibility would be for each lot. Ms. White said that they were just trying to achieve an overall idea as to how many lots could be affected. It wouldn't give an actual analysis of the site plan, which would have to be done on a case-by-case basis anyway. Ms. Moss added that this was only done for the northern portion of the County since there is more potential for rimrock there. Mr. Johnson distributed a ground analysis of the GIS lots listed. (A copy is attached as Exhibit B.) He said that he has personally visited 90% of the lots listed. He said at the first Planning Commission meeting, using slope criteria and if established prior to 1992, seven properties met the criteria. As the amendment is written, the house would have had to have been built prior to 1992. Having the lot be one acre or less would be part of the amendment. There are only forty lots that meet these criteria, and most aren't on rimrock. The ones in Tumalo are in the flood plain. Minutes of Public Hearing regarding a Text Amendment to the Rimrock Setback Zone Tuesday, November 30, 2004 Page 4 of 8 Pages Commissioner Luke stated that he wants to know how many there might be, whether there are three or many more. It may take a professional to make that determination. Even just three could adversely affect the river. Mr. Johnson said that he could reduce the number of lots to one. (He distributed and read a statement; a copy is attached as Exhibit C.) Commissioner DeWolf asked about language on page 2, and why the wrong amendment language was sent to the U.S. Forest Service. Mr. Johnson said he talked with Walt Schloer of the Forest Service on this date, and Mr. Schloer agreed that if the amendment could be limited to affect just a few lots, it would be reasonable. Mr. Schloer also said that he got two copies of the amendment, which may mean that he got the wrong one first. Mr. Johnson added that when he came to the second Planning Commission meeting, a large map was displayed on the board, and he assumed it was sent to the Forest Service also. Ms. White said that there could have been some confusion because the application was submitted under another text amendment that was withdrawn. A different one was submitted at a later date. Mr. Johnson went on to say that it doesn't think the County should need to reinvent the wheel; the City of Bend changed their ordinance already. The County has few high-density lots located outside the cities now. This lot is the smallest one. Ms. White stated that to qualify for an exception, one of four criteria needs to be met. These involve being a lot of record prior to the adoption of the 1992 ordinance, as well as the structure meeting siting and design review criteria, and height requirements. If the setback is twenty-five feet, the height is to be no more than twenty-five feet. Commissioner DeWolf asked about the slope of the lot. Ms. White said that the structure would have to be designed to accommodate the slope. This eliminates the particular height and adds the exception piece, which falls back to thirty feet. Commissioner DeWolf said that Mr. Johnson wants to get close to the rimrock to match the average of the other two properties, but doesn't want to be restricted in height. If the other property has a deck two feet high, that impact is less than that of a house. Minutes of Public Hearing regarding a Text Amendment to the Rimrock Setback Zone Tuesday, November 30, 2004 Page 5 of 8 Pages Mr. Johnson replied that one of the homes is a two-story, and one is single story. It is hard to build a modern structure less than ten feet tall. Also, using the criteria detailed by Mr. Harrison would result in one of the neighboring decks hanging over the rimrock. The other deck is probably ten to fifteen feet from the rimrock. Mr. Harrison stated that under the Code the relationship of the building height and setbacks say that the height must be less than the setback. If an exception is granted, they use the highest point of the building. The Hearings Officer's decision and Code say that it should be a 1:1 ratio. If you have a twenty -foot rimrock setback, the building can't be taller than that. Mr. Johnson said that his lot is fairly flat. He added that he agrees that the idea of houses hanging over the river is not good. But it would be difficult to build a modern single -story home less than twenty-four feet high. Commissioner DeWolf asked if photos of the lot were taken from across the river. Ms. White said that she did a photo analysis, and the Hearings Officer handling the variance application made a finding based on that. She determined that a structure would need to be screened or made less visible. No vegetation exists to make it less visible even at twenty feet back. Ms. White said that regarding the neighboring lots, the property on the north side has a 1989 site plan and a twenty -foot setback, not including the patio. No information is in the file regarding the height of the building. Commissioner Luke said that he would not like to change a County ordinance for one lot. He would be willing to authorize an engineer to go out and determine where the 45 -degree area starts. Ms. Craghead replied that it would be awkward to have the County pay for this when it hasn't been done before for other properties. Mr. Johnson said he has a survey that he paid $1,400 for, and the area was marked accordingly. Using this survey, a house could be squeezed in. Planning staff did the other stakes. Mr. Harrison stated that rimrock is defined as a slope to a channel waterway, 45 degrees or greater. It is the angle of the hill where it goes down to the river. Much of it is 90 degrees. There is a Swale that a person can walk down, and that's where the dispute of the angle begins. The question is, where is the 45 - degree part of the property. Mr. Johnson pointed out that you could have a flat lot, but take a three-foot high boulder and call it rimrock under this definition. That's why the City of Bend got rid of theirs. Minutes of Public Hearing regarding a Text Amendment to the Rimrock Setback Zone Tuesday, November 30, 2004 Page 6 of 8 Pages Mr. Harrison disagreed. He said it talks about slope and channel. Placing a rock on the lot won't define the waterway. There's no question there is rimrock, although there are areas that can be disputed. Commissioner DeWolf asked if he could make a site visit. Ms. Craghead replied that this is a legislative matter, so there is no problem with ex parte contact or with receiving new evidence. The hearing would need to be continued to a date certain. Commissioner Luke asked if the change was limited to lots of one-half acre or less, how many would be affected. It was indicated that only Mr. Johnson's lot would fit. Mr. Johnson suggested that, if desired, height limits could be added as well. A discussion then took place regarding site visits to the property. The Commissioners scheduled differing dates and times to visit the property with staff. The hearing was recessed until December 8, 2004, at 10: 00 a.m. Being no further discussion, the hearing adjourned at 4: SS p. m. DATED this 301h Day of November 2004 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary 40E 441.29= 9 OW A4 Mk&l M. Daly, C air Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner Tom DeWolf, ConGissioner Minutes of Public Hearing regarding a Text Amendment to the Rimrock Setback Zone Tuesday, November 30, 2004 Page 7 of 8 Pages Attachments Exhibit A: Preliminary Statement — 1 page Exhibit B: GIS Analysis, Part 2 (provided by applicant) — 26 pages Exhibit C: Text Amendment Hearing, TA -04-3, Applicant's Memorandum - 33 pages Minutes of Public Hearing regarding a Text Amendment to the Rimrock Setback Zone Tuesday, November 30, 2004 Page 8 of 8 Pages V1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT FOR A LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS This is a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance, Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code. This is County File Number TA - 04 -3. This is a legislative matter, meaning the outcome of this process could change the rimrock setbacks currently allowed in the Landscape Management Combining Zone by allowing structures to be located closer than 20 feet from the edge of the rimrock. The Commissioners will hear oral testimony, receive written testimony, and consider the testimony submitted at this hearing. The hearing is also being taped. The Commissioners may make a decision on this matter today, continue the public hearing to a date certain, or leave the written record open for a specified period of time. The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The staff will give a report on this issue. We will then open the hearing to all present and ask people to present testimony at one of the tables. You can also provide us with a copy of your written testimony. Questions to and from the Chair may be entertained at any time at the chair's discretion. Cross-examination of people testifying will not be allowed. However, if any person wishes to ask a question of another person during that person's testimony, please direct your question to the Chair after being recognized. The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the person testifying. Prior to the commencement of the hearing any party may challenge the qualifications of any the Commissioners for bias, prejudgment or personal interest. This challenge must be documented with specific reasons supported by facts. Should any Commissioner be challenged, the Commissioner may disqualify himself, withdraw from the hearing, or make a statement on the record of their capacity to hear and decide this issue. At this time, do any Commissioners need to set forth any information that may be perceived as bias, prejudgment, or personal interest? I will accept any challenges from the public now. (Hearing none, I will open the public hearing). STAFF REPORT Preliminary Statement — TA -04-3 Exhibit Page t of �_ Part 2 -GIS Analysis Proximity to Rimrock and Year Built not part of criteria Not applicable to Text Amendment "Taxlot","Address" 141119C004800,17331 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD 141119C005100,17363 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD� (o v *141119C004100,17267 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD 141119C003600,17223 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD / �� `j� 141025A000701, J1gKevav 353 ATOP - - a .- Qa►'i� of '-'70) a-Nvey-ht1r a (Q 151b110000603,68770 JUNIPINE LN 6,04 A, by Rir.,)qvt 1510110000605,68750 JUNIPINE LN 1512130000600,1310 BLUE HERON cCc �\g1VA 151213CC00800,1390 BLUE HERON t151236B001800,5075 SW LOMA LINDA DR---- L 1612290002600, 20030 BEAVER LN,-v,40l0- VID Ric�Ro( ►` *161229B001602, - 161231A000500,64793 COOK AVE 00 • 161231A002100,19891 2ND ST 161231A002600, 161231A006600 161231A007300, 161231D005400, 19951 ELM LN MCI)0--v) IQ top 0( 1l 161231D006500,19959 JUNIPER LN 1712180001900, 1550 NW PUTNAM RD / b, �►15i ��' Q G-13 181010AA02000,16372 SKYLINE DR 181010AA01800,16360 SKYLINE DR it 181010AA01200, 16324 SKYLINE DR loin 10AB01300,16296 SKYLINE DR _ 1) 181010AB01500,16280 181122A003400, 60601 SKYLINE DR GOLF VILLAGE LOOP--13�--Y)o ,, AY` Ac(r _ h0 R)l(ffi 181122D000401,1 181122D001100, 18764 1y0 C)"S ho l- 'A\-t6'cA' Pgq CHOCTAW RD 181122D001300,18756 *181123A000200, 60793 CHOCTAW RD RIVER BEND DR S`�bJ l�(j RIVER BEND DR f�! ,+181123A001100,60745, } �� Pj`S ��►`-� 181123A001300 60725 *181123A002501, 60671 RIVER BEND DR RIVER BEND DR 181123C000600,18831 181123C005400, 18812 BAKER RD CHOCTAW RD- YtS inp vh �P T cl�i��K2j(� 181123B001800,60645 GOLF VILLAGE LOOP-) ' ? 11� 181123B002300, 60625 GOLF VILLAGE LOOP --1 Ik^^�� v\v5 OC+ ph(,P !1 1811238002600,60613 181127A001300, 18738 GOLF VILLAGE LOOP CHOCTAW RD kj (�►� 1) t5'PS i,10+- r f1+ IQ10� 181127A001000,18726 CHOCTAW RD Pv,-5 l P IJ5 'a"01 See Big GIS Map Exhibit 6- -- -- --- - Page I of L(p mmmmm' w N N '0 See Map 14 10 24D O o , w 0 a• n? o o o s vo g° o° 1 9 0 0 0 0 0 o p. SORREL n w .• M m 1� rym r !Cly C v` m o o N o _ g o /� V � CO 0 O - � a F °e43° A O p O O ti f to e. PINTO 0 �O a m m w0 i8 _ •A N 0 • o _ _ t N m .L d N O o o c IV A _. 0 _O LONGHORN _ o L 11 �c.1il •N�-o �� A ��,�, •1�, a r m .0.0 8 o>l o ND o v :MUSTANG 0— o F o o • Yrv�.-Efl.°E— See Map 1 II 190 GiV m g o m DRIVE s t� l7 Exhibit [1j Page 2 of 2Cp �q 4. CEJ no+ b(oL6�el# kk 1pc\YkA 'Ot'O �Ccgl a0 z m o� m U� _M C IV m Cn m 0Z Op C z� � Z5 m 3 N D Exhibit Q� Page 5 of _ 0 c Piv,-\Pvc � Exhibit f3 Page 4 of 2 Cp =s 51 e 9NA� 1 1 1 eee 00 1 I Z CNEStNJi glllF SEE YAP 115 10 10 1 tltlYY//IYYY/9Y1/IYI/f%/Y/Y/1 �`\ 1 1 ■ elf.l 919.1/ I 1 8 c elo.0 - ti I 196.3 } 111.