Loading...
2005-743-Ordinance No. 2005-019 Recorded 5/26/2005REVIEWED 4L--� . LEGAtCOUNSEL REVIEWED eAIL� CODE REVIEW COMMITTEE DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 11jill 1111111111111111111111 RICIRDI CJ 2005_7J3 CLERK 05/26/2005 03:57:02 PM BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCITUTES COUNTY, OREGON An Ordinance Amending Title 23, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, of the Deschutes County Code, to establish an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3, Agricultural Lands, to include a portion of a certain property, zoned Exclusive Farin Use Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone (EFU- TRB). ORDINANCE NO. 2005-019 WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Hearings Officer approved the Comprehensive Plan exception requested in Deschutes County Land Use File CU -04-113, on March 7, 2005, incorporated herein as Exhibit "B"; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Deschutes County Code ("DCC"), Chapter 22, Section 22.28.030(A) the Deschutes County Hearings Officer has authority to render a decision on all quasi-judicial plan amendments; and WHEREAS, the Plan Amendment (Goal Exception) approval in File CU -04-113 requires a revision to the County's Comprehensive Plan map to establish an exception to Goal 3 for property zoned Exclusive Farm Use Tumalo/Redmond/Bend Subzone(EFU-TRB); and WHEREAS, DCC 22.28.030(A) requires all quasi-judicial Plan Amendments to be adopted by the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners ("Board") to become effective; and WHEREAS, DCC 22.28.030(B) requires the Board to adopt the Hearings Officer's decision in the absence of an appeal or review initiated by the Board; and WHEREAS, no appeal was filed and the Board did not initiate review of the Hearings Officer's decision; and WHEREAS, on May 4, 2005, the Board convened a public meeting regarding Deschutes County File No. CU -04-113; now, therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: PAGE 1 OF 2 — ORDINANCE NO. 2005-019 (05/04/2005) Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC 23.120 is amended, as shown on Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein, Section 2. FINDINGS. The Board adopts the Decision of the Deschutes County Hearings Officer in CU -04-113, attached and incorporated by reference as Exhibit "B." n. e-�' DATED this c;/-3 day of 2005. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON luji Tom bENV6LF-, Ctfgcj / /q-� Date of I't Reading: day of 2005. Date of 2 nd Reading: ,�Y�day of 2005. Record of Adoption Vote Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused Dennis R. Luke Tom DeWolf Michael M. Daly Effective date: 6:71/ day of 2005. ATTEST: Recording Secretary PAGE 2 OF 2 — ORDINANCE NO. 2005-019 (05/04/2005) EXHIBIT "A" 23.120.200. Oregon Department of Transportation. In conjunction with gpproval of CU -04-113, an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3, Agricultural Lands, was taken to include a portion of a certain property zoned Exclusive Farm Use Tumato/Redmond/Bend Subzone (EFU-TRB). Reasons Justifying why the state 12oligy embodied in Goal 3 should not Uply in this situation'are set forth in Exhibit "B" to Ordinance 2005-019, which findings are inco1porated herein by reference. (Ord 2005-019 § 1, 2005) PAGE 1 OF 1 — EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2005-019 (05/04/2005) # V _'. DECISION OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER FILE NUMBER: CU -04-113 APPLICANT: Oregon Department of Transportation c/o Ed Moore 63034 O.B. Riley Road Bend, OR 97701 REQUEST: A conditional use permit to extend NE 9th Street in Redmond, Oregon, from Hemlock Avenue to Negus Way. A portion of the road extension is proposed to be located on property zoned EFU-TRB. �345678 0Z STAFF REVIEWER: Paul Blikstad, Associate Planner NAR HEARING DATE: January 25, 2005 RECORD CLOSED: January 30, 2005 COUNri 1. APPLICABLE CRITERIA 15? ZZ a A. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code (DCC), the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use Zone 18.16.030, Conditional Uses Permitted -high value and non -high value farmland 18.16.040, Limitations on conditional uses Chapter 18.116, Supplementary Provisions 18.116.230, Standards for Class I and 11 Road Projects. Chapter 18.128, Conditional Uses 18.128.015, General Standards Governing Conditional Uses. B. DCC Title 23, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Policy No. 5 C. Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660: Division 4, Interpretation of Goal 2 Exception Process 660-004-0010, Application of the Goal 2 Exception Process to Certain Goals 660-004-0015, Inclusion as Part of the Plan 660-004-018, Planning and Zoning for Exception Areas. 660-004-020, Goal 2, Part 11(c), Exception Requirements. 660-004-022, Reasons Necessary to Justify an Exception under Goal 2, Part 11(c) Hearings Officer Decision (CU 04-113): 3/2/2005 Page I of 25 Exhibit . 0 , Page I Of ;L5 - Ordinance "05-00 Division 12, Transportation Planning: 660-012-0060, Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments. 660-012-0070, Exceptions for Transportation Improvements on Rural Lands. D. DCC Title 22, Development Procedures Ordinance. Chapter 22.28 Land Use Action Decisions Section 22.28.030 Decisions on Plan Amendments and Zone Changes 11. BASIC FINDINGS A. LOCATION: The applicant is proposing to dedicate and construct a portion of NE 9th Street in Redmond, Oregon. NE 9th Street is identified as a north -south arterial street on City and County TSP maps, however, only a portion of the street has been developed. The applicant is proposing to construct a segment of NE 9th Street to connect from NE Negus Way on the north to NE Hemlock Avenue on the south. The eastern one-half of the new road segment (the subject property) is proposed to be located outside but adjacent to the urban growth boundary (UGB) for Redmond. B. ZONING: The subject property is a 1,200 linear foot strip of land 40 feet Wide (approximately .75 acre) located on the western boundaries of tax lots 200 and 400. Tax lots 200 and 400 are located just east of the City of Redmond UGB and are zoned Exclusive Farm Use — Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzone (EFU-TRB). The eastern portions of tax lots 200 and 400 also have a Surface Mining Impact Area (SMIA) combining zone. Directly south of tax lot 400 is land zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. Only the portion of the property zoned EFU-TRB is affected by this application. C. SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property features a few scattered juniper trees, and is undeveloped. The subject property appears to have been farmed in connection with tax lots 200 and 400. However, neither of the two tax lots is currently receiving special assessment for farm use, and it does not appear that the subject property is currently being used for farm purposes. Tax lot 400 includes 7.98 acres. It is generally level and is developed with a dwelling which appears to be accessed from NE 11 th Street. An irrigation lateral crosses through tax lot 400. Tax lot 200 includes 7.55 acres and is also generally level. Tax lot 200 is developed with a dwelling that appears to be accessed from Negus Way. D. SURROUNDING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lands to the west, northwest and south of the subject property are located within the City of Redmond UGB. These areas are predominantly zoned for and developed with industrial uses and single-family residences. The lands to east and north of the subject property are zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-TRB). Some of the EFU-zoned land has irrigation, but most of it is dry land and is not currently in farm use. A farm is located on the property directly north of Negus Way (Assessor's Map 15-13-3, Hearings Officer Decision (CU 04-113): 312t2OO5 Page 2 of 25 Exhibit 13 Page �L Of Ordinance -IZ05' N tax lots 1701 and 1702). This farming appears to be irrigated pasture, with some livestock grazing. E. PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes to dedicate and construct a segment of NE 9th Street to the City of Redmond. The eastern one half of the segment is proposed to be located outside of the Redmond UGB. Because a portion of the right-of-way is located outside of the UGB, construction of the road will require an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3 (Agricultural Lands). F. PUBLIC AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division sent a request for transmittal comments on this application to several public agencies and received the following comments: County Property Address Coordinator: NE 9"' Street is an acceptable name. The aerial photo map shows e Avenue, which needs to be corrected. County Environmental Health Division: There is a drainfield in the [southwest] quadrant of the lot. Need more precise plot plan to see if drainfield is affected by the proposed road. Central Oregon Irrigation District: We are in receipt of your request for comment on the referenced e Street expansion. According to our records there are water rights located where 9th Street is to be expanded. Water rights shall be transferred off where construction is planned. Applicant shall contact the mapping department in this office to determine extents of the project and transfer those water rights off prior to approval. The District has its E -lateral which meanders through the referenced property. The easement for E -lateral is 20 feet in width (10 feet each side of centerline), with an additional 20 feet for a ditch rider road on the right side (looking downstream). There shall be no encroachment of any kind to this easement without written permission from this office. Cross E -lateral will require construction to District specifications with plan and profile to be provided. In conclusion, the District will require the following as conditions of approval. These conditions shall be met prior to issuance of any permits: 1 . Removal of water rights where construction is planned. 2. Any crossings have been dealt with. 3. If piping, piping agreement signed. 