}}1 J 96.1e 151.9} 211..1 912.10 6- IL _ _ — _ _ _ — _ _ - — _ — _ _ — _ 200 I i I J s V Sly l./ 559.1 TTTT' � v ll) t I 1 s �1 ,J.O •, ' 151 a nnnn m m o `la #= m m m� n! 10 cr7 — — — — — — — -- — — — — — — — — — W M oNN C � — — — — — — — — — — aL Bunn eon Z � 9' 1 i nn 8 gc 011.11 w s 1 1 121 1 1 }19.19 1 119.91 _- I� I 1 I c 1 1 I,w.w 1 I 191.1 II}9.9b 1 - f-11 x .so e}s J lsess I,Is N SEE NAP 1151012 N 0 c Piv,-\Pvc � Exhibit f3 Page 4 of 2 Cp Y Z u O1 Sy SEE NAP 15 12 110 ,yy1 L� (1 1.25 un.oa na.au I _ ",qtl s,.,, yJl l s r , cn )yJyY��S J}yJ Y JYyI�Y � I 1� 1 d100' �� 1 n I I CD f5 I I I a �;v I --��----------------------------------- p=sl C.n SW 63RD ^' I STREET w A C-> q if LNL C.w C•7 C"l Exhibit_ -j Page of 2p 6 m cD re) N D 3 LJ r N F - z (do U) U b � n c0 W M U = p 3 z m cD ro Exhibit Page _ of Q -(.o_ U rn N 3 W r N � CO N - N U N W W N a' En c. a �s� 7 I m- $� 6Z z 91 dVll 335 +^ • • • n•Lrz n.l i Y °pi' , 7 °' °r• • rfifiz I Cv f f'[Si f ro'Y I• u IgE 01'fi6 s r\ • • y n vxa Sven r..II y n nxa srnz •Ir( OV08 NOMI I S — — — � LSeLlgLu SL Y 1 • 6t'fSB — — — — — — • fiflb°I- 9 IIL-PI[I 1(Y) .p[ — 'T' — � I 94 _ -G4' 3 LI'fSrLr�L — — 5L'i1S �=f • z� z I - a — flex �♦♦ jj _r _ 1 5�r li ��i � � �� /�, 11 d'• ♦♦ - YI - �I • aL•sxs ��q ♦ �` 'r •♦ / � 1 � � ID'DI' I y Muo _ --_�— ID'IIS —_-- - m44., It'gC n� 3 y� 01"1L4 l! f�. c. n Ih M I/iLLLrem ♦ `Y 'ter Y .,j � •Sa Inv • n � 'P • Y ♦m��Y3 , Yoko mp - tii $ 4' � ^" • - a.YY a � �o � r' � 4y � � • xriaaoro' r De'esm'worfis � me av JF ��' L \ G • Z el II F ,f h L11 - r .N g.`.� A C .�.�" -0 Ro. d � � Illb°III - ♦ oN o 011 �0 �1i"I �o� c •�•��'' � � IIII _ ♦ b7 @ m R o w P ryi h" e DI'rei a C ��• °SI111I I =1 C' LIl rw ro'ro w' s srr s zs m % Y m, - c "'p �- '1;" i i I _ ♦♦ •,� (il SLI SLI 6L' 1 r n h `- - ~ (/7 �i — o� a 1� a 11 9 Y �t. {i ; \\ .� -�°° ♦ L) ry8r ` S S�lYj r. •••f^18 ;� ;\` ttl g wl' ~ . • rC DC ZI 91 dVfl 33S wo (0,) wl I� AJC 11 II II 11 II II II II II II Exhibit Page -'-I of 2 • mss of �s� 7 I s +^ • • • n•Lrz n.l i Y °pi' , 7 °' °r• • rfifiz I f f'[Si f ro'Y I• I 01'fi6 s r\ • • V a — flex �♦♦ �9'e°t ��\ _ 1 5�r li ��i � � �� /�, 11 d'• n Ih M I/iLLLrem ♦ `Y 'ter Y .,j � •Sa Inv • n � 'P • Y ♦m��Y3 , Yoko mp - tii $ 4' � ^" • - a.YY a � �o � r' � 4y � � • xriaaoro' r De'esm'worfis � me av JF ��' L \ G • Z el II F ,f h L11 - r .N g.`.� A C .�.�" -0 Ro. d � � Illb°III - ♦ oN o 011 �0 �1i"I �o� c •�•��'' � � IIII _ ♦ b7 @ m R o w P ryi h" e DI'rei a C ��• °SI111I I =1 C' LIl rw ro'ro w' s srr s zs m % Y m, - c "'p �- '1;" i i I _ ♦♦ •,� (il SLI SLI 6L' 1 r n h `- - ~ (/7 �i — o� a 1� a 11 9 Y �t. {i ; \\ .� -�°° ♦ L) ry8r ` S S�lYj r. •••f^18 ;� ;\` ttl g wl' ~ . • rC DC ZI 91 dVfl 33S wo (0,) wl I� AJC 11 II II 11 II II II II II II Exhibit Page -'-I of 2 rn N SGL MPP 16 12 29 f 13 N (D CD Exhibit (j Page 9, of 2 ITgx 1 JS J11 i CJS IJfS ST IC LER AVENUE • RI I I 'jet I�>sy I I I I I G 9�• -Ta a '1eTQ1-T_T- M to al I I I I- I ■ YI I I I I I � I I I I I I sWOOD AVENUE o A VAC VAC � � u • I`L ^II I I A�yI 'o IAn �I_I_ • 7•.�T � T� $ �T� • sl I I I c§\ \ I -i`1'I$ VI`I'I � • I I I � _ NI��I g' BRUCE \ 'iQ I R4eN V 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I —moi I � ■ � yl I � I_�letia i'I"1'li9 l"1i' m 'I .� ■m I I 1 Ngo 8 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I y I • e rrnnv 1,— Ige _ I Q1 I N W a 1112, SEE YAP 16 li 74 �0 2'494 C1 �� • Mdld�d� �e�� ''\ 3Ntl1 =Y� I 90 I N I u Pr z m Exhibit Page q Of�( _ SEE NAP 16 12 31 I a^� f4 ry� 'yam®•i%r�V-,v�a��/f�y�N� I z so So T'Y TTTm rT TTTTTIo rTT-7-Ti'1-�riYTTY'Taa rTT I I I I I I I I 1 I x6 3adi-01 le I I I I I I I I I I I I 1, ] 14 n, ]II m Yppiie a` ti I I I I I inti I wlr,. I, Il„ Iti I I I 1 I I I I 1 I I.' u 19.6 d F`cq j�l+♦ff ;T ;'"' 1-1 _ w I- I I~ I=I JI I I of iti I=I Jlm I�=II I '] " to I�■�I_ I la I- 1511 Tf'I I 1 I I I I Iti l 1°01 I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I- Iti I I I I I yl I I I �Y •'+F+I .LL.L-1-.Y-1c6 WO0D +moi-!1d€NFfE�i-•--ti-a-•-: reurto w i -TY �' rYTYTT� rTTT-�`h�'-TrTT'T��-1 I rTYT'rY'1 rTTTrt-wP- 4s' YTTY ly�l I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ISI 1•` I ISI I I1g 1 1 I� I 1. I��1 I J� 1 1 1 1 �1►,1L,11,�1 y 111 ;� 1 1 1 1 1 1 h Ii 1 h_' o j� 1 I I I "'j m��'P Y��- „�T-y°P� 1■i'�Ymt'�46��-• YL'�'Y�-'fi-t��-►-�Q�-�Y'i LT'�.b•=�-!=J � �-�.,�WJg�J �_1�J...- u r, _� -T _ I� I ol- Itis I I I I I I I I I t l 1 1 1 1 1 1* I 1 1 1 1 1 1 x I I I I I l o l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I■ I I I I I ---..E--L1 a J•- J--LJr� * L-b-��_-1--1-J t LL -Li -b -i i'�-LLL�-d �l-.l-1-lJ^L-A 1-.-L-1--1-L1..� d--1- AVENUE vauito �--�-■' -■- 1-Y'1?e rY. 1-TY� k rTTTTTI rTTTTT'1 7"1(T,YTTT-T rYYTYT� T"TTTTT'T 7'T 'T- . � I� 60l -I I I I I I S I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I 3rl I I I I I I I I I I INI I I 1 I I I I 1 I Iti 1 fD I� Clw I I I I I 111,,, Iy I I I INI I I I I 1 I I I 11 I 1 1 1 1 I I I I�1 11 I I I I� 1 I I "'ICY ^,1„` �aL+• ",��0�-A=J �LYm„`r Cba`1_.L-�mL=�.��.tL"'�-b L'�1- y�-L�� l-��mb-�:�W`""' '..4 L-1� • rT�aI- I-�Po- a ri g 8s ■ I I I I`],/( I- I"i 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I L-b.-L-1-J�,L� b--LLL-1--1.L_LL yLLl_L�-L Li .LJ-J_L_LLL_L-� A'■_ +'. COOK AVE O 300:-3+61 0 3 1- 61 VAC pp3 Erma 8� T"TTY-01�-TTTYTT Q°0c"'■.3omail cwc to Eol:-01/ • ■ • ■ ■� �AYENUE �{ rTTTT-rw� Testi T T YY^ rTi"'-'I-,7--'r - Il l a N I I 1 1 I i of I po I I I I I I 1 6sla I I I til- I I I 1 I lyl I I 1 I I I I I I>ol I I>>' 1 I I INI 1 I N>la I o T �TY'C�-- QY-'Z 1 1 1 I'I"'Iyl Iwl l01 -1"'I I I I lal-I I I lol�l>'Iyl Jlm No - u • I,`>, I I I I 1 I i 1 I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I I I - 1 0l t o + nL rr''rO 1 Ti F-TTYTTi rTYTTT"��r '�T'16 I I I W I I I I I I S I- 'I I •• 00 _1�1w1 1�Iti1_I IwInI�T1�Itii_i=i i i S�S N _i - — ... ■ � k L -d- � L J -sa ,L L S ^NI- N 56 sa `> o �, _ I I w .> r, w 1 I+1.65 ISp.] lit 131 133 Ill Des, -r7 14 7 UTes •� = _m N NI - Ilia v a- a Yy o'6 111.11 a m e=o X1/.11 9 ZI _ 1104 is+.uo 's IUlla $ I6qq, i SEE NAP 16 12 32 k" Q, N m Exhibit (� Page of �(� :4. SEE MAP 17 11 13 59 Exhibit g Page of �p CD O D D SEE YAP 18 10 \ \ Ov P, C( ,I D c Z -P Z m cn Ln m n n C= o NO o n. O co Z N O m w O D D Exhibit Page �2 of 219 SEE MAP 18.10 1 3 O m 00 0 0 a m Exhibit Page _J,�) of 2(p IA -II I --- &$-------------- I --i--------------------�---- -s l i I I I ' I I �• I I I I I I � I I -- I -- -_. - I I -�f-- -- -- --- _ --- I DRI I I I F I I I I N N D u �r YP r rJ J/JJJ 1 �I0 AfMRoc� SEE YAP iB It 23B 13, z Ln v n u. C7 N f CN • -i -B m• u C'> Ln C) z � m Exhibit .6 Page I�k of 2-ky 7 V777/ I ou•UV Y/ IN 00� �Ul C >s yeticn o ti ° cm 00 W UD °6 rn o �n y1ti cin o 00 �(,l+ py >s p0 � o >s ✓✓ � O >�' ell L,4 o /B sy > °yb NO onf Z 00 °o i o �o se? °yti s r °o °yti cno °s Lo C s° o I ou•UV Y/ IN 777 . -,- .1 1.. , I � ED 4l4 s's O Z .� m i� o r�W �•• ^y .� .� d a v o D m Z ^4 N _t -- m O mmr W Nto cli C UI Q. SQ, r w` O :." m T N O ..r'S•.m 0 8 00 ED z, e, •z r ° N r,'lrr' m OD " r co O1Y';Y NN N 8 Z LnrjIm CMD 0) NNrt. ? D 01'sea a• 0 / Er. O N Az .i O a O0i 4. m a. Wok °za _ r (ax) 8 �, W ^p S _ N °b. r / O C7 W ' *1 gyp: , .,�. /' `• `' O 0 O v /1J t /VC , <' �ti Wff s X10 n o er CL A CD � w � CI+ L co See Moo 18 11 24 O ID e' 0 pDr Z Exhibit Page I of 1 • I T W~'Lj See Ma: 16 II 23D -It Do -PS ✓l R-+ fe> C) m (nm n � C =mow m �c� \0-0 O cn <m a � s I- 0 0-_ 0_ 033, EON W Exhibit—&— aa `` II Page _171_ of �( _ kv)Oe+ (Ak4rK)'c, 6. cps •�� 19.5& 00 s 1 ,i O N�5 to B6 s, 0q C:) s 1/1 O � gB O O O O ` C) BS, V !g BS0. �o O 8 `O n B�' �O� O o Qp �s> og 850 0 0�0,'� •Do I r .�`O\poN O6 �r •�� 1 pa�o 85 0 on ��6�� B5. �� A �� r� • B cn rn a per` ♦ 3 �" �� r o J�w: o s� 9 ♦ �1 LIZ ',v �4' O � �9 cn ti W cnN ,o �-;: Lz1 im� ► "L7 _ — — — �. i See Mao 18 n 278 3 ED 0 Lo �J Exhibit _IIZI) Page of 1 ED N D 1 1 co SL $ o S o j CL.o' o X W G N Ln CD c W f�D A injo OF o g�aa3 3 G) O, v N qo Q 03 M Page�� of �(� o dg. C a � �g $a CL ) s € nes a ,91 o g 19 1 1 co S o j CL.o' o X W G N Ln CD X W W f�D A injo C D v N Q 1 1 (D S j CL.o' to C Exhibit Page�� of �(� Deschutes County Government, Oregon - DIAL Search Results Standard Page 1 of 3 Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering quality services in a cost-effective manner Diel-SpIchutes ty help I site map I location I contact us I En espanoi LIVING HERE BUSINESS VISITING GOVERNMENT E: Living in Deschutes County: Comprehensive information for residents of Deschutes County. You are here: Government » Departments » Assessor's Office » DIAL Search Results Stand DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Information on the Deschutes County Computer is not guaranteed to be accurate and may contain errors and omissions. Deschutes County provides NO WARRANTY AS TO THE MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE FOR ANY INFORMATION. Original records may differ from computer entries. If reliance upon computer record is intended, verification of information on source documents is required. User expressly acknowledges and agrees that the use of any information appearing on the Deschutes County Computer is at User's sole risk. Deschutes County shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages caused by mistakes, omissions, deletions, errors, defects, in any information, or any failure or delays in receiving information. The following property tax assessment data is updated nightly. Account: 135768 Map/TL: R 6-034 141119 CO 04900 SICHLER FAMILY TRUST r SICHLER, SUZANI � E J�f� PO BOX 1753 V `� SISTERS OR 97759 Site Address: 17343 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD SISTERS 97759 Assessor Property Description SQUAW CREEK CANYON RECREATIONAL ESTATES Lot: 26 Block: 41 Prop C1s:416 MA:6 VA:12 NH 000 Vol -Page: 2003-59421 Asmt Zone:RR10 CDD Zone:WA (WILDLIFE AREA COMBINING ZONE) If :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) IF :RR10 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL - 10 ACRES MINIMUM) *** Land Values *** Asmt type Acres R.M.V. RURAL LOT SD LA *Total *** Improvement Values *** FB $ R.M.V. $oGD& 141 9 9 9= 10 Exhibit Page 2\ of 2(a_ http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/index.cfm?objectid=65FI I l 0A-BDBD-57C 1-91 D726DBA... 11/2/2004 Deschutes County Government, Oregon - DIAL Search Results Standard Account: 135101 Map/TL: R 6-002 141025 AO 00701 ROBINSON,ROBERT J ROBINSON,LINDA A 17021 CANYON CREST DR SISTERS OR 97759 Assessor Property Description SECOND ADDITION TO SNO CAP VISTA ESTATES Lot: PT 12 ock: 6 Prop C1s:400 MA:6 VA:12 NH 000 Vol-Page:1990-2252753 Asmt Zone:RR10 CDD Zone:WA (WILDLIFE AREA COMBINING ZONE) IT :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) If :RR10 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL - 10 ACRES MINIMUM) *** Land Values *** Asmt type RURAL LOT Acres 0.53 *** Special Assessments Code Amount DEPT OF FORESTRY FIRE 1 18.00 R.M.V. 5,010 Acres 0.53 ***** Values shown below are as of the Assessment Date, January 1 of each year ***** Page 1 of 1 *** --------2004-------- --------2003-------- ---------2002------- Total Taxable Total Taxable Total Taxabl RMV A.V. RMV A.V. RMV A.V. LND: 5,010 1,880 4,470 1,834 4,030 1,78 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Exhibit Page 22 of (o http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/index.cfm?objectid=65F 111 OA-BDBD-57C1-91 D726DB... 10/29/2004 L . Deschutes County Government, Oregon - DIAL Search Results Standard Page 1 of 2 Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering^ quality services in a cost-effective manner De.&S-0chutes Count 0 help I site map I location I contact us I En espanol LIVING HERE BUSINESS VISITING GOVERNMENT E; Living in Deschutes County: Comprehensive information for residents of Deschutes County. ' You are here: Government » Der)artments » Assessor's Office » DIAL Search Results Stand DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Information on the Deschutes County Computer is not guaranteed to be -accurate and may contain errors and omissions. Deschutes County provides NO WARRANTY AS TO THE MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE FOR ANY INFORMATION. Original records may differ from computer entries. If reliance upon computer record is intended,,verification of information on source documents is required. User expressly acknowledges and agrees that the use of any information appearing on the Deschutes County Computer is at User's sole risk. Deschutes County shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages caused by mistakes, omissions, deletions, errors, defects, in any information, or any failure or delays in receiving information. The following property tax assessment data is updated nightly. Account: 172030 Map/TL: R 2-004 151213 CC 00600 VACATION RESORT OWNERS ASSOC PO BOX 1215 REDMOND OR 97756 Site Address: 1310 BLUE HERON REDMOND 97756 Assessor Property Description EAGLE CREST PHASE II Lot: 28 Block: 5 Prop C1s:080 MA:2 VA:39 N=0_5, o - ge:1991-2530122 Asmt Zone:PUD CDD Zone:F (FLOOD PLAIN " M (iL NDSCAP ANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) " :M PLE USE AGRICULTURAL 10 ACRE MIN) *** Land Values *** Asmt type COMMON AREA Acres 0.39 ***** Values shown below are as of the Assessment Date, January 1 of each year ***** Exhibit Page- of % i0 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/index.cfm?objectid=65FI I IOA-BDBD-57C1-91 D726DB... 11/28/2004 • ' -Deschutes County Government, Oregon - DIAL Search Results Standard Page 1 of 3 Enhancing the lives of citizens by delivering h. quality services in a cost-effective manner Cie -chutes Count help I site map I location I contact us I En espanol LIVING HERE I BUSINESS I VISITING I GOVERNMENT I E: Living in Deschutes County: Comprehensive information for residents of Deschutes County. You are here: Government o Departments » Assessor's Office » DIAL Search Results Stand DISCLAIMER AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Information on the Deschutes County Computer is not guaranteed to be accurate and may contain errors and omissions. Deschutes County provides NO WARRANTY AS TO THE MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE FOR ANY INFORMATION. Original records may differ from computer entries. If reliance upon computer record is intended, verification of information on source documents is required. User expressly acknowledges and agrees that the use of any information appearing on the Deschutes County Computer is at User's sole risk. Deschutes County shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages caused by mistakes, omissions, deletions, errors, defects, in any information, or any failure or delays in receiving information. The following property tax assessment data is updated nightly. Account: 118120 Map/TL: R 1-017 171218 CO 01900 WRIGHT,LAUREN TOY,DAN 12 CATALINA PT RD CHICO CA 95928 Site Address: 1550 NW PUTNAM RD BEND 97701 Assessor Property Description AWBREY MEADOWS Lot: 29 Prop C1s:106 MA:5 VA:01 NH 000 Vol-Page:1997-4570138 Asmt Zone:SR CDD Zone:SR2.5 (SUBURBAN LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIALBEND UGB) *** Land Values *** Asmt type Acres SUBURBAN LOT "** * Values shown below are as of the Assessment Date, January 1 of each year *** --------2004-------- --------2003-------- ---------2002------- Exhibit 5__ Page ZLL of 2to_ http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/index.cfm?objectid=65FI I I OA-BDBD-57C 1-91 D726DB... 11/z2S[LUU4 Jim From: "Melanie Moss" <Melanie_Moss@co.deschutes.or.us> To: "Jim Johnson" <jimi@bendcable.com> Cc: "Cathy White" <cathy_white@co.deschutes.or.us>; "Kevin Harrison" <Kevin_Harrison@co.deschutes.or. us> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 11:33 AM Subject: RE: Last minute GIS results Jim - Page 1 of 4 The analysis I performed for the Planning Commission contained two parts. Each part was designed to answer specific questions they had regarding properties in the county. The following is a brief description of the two parts: "l Part 1: Parcels were selected based on the criteria I was given (refer to the memo I submitted to the commission for a detailed list). My analysis resulted in 6 parcels (in the memo I mistakenly noted that there were 7 lots that met the criteria. - Based on t e analysis results for part 1, 1 concluded that the accuracy of the data available to me at the time did not allow for efficient selection (via GIS analysis) of properties meeting the parameters of the listed criteria. Part 2: 1 was also asked to provide information on how may lots in the county existed along the listed waterways that were one acre or less in size, vacant, and adjacent to developed lots. The results were plotted on the big maps I used for visual aides at the commission meeting. The purpose of the maps was to give the commission an idea of the countywide distribution of lots meeting only the size, vacancy, and presence of adjacent developed lots criteria. fot used the Assessor's Office factor book code to determine vacancy. Of the 90 vacant lots on the north county \� �- map, there were 40 that had adjacent structures (excluding sheds and other outbuildings). The year built� a G information was not part of this analysis. f 'rQ Ct+ The analysis done in part 1 is not the same as the analysis techniques and data used in the work I did at your request in March. Both methods are valid, but the underlying data as well as the criteria list were not the same. This explains why the results are different. You are welcome to make your own assumptions about the results I presented to the commission. However, I urge you not to mix the results of the three distinctly different portions of this project (your initial analysis, Part 1, and Part 2) together, as they were meant to be assessed individually. My intention in the Part 1/Part 2 analysis was to produce impartial, scientifically generated information that would be useful to the Planning Commission in the decision making process. In response to your additional questions: 1) The lot on Putnam Rd is not within the City of Bend. 2) The year built information was not considered on the Mountain View Rd lots (see analysis description for Part 2 above)- although further inspection of this area shows that 1 of the 4 lots is between lots with houses built before 1992. � CRS � � � y� o`f �a�,C `�-• 3) The presence of rimrock was not a selection factor in the map that lists the lots in Tumalo and on Skyline Drive (see the analysis description for Part 2 above). 4) The Planning Commission and Planning Division staff asked that I produce information b"ed on the two part analysis I described above. To the best of my knowledge, the text amendment criteria was addressed at in Part 1 yl 1. Part 1 analysis resulted in 6 lots - 3 within the City of Bend, 2 in Redmond, and 1 in the Terrebonne area. Your lot was not part of the results in the Part 1 analysis. V 4, Iw� �s5�o� p' a � D Fla + ink Exhibit (� Page E--)_ of 210— Page 2 of 4 5) 1 am assuming that your reference to "non -qualifying" lots is in relation to the lots presented on the large maps I displayed at the meeting. As I mentioned in the Part 2 analysis, the criteria for lot selection was based on lot size, vacancy status, and the presence of an adjacent developed parcel only n C + c11PA op Iq 1A (-R � �{Q 6) 1 attended the Planning Commission meeting at the request of staff. It is not uncommon to have an analyst present to explain technical procedures and data to a non-technical audience. I consider this to be part of my job, and often attend meetings in order to provide this type of information. I did not receive overtime pay. Hopefully I have answered all of your questions sufficiently. If you have additional questions about the GIS analysis, please let me know. Thank you, Melanie Moss GIS Analyst Deschutes County, CDD (541)617-4703 melaniem@deschutes.org -----Original Message ----- From: Jim Johnson [mailto:jimj@bendcable.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 3:45 PM To: Melanie Moss Cc: Kevin Harrison Subject: Re: Last minute GIS results Melanie Please make clear to me the last bunch of lots you presented to the Planning Commission. The lot on Putman is in the city of Bend. The lots on Mt. View Rd. have homes next door built after 1992. The lots in Tumalo and the lots on Skyline Dr. aren't even close to rim rock. They are close to the flood plane. The Planning Commissioners asked you for lots that meet the Text Amendment Criteria. You found 7 including my lot. Who told you to present these non -qualifying lots? Who told you to go to the meeting? Did you get paid overtime for going to the meeting? I would appreciate direct answers to my questions! Thanks! Jim Johnson ----- Original Message ----- From: Melanie Moss To: Jim Johnson Cc: Cathy_White. Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2004 3:37 PM Subject: RE: Last minute GIS results Jim - The information I presented to the Planning Commission was done so at the request of the Planning Commission and Planning Division staff. For details about the analysis and my findings, please refer to the documentation that was provided to you by our office. I mentioned in a earlier email that the maps I created are quite large (6006) and can not be emailed to you due to Exhibit E) Page 21p of 2ce Text Amendment Hearing TA -04-3 November 29, 2004 Applicant's Memorandum On September 29, 2002 my wife and I signed an earnest money agreement to purchase the subject property on River Bend Drive. It was contingent upon getting Deschutes County approval for building a 2,000 square foot home on the property. I went down to the Planning Department and was told by a planner that if there was ever a circumstance for a variance this was it. So, I paid the fee and made application. Staff's recommendation to the Hearings Officer was that the application be denied because the owner, Vicki Johnson, had purchased the property after the 1992 Rimrock Ordinance was passed. I should have been told this prior to application. I would have never made application had I been given the proper information. The Hearings Officer denied the Variance because the Ordinance cannot be varied beyond the 20 foot exception rule. I appealed and the appeal was denied. The Board of County Commissioners encouraged me to apply for a Text Amendment to relieve this hardship and possible hardship for others with small, high density lots. Prior to the Variance Hearing the planning staff revisited the lot and moved the rimrock stake 80 feet from the front property line. It had previously been much closer. During the Variance process it was stated by Deschutes County Planning Department, on the record, "....only 80 of overall 225 feet of lot's depth are located on top of the rim rock and available for development. If all of the minimum set backs were met; only 2,400 square feet will be available for building." See Transcript, VARIANCE HEARING APPLICATION, April 15, 2003, Page 9. This 2,400 square feet includes garage, decks and porches leaving very little room for building a home. I had until September 2003 to close the transaction on the lot and since I was assured I would at least build within the 2,400 square feet I purchased the property. I purchased the property based on statements of fact made by the Deschutes County Planning Department and acknowledged by the Hearings Officer. Evidence I presented showing the changed setback was never denied or refuted by the Planning Department. In fact it was affirmed by their statements of record. I've been paying $625 per month, interest only, on the lot since September 2003. During the Appeals Hearing I felt encouraged by the Board of County Commissioners to apply for a text amendment to correct this hardship. I paid the $1,950 fee and applied for the Amendment. During the Planning Commission hearing I really felt discouraged because Commissioner Pace said she ran on the trial on the other side of the river and she felt like she was being looked at from the people from the homes on the subject side of the river. She didn't want anymore homes built there. I felt her negative influence had persuaded all but one or two commissioners to vote for non -approval. I was told by Kevin Harrison that the Board of County Commissioners was reluctant to override the findings of the Planning Commission and he didn't feel favorable for a Board approval of the Text Amendment. Since I had a 2,400 square foot building envelope I decided to drop the amendment and apply for a 10% front yard variance ($990). This would allow me to build a much smaller home with a much smaller garage, approximately 1,500-1,700 square feet with small garage. C, Exhibit G Page �_ of Upon site plan application I was told by the Planning Staff that I did not have 2,400 square feet to build in. They then went back out to the property and placed a new stake even closer to the front property line than the original placement! That placement made the lot useless except for a small cabin. The last hearing before the Planning Commission was filled with errors, irrelevant evidence, false statements of fact and false assumptions. One thing that is not in the minutes or the record is the fact that the Planning Commissioner's spent a fair amount of time discussing the definition of Rimrock. They made a site visit and were surprised where the staff had placed the rimrock stake. They had the staff inquire to the Cities of Redmond, Sisters and Prineville as well as Crook and Jefferson Counties to see if they had a definition of Rimrock. They do not. Deschutes County is the only government body in Central Oregon that has attempted to define Rimrock. The subject placement of the rimrock by Planning Staff is a major problem with this lot. The City of Bend dropped their definition in 2002 when they re -wrote their river setback standards. If this lot were in the City of Bend a home could be built along the same guidelines as the amendment proposes. River Bend Estate abutts the city of Bend and the UGB. I believe the Planning Commissioners with the exception of Ms. Pace were prepared to vote to recommend approval of the current amendment until GIS introduced the 40 lots at literally the last minute, putting doubt in their minds as to possible "unintended consequences" of the text amendment. The 40 lots should not have been admitted as evidence as they do not come within the criteria of the Text Amendment. Also, the fact that it took GIS a month and a half to produce the research allowed the facts to become muddled in the Commissioners minds. The hearing was closed and I did not have the right to correct the mistakes at the last meeting where the lots were introduced and the commissioners voted. The following statements are all of record (See attached documentation.) 