4. Fees been paid., City of Redmond: The City submitted a copy of the letter from Jeff England, Community Development Director for Redmond, to Ed Moore, 0130T, regarding the proposed road connection. Hearings Officer Decision (CU 04-113): 3/2/2005 Page 3 of 25 Exhibit B Page 3- of Ordinance Pacific Power and Light, Watermaster's Office, Redmond Airport, Redmond School District, Deschutes County Road Department, Redmond Fire Department, County Assessor No response was received from the County Surveyor, Central Electric Cooperative, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, County Transportation Planner, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. G. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS: Section 22.24.030 of the Title 22, the County Development Procedures Ordinance, requires that individual mailed notice of a public hearing be mailed out at least twenty (20) days prior to a public headng. The conditional use permit application listed only tax lot 400 on the application form, and notice of the public hearing was sent out to property owners within 750 feet of tax lot 400. Staff realized upon the commencement of writing of the staff report that a portion of tax lot 200 (15-13-10A) is also part of the proposed road project. Notice to properties located within 750 feet of tax lot 200 (that were not within 750 feet of tax lot 400) was mailed out on January 10, 2005, only 15 days prior to the January 2e hearing. The Hearings Officer left the written record open for an additional five days from the date of the hearing to cure the defect. As of January 30, 2005, the date the record closed, no comments were received from property owners located within 750 feet of either tax lot 200 or tax lot 400. H. SOILS: United States Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) survey for the Upper Deschutes River Area indicates that the soil type for the land in the area of the proposed road right-of-way is 66A, Houstake sandy loam, dry, 0 to 3 percent slopes. This soil type is considered high value when irrigated. The subject parcel does not appear to be irrigated; non -irrigated parcels in the 66A classification are rated at a capability class of VIs. This soil type is composed of 85% Houstake soils and similar inclusions, and 15% contrasting inclusions. The Houstake soil is well drained with a moderate permeability and an available water capacity of about 7 inches. The major use of this soil type is livestock grazing and irrigated cropland. 1. REVIEW PERIOD: The subject application was submitted to the county on December 16, 2004, and deemed complete on that date. The Hearings Officer's decision is issued on March 2, 2005, 76 days from the date the application was deemed complete. 111. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Conformance with Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the County Zoning Ordinance: A. Chapter 18. 16, Exclusive Farm Use Zones. 1. Deschutes County Code, Section 1& 16.030, Conditional Uses Permitted - High Value and Non -High Value Farmland Hearings Officer Decision (CU 04-113): 3/2/2005 Exhibit Page 4 of 25 Page of Ordinance The following uses may be allowed in the Exclusive Farm Use zones on either high value or non -high value farmland subject to applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Sections 1& 16.040 and M16.050, and other applicable sections of this tide. W Roads, highways and other transportation facilities, and improvements not otherwise allowedunderDCC M16,1fanexceptionto Goal 3, Agricultural Lands, and to any other applicable goal is first granted under State law. Transportation uses and improvements may be authorized under conditions and standards as set forth in OAR 660-012-0035 and OAR -012- 0065. FINDING: The applicant applied for conditional use approval pursuant to this paragraph, which allows certain road, highway, and other transportation facilities to be permitted in the EFU Zone once an exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3, Agricultural Lands, has been granted. The applicant has submitted an application for a conditional use permit that includes a proposed exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3 because the transportation project proposed under this application is not specifically allowed as a use permitted outright in the EFU Zone. 2. Deschutes County Code, Section 18.16.040. Limitations an conditional uses. A. Conditional uses permitted by DCC 1&16.030(F) through (DD) may be established subject to applicable provisions in DCC 18.128 and upon a finding by the Planning Director orHearings Body that the proposed use: 1. Will not force a signifficant change in accepted farm or forest practices as derined in ORS 215.203(2)(c) on adjacent lands devoted to farm or forest uses; and 2. Will not signifficantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use; and FINDING: Lands to the west, northwest and south of the subject property are located within the City of Redmond Urban Growth Boundary. These areas are zoned M-1 (Industrial) and R-5 (Residential) and are predominantly developed with industrial