1. The planning commission requested GIS to search all lots in Deschutes County that met the appropriate criteria. GIS came up with 7 that might meet the Text Amendment criteria. The planning staff then had her present 40 lots that were not matched to the amendment criteria causing confusion. 2. The wrong Text Amendment was sent to the Forest Service and the State Parks and Rec and the Planning Commission. The Text Amendment as proposed is...... "existing prior to the adoption of this ordinance." The Amendment sent to the aforementioned agencies said ...... "existing prior to the adoption of the proposed ordinance. This changes the context and meaning completely. 3. After over two years of Variances, Appeals and Text Amendment applications the Planning Staff (after the hearing is closed) tells the Planning Commission that I could hire an engineer to determine where the rimrock is and the Planning Department may consider moving the stake for the 4th time. The Surveyors have already determined where the rimrock is and the Planning Staff does not agree. (See Survey map). There is no official appeal process. It's strictly up the Planning Staff. The Planning Commissioners decisions were swayed by this statement and the "unknown consequences". 4. This proposed amendment is taken directly from City of Bend Adopted Waterway Overly Zone - Exhibit D. The addition of "less than one acre" removes the possibility of larger parcels that are not Exhibit (2 - Page Page of , --) high density. (See page 1 of application) This City River Ordinance was written in 2002 to allow for hardships like this one. 5. The Rimrock Setback Ordinance as it was written in 1992 has unintended consequences that effect a hand full of small, high density lots, approximately (4-7), that cannot build an average sized home on them. One reason this issue has not come up before is that there are only a few of these lots that no one has tried to build on they since the 1992 Ordinance, until now. Other lots have a larger buildable area and have the ability to move back, out and up, even if planning staff gives them an unreasonable rimrock determination. These few lots are restricted on all sides along with a 20 foot height restriction. The proposed Text Amendment will relieve the hardship caused by the unintended consequences of the current code and still maintain the integrity and purpose of the ordinance. 6. Do the Commissioners want to modify the Text Amendment? Eliminate the definition of Rimrock? If unintended consequences are still a concern the lot size could be changed to '/2 acre or less. This would leave the 4 lots on River Bend Dr. that may be affected. If it were modified to say "less than ''/z acre" the subject property would be the only lot affected as it is the smallest lot in Deschutes County that would meet the criteria. In any case a 30' height restriction is needed to allow for the construction of home that is close to average size on these high density lots. Today's modern construction practices call for vaults, nine and ten foot ceilings. A two story home may also be required for a reasonable sized home on the small, hardship lots. 7. After over two years of Variances, Appeals and Text Amendments there has not been one neighbor or other member of the public that has objected to building closer than 20 feet to the "Rimrock". 8. What about people who have had to comply with the current ordinance in the past. The homes that fit this criterion built since 1992 have not been hardship cases with small lots. The four samples of homes built on Squaw Creek since 1993 average 3,906 square feet including garages but excluding decks and porches. 9. I talked to Walt Schloer who is the District Ranger with the U.S. Forest Service. I informed him that he had been sent the wrong Text Amendment and that is the one he recommended denial. I explained my circumstances and the other 3-6 lots that may have the same hardship and asked him how he felt if 5 or 6 homes in Deschutes County were built closer than the 20' setback under these conditions. He felt this was "reasonable" and saw no problem with the text amendment. I told him I was going to quote him at the hearing and that he would probably be getting a call from someone from Deschutes County to verify our conversation. He said, "That will be fine." Jan Houck with the Oregon Parks and Rec could not be reached. She also received the wrong Text Amendment and does not know the hardship or consequences of this amendment. Exhibit Page �:�"D of SUMMARY The over zealous placement of the Rimrock, the current code and the small size of this lot has had the "unintended consequences" of causing a hardship for building a home that is even half the average size. The criteria for this Text Amendment has been searched, researched and searched again! There are no unknown consequences to this text amendment. It will relieve a hardship to a hand full of County residents that have been damaged by the unintended consequences of the 1992 ordinance. The U.S. Forest Service feels this is "reasonable." Respectfully s tted, Ji ohns Applicant Exhibit C Page k- of 35 A6 Thursday, May 27, 2004 • THE BULLETIN EDITORIALS Fix the county rimrock rule im Johnson, who wants to build a retirement home next to the Deschutes River, is stuck between his rim - rock and a hard place. John- son owns a riverside lot in Deschutes River Woods, but he can't build a house large enough to suit his needs thanks to setback requirements contained in the county's zoning code. The development drama has dragged on for many months, and Johnson, who's spent thousands of dollars al- ready, now says he's considering a lawsuit. Taking this matter to court would be a shame, as a sensible solution - proposed at one point by Johnson himself - does exist: Deschutes Coun- ty should be a bit more like Bend.Johnson's beef is with a 1992 county ordinance requiring structures on lots like his to be set back at least 50 feet from the rimrock's edge. Be- cause his lot was created before the ordinance took effect, Johnson is eli- gible for an exemption allowing him to build his house within as little as 20 feet of the edge. Unless he can go a lit- tle closer still, though, Johnson be- lieves the buildable portion of his lot will be impractically small. The coun- ty hasn't granted his request. You could argue that Johnson, who agreed to buy the lot only a cou- ple of years ago, should be willing to live with the restriction. But the caveat -emptor argument ignores one important fact. The houses on either side of Johnson's lot were built before the setback ordinance took effect, and they certainly wouldn't stand up to the measuring -tape test the county has applied to Johnson. It seems a lit- tle silly, then, to get tough on John- son's proposal. A more sensible zoning code would accommodate situations like his. Bend's, in fact, does just that. If Johnson's lot were in Bend, the set- back for his house wouldn't have to So what now? Zhe county's board of commissioners should push the code amendment Johnson abandoned. exceed the average setback of the houses on either side. Thus, if one house were set back 10 feet and one were set back four feet, he could build his as close as seven feet from the edge of the rimrock. Johnson knows this, of course, and he applied for an amendment to the county's code that would make it work more like Bend's. He gave up, though, when he became convinced that the Deschutes County Planning Commission was going to shoot his idea down. Maybe it would have, but we wish he'd stuck with it. The amendment made sense. So what now? The county's board of commissioners should push the code amendment Johnson aban- doned. Commissioner Mike Daly has said he feels sorry for Johnson, and he believes the commission should "bend over backwards within the law" to see that his house gets built. Bending over backward within the current law, as Daly has pointed out, probably means Johnson won't be able to build the house he wants. So why not bend over backward to change the law in a sensible manner? This will benefit not only Johnson - who, according to Daly, "has really been through the mill" — but also other county resi- dents who find themselves in a si Exhibit C larly tight and nonsensical spot. Page 5 of 53 CRAGHEAD: I believe you're right. After hearing this testimony, I agree with the Hearings Officer that what Mr. Johnson thought was legal mumbo jumbo boils down to the specific governs the general. The variance is a general provision, and where you have a specific exemption to the rimrock setback, that overrules the variance. However, if the Board should chose that the variance criteria applies, I think we do have a problem with the self-imposed difficulty, both in the fact that the law was in effect prior to the purchase of the property, and also that the size of the house is a matter of personal choice. If there were to be other exceptions, it would be an ordinance change as opposed to going through a variance. This is a different application, and cannot be done in this quasi-judicial process. JOHNSON: May I ask a question? Do you feel that this ordinance can't be varied? CRAGHEAD: Correct. I also feel that you don't meet it even if it could be varied. But I'm not the decision -maker. JOHNSON: The point I would like to make, is that as a citizen I go down to planning and say I want to buy this lot, can I build a house here, I was told at first yes, if there is ever a need for a variance, you meet it, and I got the go-ahead. Then I applied for it, paid my money, and it was then recommended that the owner should have known about this lot. My point is, when I go down to the planners, if they would have told me that the specific overrules the general and there's no way you can get a variance and build a house, I've been in real estate long enough to say fine, I'll find another piece of property. I'm sitting here now about $5,000 and eight months later trying to build a 2,000 square foot home, equal to or behind these other two homes, and go on with my life. It's not happening. DEWOLF: What I am trying to say is, I agree. I don't know what these two gentlemen think, but I agree with you. It's logical that you ought to be able to build up to those two houses. I don't have a problem with that. The problem I have is that I think for me to do it through this process is illegal. That's what I felt since I read all of this stuff. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Monday, July 28, 2003 Page 21 of 28 Pages Exhibit C Page LP of SS However, to get you where you want to go, to come and propose an ordinance change that modifies the ordinance, that would apply Countywide because everything we do here sets precedent. If I personally set the precedent of breaking the law in order to do what is logical, that's a horrible precedent for me to set. However, because I think what you want to do is logical, and if Mike and Dennis it is logical, for us to modify the ordinance to allow this to happen, that to me seems the proper way to do this. And it would help other people, if there were any, int e same situation. Have I said anything that is wrong or illegal? CRAGHEAD: No. DEWOLF: Is this a possible solution or a legal solution? Yes. I can understand how it would be a disappointing process for Mr. Johnson because there would be another application fee. DALY: So what is the process to change the ordinance? •' 1W:_s It would be a matter of Mr. Johnson filing an application for a change in the zoning ordinance, and then it would be a matter of staff reviewing the application, going through a Planning Commission hearing as well as the Board hearing. And staff knows better than I how long that would take. LUKE: You'd also want to know what other properties are affected before you set the precedence. That would be very important. If you want to move something through, you could have a joint hearing. DEWOLF: We could pull it up without going through the Planning Commission, can't we? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Page 22 of 28 Pages Monday, July 28, 2003 Exhibit C Page -A of �� .P prior to the issuance of a building permit. C. Chapter 18.132. VARIANCES Section 18.132.025. Minor variances. A variance seeking to depart from on-site requirements of DCC Title 18, such as setbacks and area requirements, by no greater than 10 percent of the required distance or area may be granted by the Planning Director or Hearings Body in conformance with DCC 18.132.025. FINDING: The applicant is seeking a minor variance of 1 -foot to the 10 -foot side yard setbacks. The site plan submitted with the application shows the back corner on the west side of the structure extending into the side yard setback by 1 -foot. Ten percent of the 10 -foot side yard setback is 1 -foot, which is consistent with the applicant's variance request. The applicable criteria are addressed below. A. In the case of a setback or size variance, the applicant shall show that the approval will result in: 1. More efficient use of the site; FINDING: The Hearings Officer agrees with Staff that two building_ constraints exist on the approximate 0.38 -acre site that result in reducing and restricting the potential building area of the property: (1) Rimrock that limits the developable area above the rimrock to the front 80 feet, not including the required setbacks, and (2) the width of the lot is approximately 81 feet along River Bend Drive and tapers to 67 feet in the rear. With such a relatively small building envelope, the applicant has proposed to locate the septic system on a portion of the lot located across River Bend Drive. The Hearings Officer agrees with Staff that the minor variance will meet the applicant's design objectives and provide for a more efficient use of the site considering the building constraints of the property. 2. Preservation of natural features where appropriate; FINDING: The record shows that there is no vegetation of significant size or that provides screening located in the proposed building site. The Hearings Officer agrees with Staff that this criterion can be met through the imposition of a condition of approval requiring the retention of all vegetation between the building site and the river. 3. Adequate provision of light and privacy to adjoining properties; and FINDING: Because the north lot line is the lot line fronting along the Deschutes River, the proposed dwelling will meet the solar setback standards of Title 18. The variance is only needed for the rear portion of the structure and not the entire length. The Hearings Officer agrees with Staff that the minimal variance to the side yard setback will have minimal, if any, impact on the adjoining properties. 4. Preservation of topographic, vegetative and Hearings Officer Decision File No. V-03-3 Page 8 Exhibit C Page Of 1 questions? OK, seeing none, I will open the hearing on V033 and 2 will begin with the Staff Report by Matt Martin. Thank you. 3 MATHEW MARTIN: Thank you. For the record, my name is 4 Mathew Martin. I'm an Assistant Planner with the Deschutes 5 County Community Development Department. The purpose of 6 tonight's hearing is to take evidence and testimony both orally 7 and in writing on an Application. For related variance requests 8 the land use file number is V033. Specifically, the Applicant is 9 requesting approval of variances to the side yard set back 10 standards of the Rural Residential Zone and rim rock set back 11 standards of the Landscape Management Combining Zone. 12 The Applicant in this matter is Jim Johnson and current 13 property owner is Victoria Johnson. The criteria applicable to 14 this matter are on the overhead to my left. 15 Notice of tonight's hearing was mailed to owners of record 16 of properties of 250 feet of the subjects' property and of public 17 agencies. No written comments from neighbors were received in 18 response to this notice. I have provided the Hearings Officer 19 with copies of the transmittal responses from public agencies. I 20 must add for the record, a fax was received this afternoon from 21 William Boyer, Chairman of Friends of Deschutes County, 22 requesting the file remain open for at least another week. 23 At this point, I would like to provide some basic findings 24 of fact and then address each of the variance requests. The 25 subject property has assigned addresses of: 60670 and 60671 26 River Bend Drive, Bend, Oregon, and is within the River Bend Transcription, VARIANCE HEARING APPLICATION, April 15, 2003, Page 5 Exhibit C Page o1 of e t 1 Estates 2 Subdivision. The subject property is a total of approximately 3 .63 acres in size and is intersected by River Bend Drive. 4 Approximately .25 acres identified, as part of Lot 63 is located 5 to the south of the street. The remaining .38 acres, identified 6 as Lot 26, is located to the north of the street. This portion 7 of the property is displayed on the enlarged plot plan for your 8 reference. 9 These were combined by lot line adjustment in 1989. The 10 portion of the property to the south of street is level with 11 minimal vegetation and is where the septic system for the 12 proposed dwelling will be located. The dwelling is proposed to 13 the north of River Bend Drive. The topography of this portion of 14 the property consists of a level area located on top of the rim 15 rock. 16 There is also a large portion of the property located at the 17 base of the rim rock at river level. The location of the rim 18 rock on the property was identified and staked by Staff 19 approximately 80 feet from the street. Vegetation on the site 20 consists of mature and immature pine trees and other native 21 shrubs and ground cover. The majority of the larger trees are 22 located on the lower portions of the site between the top of the 23 rim rock and the Deschutes River. As I previously stated, the 24 subject property is within the River Bend Estates Subdivision. 25 Zoning in the area is rural residential or RR10 and the lots in 26 the area are all privately owned and developed with single family Transcription, VARIANCE HEARING APPLICATION, April 15, 2003, Page 6 Exhibit C Page _\C-) of 1 dwellings or currently vacant. 2 In the RR10 zone a single-family dwelling is permitted 3 outright. The property is also within the Landscape Management 4 Combining Zone, where a single-family dwelling is also permitted 5 outright, subject to site plan review. The proposed dwelling has 6 been sited to the minimum set back standards of these zones 7 except, those that are subject to the variance requests. The 8 proposed dwelling qualifies for a rim rock set back exception 9 because the subject property was created as part of the River 10 Bend Estates in 1961 - long before the current rim rock standards 11 were adopted in 1992. The rim rock set back exception will allow 12 a structure to be sited to a minimum of 20 feet from the rim rock 13 and also require the height of the structure not exceed the set 14 back from the edge of the rim rock. 15 It is these two standards the Applicant is requesting 16 variances to. As proposed, the structure is 20 feet in height 17 and 10 feet from the rim rock. Beyond these two standards, Staff 18 believes the proposed structure complies with the remaining 19 exception criteria; specifically the vegetation between the 20 structures creates a substantial buffer that minimizes the 21 visibility of the structure from the river. Staff recommends 22 that if the Hearings Officer approves the variance requests that 23the retention of this vegetation be made a Condition of Approval. 24 Now I would like to address the request for the minor 25 variance for the required minimum side yard set back. Please 26 note the Applicant did request the minor variance but did not Transcription, VARIANCE HEARING APPLICATION, April 15, 2003, Page 7 Exhibit L' Page 11 of 7 3. 1 address the criteria in the submitted burden of proof. However, 2 the following are Staff's conclusions based on the submitted 3 information and physical characteristics of the property: Lot 26 4 is 80 feet wide along the street and tapers to approximately 68 5 feet in the rear. This tapering forces a small portion of the 6 rear of the proposed 60 foot wide structure, which is sited to 7 the minimum 20 foot front yard set back to encroach into the 8 minimum 10 foot side yard set back by 1 foot. Taking this into 9 consideration along with the limited area of the lot located on 10 top of the rim rock and that the septic system is proposed across 11 River Bend Drive, Staff believes this is efficient use of the 12 site. 13 There is no vegetation significant size or that provides 14 screening located in the proposed building site. This along with 15 the topography of the building site being level the proposed 16 structure will have limited impact on the natural features of the 17 site. With the north walk line along the river, solar shade 18 "protection and access to light for adjoining properties is 19 adequate. In addition, Staff does not believe the minimal 20 encroachment in the required side yard set back will have any 21 effect on the privacy of the adjoining properties and finds it 22 significant that only one neighbor had called to simply obtain 23 more information about the proposal and not express opposition to 24 the encroachment. 25 And now I would like to address the request of the area 26 barrens the rim rock set back standards. As previously stated, Transcription, VARIANCE HEARING APPLICATION, April 15, 2003, Page 8 Exhibit C Page _� Of 11 x �c4i pukk�s�a base c),-?+ L\ )" 4 g f P v", P-1-' , ,- 1 there are physical constraints of the lot and biddable area, 2 specifically only 80 of overall 225 feet of lot's depth are 3 located on top of the rim rock and available for development. If 4 all of the minimum set backs were met, only 2,400 square feet 5 will be available for building. With such a relatively small 6 area buildable for this structure, the septic system is proposed 7 and approved to be located on the portion of the lot across the 8 street. 9 The Applicant indicated that the owner would sustain a 10 substantial financial loss by not being_able to_sell the__property__. 11 if the proposed zoning was not approved. The public benefit in 12 this matter is, if the 20 -foot rim rock set back were met, the 13 structure would be less visible from the river. Staff believes 14 that if the existing vegetation between the proposed dwelling and 15 the river were retained, there would be little additional visual 16 impact. With these reasons, Staff believes the literal 17 application of the ordinance would create a practical difficulty 18 resulting in greater private expense than public benefit. The 19 commission creating the difficulty in this situation is the 20 presence of the rim rock in the limited portion of the lot 21 located on top of the rim rock and available for building. The 22 rim rock in the area is undulating and is not consistent from lot 23 to lot, and therefore, unique to the site. The intent of the rim 24 rock set back standards is to minimize the visual impact of the 25 structure when viewed from the river. 