uses and single-family residences. The lands to east and north of the proposed NE 9th Street connection are zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU- TRB). Some of the EFU-zoned land has irrigation, but most of it is dry land that is not farmed. There is farming occurring on the property directly north of Negus Hearings Officer Decision (CU 04-113): 3/2/2005 Exhibit Page 5 of 25 Page of 2-6 Ordinance 10-445-7:Aq Way (Assessor's Map 15-13-3, tax lots 1701 and 1702). This farming appears to be irrigated pasture, with some possible livestock grazing. The proposed road connection will not force a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices on these properties, as the irrigated pasture and farm use will remain in place when the road is constructed. The proposed road segment will not interfere with farm activities occurring on tax lots 1701 and 1702. The dwelling on tax lot 1701 is located at the front of the property adjacent to NE Negus Way, buffers most of the farm land on this tax lot from the new road. The irrigated portion of tax lot 1702 is located north and west of the irrigation canal and the new road will approximately 750 feet from this irrigated land. The new road will not significantly increase the cost of farm practices on the surrounding lands devoted to farm use. EFU-zoned land in the area near the proposed new road will likely not be put into farm use, given the poor soils. There is much dry land located east of the tax lots 200 and 400. There is no forest related activities occurring within the vicinity of the subject property. Based on the evidence outlined above, the Hearings Officer concludes that the proposed road segment will not significantly change existing agricultural activities on adjacent farm properties or significantly increase the cost of agricultural activities on surrounding agricultural lands. This criterion is satisfied. 3. That the actual site on which the use is to be located is the least suitable for the production of farm crops or livestock. FINDING: The area that is subject to this conditional use permit and goal exception is a 1,200 linear foot strip of land that borders the western boundaries of tax lots 200 and 400. The strip is not currently irrigated or farmed and is the portion of the tax lots most directly affected by urban uses located within the UGB. The Hearings Officer finds that the combination of location and poor soils make the subject property the least suitable portion of tax lots 200 and 400 for the production of crops and livestock. As such, this criterion is satisfied. L An applicant for a nonfarm conditional use may demonstrate that the standards for approval will be satisfied through the imposition of conditions. Any conditions to imposed shall be clear and objective. FINDING: No conditions of approval are necessary. The applicant will be constructing the road to Redmond arterial standards. B. Chapter 1& 116, Supplementary Provisions. 1& 116.230, Standards for class I and H road projects. Class I and H road or street projects shall be reviewed against the applicable Comprehensive Plan Transportation Plan Hearings Officer Decision (CU 04-113): 3/2/2005 Page 6 of 25 Exhibit 6 Page �g Cf Ordinance UQ-5-� OiT element, shall be consistent with applicable road standards and shall meet the following criteria: A. Compatibility with existing land use and social patterns, including noise generation, safety, safety hazards (e.g., children in a residential area) and zoning. FINDING: Approval of the proposed road segment in its designed alignment will provide a separation and buffer between land uses and social patterns at the boundary between urban and rural lands. The road will provide good vehicle access to an area that needs a north -south connection. In addition, the use of the subject property to align the road as proposed will provide a safe connection for urban and rural uses. The site plan and burden of proof demonstrate that the design alternative proposed will have the desired result of aligning the road between NE Hemlock Avenue and NE Negus Way. The Hearings Officer concludes that the proposed street alignment will take up the least amount of EFU zoned parcels for roadway purposes. This criterion is satisfied. B. Environmental impacts, including hazards imposed on and by wildlife (e.g., migration or water use patterns). FINDING: The proposed road project will not occur in an area identified and protected for wildlife habitat. The application and the County zoning maps for the site show the proposed street segment is not located within land with a Wildlife Area (WA) combining zone. The proposed road project will not occur through deer winter range, deer migration corridor, or within proximity to an identified sensitive bird or mammal habitat. Therefore, the Hearings Officer concludes that the proposed conditional use will cause or be the subject of minimal wildlife impacts. C. Retention of scenic quality, including tree preservation. FINDING: The construction of NE 9th Street either within or outside the UGB will require some tree removal, mainly from