261 There are substantial vegetation located between the Transcription, VARIANCE HEARING APPLICATION, April 15, 2003, Page 9 Exhibit C Page _ of 3\ Al dh q TA -04-3 September 6, 2004 18.04.030. Definitions. "Rimrock" means any ledge, outcropping or top or overlying stratum of rock, which forms a face in excess of 45 degrees, and which creates or is within the canyon of the following rivers and streams: 1) Deschutes River; 2) Crooked River; 3) Fall River; 4) Little Deschutes River; 5) Spring River; 6) Paulina Creek; 7) Squaw Creek; and 8) Tumalo Creek. For the purpose of DCC Title 18, the edge of the rimrock is the uppermost rock ledge or outcrop of rimrock. The applicant would like to add the following to his text amendment: shall be deleted from D( After hearing the Commissioners' concern with the subjective definition of "Rimrock" and finding that no other city or county in Central Oregon has a definition for "Rimrock" the applicant feels that it is in the best interest of everyone that it be deleted while the Commissioners are currently addressing this issue. One of the applicant's problems is the over zealous interpretation of "Rimrock" by planning staff placing the "Rimrock" stake at the head of a dirt trail that contains no rock and is less than a 45 degree angle. Had the "Rimrock" been placed where the surveyors originally determined, there would never have been a problem. Deleting the definition will put Deschutes County Code in line with the City of Bend and other cities and counties in Central Oregon. Thank you for your consideration! Respectfully submitted, /5/ Jim Johnson, Applicant Exhibit C Page 1 = of ,�$_ Memorandum To: Deschutes County Planning Commission From: Catharine White, Associate Planner (383-6719; email: Cathy_ White@deschutes.org) OA11Y CC: Kevin Harrison, Principal Planner Catherine Morrow, Principal Planner Date: 9/16/04 Re: Text Amendment to the Rimrock exceptions standards —Update File: TA -04-3 This is a follow-up to the additional information pertaining to the GiS information requested by the Planning Commission at the August 26, 2004 public hearing. • Conduct additional research using the assistance of the County's GiS staff to create maps that better reflect the applicant's proposed text amendment and it's potential cumulative affect on other rimrock properties in Deschutes County. Staff response: At the September 9, 2004, Planning Commission meeting, staff informed the Commissioners the GIS research analysis was not completed. Attached are the research results prepared by Melanie Moss, GIS Analyst Programmer. Ms. Moss will be available at the Thursday, September 23, 2004 Planning Commission meeting to explain the results and be available for questions. In addition, Mr. Johnson informed staff at the September 9, 2004 meeting that the proposed text listed in the August 26, 2004, Staff Report, had a couple of errors., The correct text as proposed in the•application"is listed below: 1 98.84.090. 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 - -- Exhibit C Page �_ of 33 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.2 Q 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. 2 Staff notes the County's Comprehensive Plan, Title 23, Chapter 12 defines "In -filling" as follows: "In-filling"means the use of undeveloped lands in areas of existing housing and high . densities. FILE: TA -04-3 Page 3 of 8 — - 1 -- Exhibit C Page 110 of B SITE FLAN LOT 2(o RIVER SEND ESTA' DESCWLITES COUNT' SCALE: 1%30' A. Initial "Rim Rock" as det, B. Second and current "Rim C. "Rim Rock" as determine APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM File No. V-03-3 HEARING EXHIBIT B Exhibit—C File No. V-03-3 Page �`Z of To: CATHY WITTE FROM: MFuw>EM06S suaaEcr: DFscaUMS Couxnr R04ROCK GIS ANALYSIS (JIM JOHNSON PROTECT) DATE: 9/152004 RIMROCK ANALYSIS PROCESS AND RESULTS The following GIS analysis was performed in response to your request to provide the Planning Commission with more information about areas of the county meeting certain criteria. Specifically, I was asked to produce maps that showed properties that met the following criteria ■ Along the Deschutes River, Crooked River, Fall River, Little Deschutes River, Spring River, Paulina Creek, Squaw Creek, and Tumalo Creek ■ Less than one acre in size and in existence prior to April 8, 1992 ■ A portion of the parcel that meets the slope defmition of canyon rimrock (>45' • Buildings on adjacent lots ■ Setbacks less than 50 feet from rimrock The following steps were taken during analysis: 1) Select all listed water features from the above list and create a 1000 foot buffer around each. Note: The 1000' buffer was used as an analysis aid to ensure that properties within the waterway canyons were included. 2) Calculate slope data for Deschutes County using USGS 10 meter digital elevation model data from 2002. Query out all of the areas in which the slope is greater than 45 degrees (per the definition of rimrock). 3) Taxlots that intersect any location of> 45° slope within 1000' of each waterway were selected (results =145 taxlots). 4) Query the resulting properties for those less than 1.1 acre (10% margin of error for GIS calculated acres). The results of this query are as follows: > 7 parcels total: 3 within the City of Bend city limits, 2 in Redmond area (outside Redmond UGB), and 1 in Smith Rock area of county (unbuildable based on proximity to cliff and square footage) 5)a two parcels in the Redmond area are in Chaparral Estates 1" Addition, which was platted in 1969. See map 1 for location and year built information. Exhibit Page Fc of J Community Development Department pm�fi �A.Aj- 117 Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 MEETING MINUTES http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION BARNES AND SAWYER ROOMS OF THE DESCHUTES SERVICES BUILDING 1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OR 97701 SEPTEMBER 23, 2004 - 5:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Sailors called the meeting to order. Members present were Tammy Sailors, Keith Cyrus, Brenda Pace, Dennis Erisman, Mike Shirtcliff, Peter Gramlich, and Allan Jones via conference telephone call. Staff present was Cathy White, Associate Planner, Catherine Morrow, Principal Planner, and Sandy Ringer, Senior Secretary. (Approval of Minutes 8/26/94 and 9/09/04) 8/26/04 – Commissioner Shirtcliff made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Commissioner Gramlich seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of approving the minutes. 9/09/04 – Commissioner Shirtcliff made a motion to approve the minutes as written. Commissioner Gramlich seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous in favor of approving the minutes. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS There were none III. WORK SESSION – FILE NO. TA -04-3 – A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE, CHAPTER 18.84, OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE TEXT IN THE RIMROCK SETBACK EXCEPTIONS, SECTION 18.84.090(E), BY ADDING LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS STRUCTURES TO BE LOCATED CLOSER THAN 20 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE RIMROCK IN AN INFILL SITUATION – CATHARINE WHITE, ASSOCIATE PLANNER Cathy White introduced Melanie Moss to explain her analysis and memo regarding her GIS research. Melanie gave a detailed report of her research and discussed the maps she had created for this research. DCPC Meeting Minutes September 23, 2004 Page 1 Quality Services Performed with .Pride Exhibit C Page -C _ of,S19 Melanie then went on to her second portion of the analysis and some new maps she had created. She noted that from this analysis, she discovered that there were the following: South County — 962 lots less than 1 -acre along the waterways — 558 developed and 406 are vacant. North County— 321 — 231 developed and 90 of them are vacant. Of the 90 vacant lots in the North County, there were 40 that have adjacent developed properties on them and some were not buildable and were next to red lots. Commissioner Shirtcliff asked if there were for certain 40 parcels that this variance from the current rim rock ordinance would affect, and asked if this would be a problem for other Commissioners. Commissioner Pace noted that it would be a problem for her as there was much work that went into this original ordinance from many organizations and it was developed 12 years ago. Discussion continued between Dr. Shirtcliff and Commissioner Pace. Commissioner Sailors noted that one of the things that came up when they visited the site was tnai the appncant should hire an engineer to determine for certain whether not the rim rock stake is in the correct place. She did not feel that the applicant had resources. _. 17 C) Catherine Morrow noted that the Planning Commission could determine that the impact was not significant, and make the Goal 5 findings about protecting the resource. This would require work to research the previous findings. \_14� The discussion then moved into "Why are we doing this anyway?" The response from staff was that we are doing this because we have an applicant proposed application. Commissioner Cyrus noted that he went out to the site again today. He noted that you couldn't see the entire trail from the lot. He also felt that we could possibly compromise a little bit. Commissioner Shirtcliff asked how we should now proceed. Commissioner Sailors noted that the Planning Commission has the option of making the ordinance more restrictive, or send it along to the Board of County Commissioners without recommending approval. Commissioner Sailors then asked if staff has any recommendation about this issue? Cathy White noted that the recommendation of her August 26"' staff report is (on Page 7) that if the Planning Commission adopts new language to the Code, findings need to be made to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the Deschutes River Study of 1986. The Comprehensive Plan and the River Study (which is actually the ESEE) balance the conflicting resources (rivers or streams). The Board of County Commissioners also recognized the setbacks expectations of property owners and the value of rim rock views. The findings of the Board are what you are trying to balance. The Comprehensive Plan has specific text and the River Study addresses rim rock. She DCPC Meeting Minutes September 23, 2004 Page 2 - - Exhibit 0 - Page 20 of also noted that Planning Commission actually sent something similar to this issue to the Board of County Commissioners in 1992 and the Board chose not to adopt it. Earlier this year the Board of County Commissioners chose, once again, not to adopt they G� proposal brought tot em on this same issue. If the Planning Commission does change the rules, it must make some findings to at least ensure that you are continuing to 4\ protect the views as seen from the river and preserve those views by implementing any new language. Commissioner Cyrus asked about what would happen if one of those homes that are built closer than 20 feet to the rim rock burns? It can be rebuilt with the same footprint within a certain amount of time (within one year). It must also be a lawful use. �. Catherine Morrow noted that the Statewide Planning Goals gives the counties the option e to protect scenic resources. In the case of Deschutes County, there was a lot of cooperation with the state and the federal, wild and scenic and state scenic waterways,d' to make sure that our regulations implemented the intent of those state and federal classifications. It was a policy decision in 1992 by the Board of County Commissioners U to establish these special setbacks for a particular purpose. We don't know how many �E} of those 40 lots have rim rocks, how long the people have owned it, all we know is that they are less than one acre and they have houses next door to them. We don't know if people can easily build with the setback or if this will be a hardship for people. One of the things that the ESEE analysis does is balance the consequences of protecting or not protecting resources. For Commissioner Shirtcliff's benefit - In a number of circumstances under statewide regulations, there is a requirement to do an Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy Consequences Analysis. In that Consequences Analysis, you are supposed to weigh the consequences for those four factors of allowing something or not allowing something. And you balance those consequences and come up with a program to implement your decision about how you want to balance those consequences. This applies to wildlife regulations, surface -mining regulations, and riparian regulations and to the scenic regulations. It also applies to urban growth boundary amendments. It doesn't mandate how you balance the things, it just says you have to make findings about the consequences you see if you were to do this, and then discuss the consequences you wouldn't see if you were to do this. You're making the choice to either allow it or not allow it