the line of small juniper trees which appear to traverse the quarter quarter section line. This tree removal will not materially alter the scenic quality of the area. D. Means to improve the safety and function of the facility, including surrounding zoning, access control, and terrain modifficatfons. FINDING: The proposed street extensions would connect and properly align two existing street segments and provide access to an area of Redmond with poor north -south street connections. The applicant has shown the means to improve the safety and function of the facility, including alignment of the facility as portrayed in both the City and County TSPs. Therefore, the very purpose of the street project is to improve the safety and function of the street. Fort his reason, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies this criterion. Hearings Officer Decision (CU 04-113): 3/2/2005 Exhibit B Page 7 of 25 Page 7 of Ordinance 2495-06 E. In the case of roadways where modification results in a change of traffic types or density, impacts on route safety, land use patterns, and nonmotodzeaV pedestrian traffic. FINDING: The proposed street extension is identified on both the county's and city's TSPs. The record indicates that NE 9th Street is a designated arterial street in this area. Therefore, the street is intended to handle heavier traffic volumes and its construction will not change or increase traffic types or density. As discussed above, the street design will include sidewalks to accommodate pedestrian access, and will provide a clear demarcation between urban and rural uses. This criterion is satisfied. F. Consideration of the potential development impact created by the facility. FINDING: The proposed street extension is identified on both the county's and city's TSPs. The record indicates that NE 9th Street is a designated arterial street in this area. Therefore the proposed street project will facilitate the orderly development of both the city's and county's road systems, as well as urban residential and industrial development within the city. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds that the proposal satisfies this criterion. G. Cost-effectiveness. FINDING: The proposed alignment is the least -cost alternative for the applicant. Alignment of the road within the UGB would require the City to condemn land and houses for the e Street (ight-of-way. The condemnation could be costly, as much of the area is being developed with residential subdivisions. C. Chapter 18.128, Conditional Uses. Section 1&12&015, General Standards Governing Conditional Uses. Except for those conditional uses permitting individual single-family dwellings, conditional uses shall comply with the following standards in addition to the standards of the zone in which the conditional use is located and any other applicable standards of this chapter. A. The site under consideration shall be determined to be suitable for the proposed use based on the following factors: 1. Site, design and operating characteristics of the use: FINDING: Locating this segment of NE 9th Street outside of the UGB is needed to provide for the proper design and safe operation of vehicles on this road and the connections to ft. The operating characteristics of an arterial street is that it Hearings Officer Decision (CU 04-113): 13 3/2/2005 Exhibit — Page 8 of 25 Page Of 2--5 Ordinance oV0.5-OR carries relatively high volumes of traffic from one part of the urban area to another. An aligned intersection of two portions of this road is essential to assure that it can carry the volume of traffic intended in a safe manner. This criterion is satisfied. 2. Adequacy of transportation access to the site, and FINDING: The proposed road will connect existing right-of-way for NE 9th Street on either end of a new right-of-way. To the extent this criterion is applicable, the Hearings Officer finds that the subject property is essential to ensure adequate access. 3. The natural and physical features of the site, including, but not limited to, general topography, natural hazards and natural resource values. FINDING: The applicant has proposed establishing the road section in an area with no natural hazards. The applicant has addressed natural resource values by proposing a design that will impact the least amount of farmland on the portion of the two parcels zoned EFU. This criterion is satisfied. a. The proposed use shall be compatible with existing and projected uses on surrounding properties based on the factors listed in (A) above. FINDING: The compatibility of the use with existing and projected agricultural uses on surrounding properties was discussed above. The new road with serve to provide access for residents of current and future development in the City of Redmond's residential and industrial zones. The Hearings Officer finds that the location chosen is the safest considering TSP requirements and site conditions. 