or to allow it with restrictions to address those consequences. In this case, in 1992, the County looked at those consequences and decided to allow'people to build houses with restrictions in an effort to balance those consequences. Commissioner Pace asked about the two letters received from other agencies — one from State of Oregon Parks and Recreation and one from U. S. Forest Service. Cathy White noted that the Forest Service is talking about the Federal Scenic Waterway and the State Parks is discussing the State Scenic Waterway. The comments from these letters are in the staff report verbatim. The Forest Service asked why staff would want to mirror old practices that don't reflect the policy that is in place. Commissioner Sailors asked for opinions from each Commissioner: Commissioner Jones noted that Bend and Redmond do not have the rim rock setback regulation. We are dealing with a piece of property that is sitting 14 or 15 lots away from DCPC Meeting Minutes September 23, 2004 Page 3 Exhibit (2� Page _ of I . . A the city limits of Bend. When they move that Urban Growth Boundary, he thought it would take in this property. He also noted that he was surprised that there would be any disturbance of people floating by on the river if that slot were tilled in with a house. He has seen time after time in Oregon Water Wonderland and Forest Lane, where these older homes (either manufactured homes or terrible looking houses) that cannot now be replaced, have been allowed, and then we have our line -of -site rules. He felt that this was much the same kind of thing. He stated that he was prepared to move on either with a text amendment or with some other recommendation to the Board. Commissioner Sailors noted that the City of Bend does not have rim rock restrictions, but they do have a Waterway Overlay Zone that is more restrictive than a 50 It setback. She thought it was 100 feet from the river corridor. Commissioner Pace felt she had already expressed her concerns. The applicant can still build a house and it's not worth changing this ordinance in order to accommodate his particular wish. Commissioner Erisman agreed somewhat with Commissioner Pace. He was not sure a text amendment is the right way to go. He suggested that an engineer could measure_ the actual rim rock setbacks and this might give him the actual space he needs or something closer. He did nit feel all of the applicant's options had been exhausted_ AX Commissioner Gramlich felt that the burden is on the applicant to prove that the 1992 amendment should be amended without unintended consequences. He had not found any reason to over turn the 1992 ordinance. If that means building a smaller home on it, so be it. Commissioner Sailors noted that from her experience with other agencies, and is reluctant to change the 1992 ordinance for one person. She didn't think the applicant has an unbuildable lot, and also felt like an engineer could help and with a variance to the front setback, the applicant might be able to get what he wants. You may have to build a smaller house -but ut the lot is still buil able. She also expressed her sincere concern about the(nintended consequences)if this text amendment was to be adopted. MOTION: Commissioner Shirtcliff moved to approve the text amendment as presented. Commissioner Cyrus shared the same concerns of changing something that could affect more than what we are looking at. He would be inclined to pass this on to the Board of County Commissioners to deal with and he felt some additional information could be brought in. He also agreed that an engineer (if the County will accept the findings of an engineer) could go out and establish where the stake should be. He felt that it is possible the current position of the stake could be in error because of not having an option on where to place it. If the stake was placed where it is based on a 45 -degree slope, the information we have really doesn't support the fact that we have a 45 -degree slope. ,Ifs in fact, the engineer could move the rim rock setback into a location that would accommodate the buildina without chanaino the ordinance thic is what ho %A,nl11A "k— H ��s recommend. Commissioner Cyrus then seconded the motion. DCPC Meeting Minutes September 23, 2004 Page 4 Exhibit C Page 2�2 of _-:S3 VOTE: 3 in favor (Cyrus/Shirtcliff/Jones) - 4 opposed (Sailors/Gramlich/Erisman/Pace) Commissioner Cyrus asked if there was some compromise language that might make things work. Catherine Morrow replied that there was none because compromise language would mean the applicant would need to change his proposal to be more acceptable. There was discussion among the Planning Commissioners about whether or not they would want to send this on to the Board of Commissioners. Catherine Morrow suggested they might want to consider a motion to recommend denial. Cathy White explained that this would be going to the Board of County Commissioners for their review and approval or denial. MOTION: Commissioner Shirtcliff made a motion to move on. Commissioner Cyrus seconded the motion to move on VOTE: The vote was unanimous in favor of the motion. Commissioner Cyrus shared the concerns that the Planning Commission has regardinc changing the ordinance. However, utilizing an engineer might help the applicant. He would prefer that the stake be moved to a place Ck\ � e VA (�t, tA � 'f005 IV. OTHER ITEMS OF CONCERN/DISCUSSION WV LlJ� a �IQ vl O LM't k1l) Commissioner Pace asked about an article regarding backers of Measure 37. Barbara and Gene Prete bought 20 acres on Cloverdale and they couldn't build a farm dwelling. Why couldn't they build a non-farm dwelling? Commissioner Cyrus noted that the people bought the property and could have built then, but cannot now build. Cathy White noted that on a non-farm dwelling application, the burden is much more stiff. It takes the entire property out of its ability to be on farm deferral. Commissioner Sailors noted that there has only been one item on the agenda and wanted to know if staff can we add more things on the agenda? be viol Catherine Morrow noted that she and Peter Gutowsky had met with the City of Sisters and the City of Redmond to discuss the issues pending in regards to UGB expansion and amendments to the Comprehensive Plans for both entities. Chuck McGraw is to have findings to us by end of next week. Staff hopes to have a briefing with the Planning Commission and then schedule a joint work session with the Planning Commission at which time we will ask direction from the planning commissions as to how to address the findings for the public hearings. City of Sisters — the Planning staff is so busy trying to keep their heads above water with all of their current planning applications, they have not had time to deal with any of this. Now they have different population numbers and have changed their density zoning in the city. They are going to conduct another housing analysis. They may come back with different findings as they have different issues. DCPC Meeting Minutes September 23, 2004 - — Page 5 Exhibit C Page_2—,'3- of "recognizing setback expectations of property owners and the value of rimrock views." The Planning Commission, in forwarding their recommendation to the Board, proposed similar language as the applicant, but the Board did not adopt it. The only clear reference to this issue is in the January 22, 1992 Minutes of the Board (that are attached to the August 26, 2004, Staff Report), which states in relevant part: Commissioner Schlangen said what she was trying to do was guarantee that existing lots would be able to meet the exceptions criteria. Bruce White said that as the language was currently drafted, existing lots would qualify for an exception. There was nothing to guarantee that the house could be located as close as 20 feet, because it was still subject to a design review which required minimization of visual impacts. Chairman Maudlin asked if people in a subdivision already had houses built at the 20 - foot set back, would a neighboring lot owner also be able to build at the 20 -foot set back also. Mr. Read said that was listed in the exception criteria in the proposed language. Mr. Read asked if Commissioner Schlangen wanted the house to be set back equal to the height? Commissioner Schlangen said yes. Mr. Read asked if she wanted specific siting standards where the application would go through site plan review to try to minimize the impacts? Commissioner Schlangen said yes. Mr. Read asked if she wanted visible decks to be included in the 20 -foot set back? Commissioner Schlangen said yes. She didn't want a built-in guarantee of a 20 -foot setback. George Read said that was essentially what was in the proposed language which staff could clean up to make a blanket exception on existing lots using the exceptions criteria. Commissioner Throop said he understood the motion to be a blanket exception for preexisting lots, each lot would address the criteria which allowed the house to be sited as close to 20 feet. The rimrock setback exception rules adopted by the Board in 1992 have since been applied to those landowners requesting structures closer than 20 feet from the edge of the rimrock. iJ • Agency Comments The proposed text amendment was distributed to several agencies for comments, which are listed verbatim in the August 26, 2004 StaffBeport. Of note are comments from the U.S. Forest Service and the Oregon State Parks and Recreation Department. These two agencies have an interest in the proposed text amendment as portions of the Deschutes River are located in the Federally designated Upper Deschutes Wild and Scenic River and also within the State Scenic Waterway. According to comments from the Forest Service, this section of the river is valued for its "outstandingly remarkable scenery, as well as its recreational value. The intent of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is to protect and enhance these values." �.. i�1 ►�1 � a 'l • Page 4 CQ�Uh4t 411 `� VH Exhibit Page nL H of ��n� �►4��►� ��c�— �o chn� 6��ow C1�C'tr�s�'c,y��S Both the US Forest Service and the Oregon State Parks oppose the proposed text amendment, citing the existing language in the code reflects a collaborative effort among several agencies, including Deschutes County, to protect and enhance the values of the scenic river. State Parks also notes that "infill situations were considered in the development of the ordinance" as well as undeveloped platted lots. The Forest Service believes the proposed language mirrors old practices that do not perpetuate goals to protect and enhance the values of the scenic river and the current. V \\ • GIS Data In support of the text amendment, the applicant submitted an analysis performed by the County's GIS staff that identifies the potential number of lots that are similarly situated as the applicant's lot. However, in reviewing the methodology criteria applied to the study, staff found the study is limited in its applicability in that the analysis included certain information and excluded other information, leaving an incomplete picture of the potential cumulative affects of the proposed text amendment on other rimrock properties in Deschutes County.'c As a result, the Planning Commission requested staff to conduct additional research using the assistance of the County's GIS staff to create maps that better reflect the applicant's proposed text amendment and its potential cumulative affect on other rimrock properties in Deschutes County. Staff coordinated the assignment with GIS Analyst Programmer, Ms. Melanie Moss, who prepared two additional studies that reflect the proposed text amendment. Depending on the methodology applied, the results of the various studies show that anywhere from four to 40 lots could be affected by the proposed text amendment. The diversity in results of these three studies reflects the differing methodology applied including selected criteria accuracy of available data, and interpretation of the data. Ms. Moss is planning on attending the November 30, 2004 public hearing to be available for uestions relative to the GIS work sheq rf d th' ct pe orme on is probe . d dpr's of C.dtlq. 1Rice, ter k, 69 �G &1 It (a 'Vic, fit'�Q `��-� �► r� �� P., � (A ►"� t'>Q�l IV. Recommendations and suggestions tc� text If the Board considers amending the rimrock setback exceptions standards, staff recommends the following. 1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the Deschutes County/City of Bend Deschutes River Study of 1986 The proposed text amendment must be reviewed for consistency with the County's Comprehensive Plan, Title, 23. Chapter 23.96, of the County's Comprehensive Plan addresses Open Spaces, Areas of Special Concern, and Environmental Quality. Policy 23.96.030(7) addresses rimrock setbacks as stated below (attached to August 26, 2004 Staff Report): 7. Rimrocks, along streams shall receive special review to assure that visual impacts of structures viewed from rivers or streams are minimized. A 50 -foot • Page 5 U Exhibit C ` Page 25 of A E. DISCUSSION 5+q (: QfPL0tq+ � a,6 —0 V Staff refers the Planning Commission to the attached Staff Report from the March 25, 2004, Public Hearing.. The Staff Report contains background information, legislative history on the extensive process involved in adopting the existing Landscape Management ordinance and associated rimrock setback code, and analysis on the previous text amendment that is applicable to the subject text amendment. Staff comments on the GIS study: The GIS study submitted by the applicant provides a limited review of the potential cumulative affects of the proposed text amendment. The analysis limited its review to Deschutes River and did not account for the seven other rivers and streams identified in the rimrock definition (see footnote 1 on page 2 for rimrock definition), which include not only the Deschutes River, but the Crooked River, Fall River, Little Deschutes River, Spring River, Paulina Creek, Squaw Creek, and Tumalo Creek. In addition, the analysis limited its review to residential property; whereas, the existing and proposed rimrock code applies to all new structures (including decks and additions) without limiting the review to residential property. Further, the GIS analysis limited its review to vacant parcels with homes built on either side prior to 1992; whereas, the language of the proposed text amendment is broader and includes "where there are buildings on both of the abutting lots ... " without restricting it to vacant residential parcels. Staff also notes the analysis included parcels with homes built prior to 1992. In 1992, the County adopted the existing exceptions language in the code, which only applies to lots or parcels that were a "lot of record prior to the adoption of this ordinance" in 1999 Aooption of the applicant'sjproposed language—"For lots or parcels less than one acre, dr-- code by allowing lots or parcels createafter the adoption of the code in 1992 adoption of the proposed text amendment to be eligible for a rimrock exceptioi ie In conclusion, staff believes the GIS analysis study is limited in its applicability in that the analysis includes certain information and excludes other information, leaving an incomplete � A picture of the potential cumulative affects of the proposed text amendment on other rimrock properties in Deschutes County. 0/ N 5 III. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Staff recommends the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and forward a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. 2. If the Planning Commission adopts new language to the code, staff recommends that findings be made to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the Deschutes River Study of 1986 relative to Goal 5—balancing the conflicting uses of protecting the scenic qualities of the river or stream while recognizing setback expectations of property owners and the value of rimrock views. 3. Staff also suggests that if amendments to the rimrock standards are recommended, the Planning Commission consider revising the rimrock setback standards outside the LM zone, Section 18.116.160 of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with those standards adopted in the LM zone. FILE: TA -04-3 Page 7 of 8 5-k-cf Prpomi f,--)6-tq� Exhibit C Page 20 of 1 . ,-r E FILE NUMBER: LOCATION: APPLICANT: arc (-. V)� Z� Community Development Department .� Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division t 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 26, 2004 TA -04-3 Barnes and Sawyer rooms of the Deschutes County Services Building, 1300 NW Wall Street, Bend Jim Johnson 31.10 NE Barrington Court Bend, Oregon 97701 PROPOSAL: Proposed text amendment to the Landscape Management Combining Zone, Chapter 18.84, of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance. The applicant proposes to amend the text in the Rimrock Setback Exceptions section, 18.84.090(E), by adding language that allows structures to be located closer than 20 feet from the edge of the rimrock in an infill situation as described as follows: For lots or parcels less than one acre, existing prior to the adoption of the r pose rdinance, where buildings on abutting lots have rimrocR acks less than the required distance, the setback need not exceed the average setback on the abutting buildings. STAFF CONTACT: Catharine White, Associate Planner I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA: Title 18, Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.84, Landscape Management (LM) Combining Zone Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions Chapter 18.136, Amendments Title 23, Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Exhibit (1 - Quality Quality Services Performed with Pride Page. of ,3!5_ B. The height of the structure shall not exceed the setback from the edge of the rimrock. C. Existing trees and shrubs which reduce the visibility of the proposed structure shall be retained. D. Where multiple structures are proposed on a parcel of land the structures shall be grouped or clustered so as to maintain a general appearance of open landscape for the effected area. This shall require a maintenance of at least 65 percent open space along all rimrocks. 3. Specific changes to the text. Staff suggests the following changes to the proposed text: A. The proposed text eliminates the height restriction in the rimrock setback exceptions code, which states: 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 (CO. below. The height in the LM zone is 30 feet measured from the natural grade on the side(s) facing the river or stream. Does the Board want to impose a height restriction? `3 WOO B. Also, does the Board want to deDine the t.Jrm "infill"? The Deschutes County zoning �1� ordinance does not define "infill" however, the Deschutes Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 12 defines "In -filling" as follows: "In -filling "means the use of undeveloped lands in areas of existing housing and high densities. C. Staff also suggests the following changes to the proposed text 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: !:a 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. • Page 7 -0 y M f M cK cili Exhibit - C -- Page —Q 8& of 3 Deschutes County Government, Oregon - DIAL Search Results Standard Page 1 of 1 Account: 135768 Map/TL: R 6-034 141119 CO 04900 SICHLER FAMILY TRUST \ SICHLER, G A ay SICHLER,SUZANNE� PO BOX 1753 SISTERS OR 97759 Site Address: 17343 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD SISTERS 97759 Assessor Property Description SQUAW CREEK CANYON RECREATIONAL ESTATES Lot: 26 Block: 41 Prop C1s:416 MA:6 VA:12 NH 000 Vol -Page: 2003-59421 Asmt Zone:RR10 CDD Zone:WA (WILDLIFE AREA COMBINING ZONE) " :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) " :RR10 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL - 10 ACRES MINIMUM) *** Land Values *** Asmt type Acres RURAL LOT SD LA *Total *** Improvement Values *** FB BLOT 141 1999 100 110 10 *Total 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Room Grid for 141 otal SgFt: 198,2 R 0 O M S - - - - - - - LR K DR FAM BD BATH 0TH FP UTL Sq Ft: 1982 1st F1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 5 25 Garage ———————————— �67__c9`— __ V i Ili———�'c_lS`——l�f�(Gj�"f *** Special Assessments Co oun Cres DEPT OF FORESTRY FIRE 1 18.00 1.00 divo �t Exhibit Page 9q ofzo 1 wan �, shaP. http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/index.cfm?objectid=65FI 1 10A-BDBD-57C1-91 D726DB.. 11/30/2004 Deschutes County Government, Oregon - DIAL Search Results Standard Page 1 of 1 41 1 . Account: 135760 Map/TL: R 6-034 141119 CO 03700 STORTON FAMILY TRUST STORTON,PETER ERNEST STORTON,JANET LEE PO BOX 1743 SISTERS OR 97759 Site Address: 17231 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD SISTERS 97759 Assessor Property Description SQUAW CREEK CANYON RECREATIONAL ESTATES Lot: 14 Block: 41 Prop C1s:401 MA:6 VA:12 NH 000 Vol -Page: 2003-78005 Asmt Zone:RR10 CDD Zone:WA (WILDLIFE AREA COMBINING ZONE) " :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) " :RR10 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL - 10 ACRES MINIMUM) *** Land Values *** Asmt type Acres RURAL LOT LF SD *Total *** Improvement Values *** FB BLT oGD 148 1993 99 Room Grid for 148 tal SgFt: 2765 - - - - R 0 0 M S - - - - - - - �, LR K DR FAM BD BATH 0TH FP UTL Sq Ft: 2573 lst F1 1 1 3 2\1 1 1 192 Attic 1 768 Garage ------------ `'- 3---t0+Cl1 -- *** Special Assessments Code Amount Acres DEPT OF FORESTRY FIRE 1 18.00 1.00 - -- - -- a _ Exhibit C Page,,2,00f,ag http://www.c(i.deschutes.or.us/index.cfm?objectid=65F l 1 10A-BDBD-57C1-91 D726DB... 11/30/2004 Deschutes County Government, Oregon - DIAL Search Results Standard Page 1 of 1 ,. , . 6 - Account: 135767 Map/TL: R 6-034 141119 CO 05000 ZEITNER,DANIEL LANTZ,KAREN SUE 3335 OLIVE STREET EUGENE OR 97405 THRU: Washington Mutual Savings Bank AGENT: LTS (P) Site Address: 17357 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD SISTERS 97759 Assessor Property Description SQUAW CREEK CANYON RECREATIONAL ESTATES Lot: 27 Block: 41 Prop C1s:416 MA:6 VA:12 NH 000 Vol -Page: 2001-47217 Asmt Zone:RR10 CDD Zone:RR10 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL - 10 ACRES MINIMUM) FF :WA (WILDLIFE AREA COMBINING ZONE) " :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) *** Land Values *** -_._ Asmt type EAc�resRURAL LOT 2 SD *Total 0.82 *** Improvement Values *** FB (�jGD 142 00 Room Grid for 142 Total SgFt: 2589 - c� LR K DR FAM BD BATH 0TH FP UTL Sq Ft: 1685 lst F1 1 1 1 2 1 1 904 2nd Fl 1 1 - - 819 Gara q *** Special Assessments Code Amount ;Acres DEPT OF FORESTRY FIRE 1 18.00 1.00 Exhibit C Page of:�,12_ http://www.co.deschutes. or.us/index. cfm?obj ectid=65F 111OA-BDBD-57C 1-91 D726DB... 11/30/2004 Deschutes County Government, Oregon - DIAL Search Results Standard Page 1 of 1 -46 , � ;j - Account: Account: 135762 Map/TL: R 6-034 141119 CO 03500 NITCHER,JOHN R NITCHER,CHARLOTTE C 17213 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD SISTERS OR 97759 Site Address: 17213 MOUNTAIN VIEW RD SISTERS 97759 Assessor Property Description SQUAW CREEK CANYON RECREATIONAL ESTATES Lot: 12 Block: 41 Prop C1s:416 MA:6 VA:12 NH 000 Vol-Page:1995-3740642 Asmt Zone:RR10 CDD Zone:WA (WILDLIFE AREA COMBINING ZONE) if :LM (LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE) " :RR10 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL - 10 ACRES MINIMUM) *** Land Values *** Asmt type Acres RURAL LOT SD LA *Total *** Improvement Values FB BLTGD 154 G1997)00 110 00 *Total 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Room Grid for 154 Total SgFt:3194 - - R 0 O M S - - - - - - - LR K DR FAM BD BATH OTH FP UTL Sq Ft: 1877 1st F1 1 1 1 2 2 1 930 2nd F1 1 1 1 387 Basemt 1 883 rage ------ - - - - -- T-7 i(5_�f)(_� `. _(4�QChr°5--- *** Special Assessments Code Amount cres DEPT OF FORESTRY FIRE 1 18.00 1.00 0 0� Y� °J L, � QIP \Al� Exhibit L' Page 3 2 of 33 htt p://www.co.deschutes.onus/index.cfm?objectid=65F 1110A-BDBD-57C1-91D726DB... 11/30/2004 4 S54 41'27" W CURV 8.04' (R1 do M) NOTE: NO ORIGINAL • IRON RODS WERE CURVE 16 FOUND THE RPA R ALONG CA -03 L81 C-81 •.5k 1p CURVE 0�+. LOT 24 R=03 set rising 3 %P L-81 ciao ?�y-� C57 sOd Yo N 5T e' 0�'• CURVE u' VZ- oe�F r�J�R-1'7 CA-OZ. V3- LOT 25 L-81 � LOT 26?�� df cs81 CURVE CA -0: �o It^ va-� / � ,bwa 0a � . : �Q`,� Found � 9 2- per L 8 NC68 00. O all, •0 $ set �' /V rising j O��O \� LOT 27 2 ' / IL NOTE: NO ORIGINAL IRON RODS WEF Found 1/2' Iron Rod / Set flush FOUND NORTHEAST OF THIS F `mo No Cap rising 12' \ o /' set rising 2' d' % %-I 'set rising 6' s� 55 `� j0 LOT 64 cA `�' to ZZ c^ eo��0 Found 5/8" Iron Rod 00. No Cap rising 6' VOLd: Note: Corner falls South (A��,; SOUTH �� 21'27'33" East 1.10' �1 from true position from 1 /2 �g radius point. a':'• LOT 63 -� 0 LOT 62 - LOT fi3 O� 3$ set rising 6' SCALE: 1 "=60' LEGEND set rising 3'� 51 16 NR Monuments of Record Found • opJ Monumentys Set this Survey o (5/8 x 30 rods & caps mkd. KARL PLS Found 1 Pipe 4 �1, 1k Record Dots from Plat of River (R)1 set flush S 6 ti0 Bend Estates. S Measured Data this survey (M) -Amok --- Exhibit C Page_ of,3