2. Conformance with Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660 A. OAR 660, Division 4 - Interpretation of Goal 2 Exception Process: OAR 660-04-0010, Application of the Goal 2 Exception Process to Certain Goals; (1) The exceptions process is not applicable to Statewide Goal I "Citizen Involement" and Goal 2 "Land Use Planning. " The exceptions process is generally applicable to all or part of those statewide goals which prescribe or reshict certain uses of resource land or limit the provision of certain public facilities and services. These statewide goals include but are not limited to: Hearings Officer Decision (CU 04-113): 3/2/2005 Exhibit - t3 Page 9of 25 Page —_q__ of Ordinance AP -Q-5- 019 1'-1 Goal 3 "Agricultural Lands," however, an I alf exception to Goal 3 "Agricultural Landsw is not required for any of the farm or nonfarm uses permitted in an exclusive farm use (EFU) zone under ORS Chapter 215 and OAR 660 Division 033, "Agricultural Lands." FINDING: The applicant is seeking approval of an exception to Goal 3 to allow for construction of a road (a public facility) on land zoned EFU. The proposed road is not specifically allowed outright by ORS Chapter 215 or by OAR Division 033. B. OAR 660-004-0015, Inclusion as Part of the Plan (1) A local government approving a proposed exception shall adopt as part of its comprehensive plan findings of fact and a statement of reasons which demonstrate that the standards for an exception have been met The applicable standards are those in Goal Z Part 11(c), OAR 660-004-0020(2), and 660-004-0022. The reasons and facts shag be supported by substantial evidence that the standard has been met. FINDING: The Hearings Officer finds this decision includes the required findings and statement of reasons demonstrating that the standards for the requested exception have been met. The findings and reasons will be adopted as part of the county's comprehensive plan. C. OAR 660-004-0018, Planning and Zoning for Exception Areas (1) Purpose. This rule explains the requirements for adoption of plan and zone designations for exceptions. EKceptions to one goal or a portion of one goal do not relieve a jurisdiction from remaining goal requirements and do not authorize uses, densities, public facilities and services, or activities other then those recognized or justiffed by the applicable exception. Physically developed or irrevocably committed exceptions under OAR 660-004-0025 and 660-004-0028 are intended to recognize and allow continuation of existing types of development in the exception area. Adoption of plan and zoning provisions that would allow changes in existing types of uses, densities, or services requires the application of the standards outlined in this rule. FINDING: OAR 660-004-0015 requires that exceptions be incorporated into the county's comprehensive plan and an amendment to the plan is necessary to include the exception within the plan's provisions. However, because the NE 9th Street extension is planned for in both the city and the county's TSPs, and the TSPs are incorporated into the comprehensive plans for the respective Hearings Officer Decision (CU 04-113): 3/2/2005 Exhibit (3, Page 10 of 25 Page n of 2nff Ordinance 2-605 - a? jurisdictions, adoption of an exception to allow for the construction of the NE 9th Avenue Street segment will not require either a plan or a zone map amendment to accommodate the proposed use. This criterion is satisfied. D. OAR 660-004-0020, Goal 2, Part 11(c), Exception Requirements (1) lf a jurisdiction determines there are reasons consistent with OAR 660-004-0022 to use resource lands for uses not allowed by the applicable Goal, or to allow public facilities or services not allowed by the applicable Goal, the justification shall be set forth In the comprehensive plan as an exception. FINDING: This section reiterates the requirements outlined in OAR -660-004- 0015. (2) The four factors in Goal 2 Part 11(c) required to be addressed when taking an exception to a Goal are: (a) "Reasons justify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not appV: The exception shall set forth the facts and assumptions used as the basis for determining that a state policy embodied in a goal should not apply to specific properties or situations including the amount of land for the use being planned and why the use requires a location on resource land; FINDING: Goal 3 in the state land use system was established to protect agricultural land from non-agricultural development. A less intense level of development (road projects other than creation of new roads, such as road widening) is allowed under ORS 215.283. Since the applicant is proposing a new road, a Goal exception to the agricultural goal is required. The road proposed in this application is already identified for construction in both the City of Redmond and the Deschutes County TSP's. Mapping indicates that the road will connect NE Negus Way with NE Hemlock Avenue at the location identified in the application. This proposed new road will straddle the City of Redmond UGB, with half of it within and half outside the UGB. Portions of the right of way for this road are already dedicated, and the applicant has indicated that it has acquired the necessary right of way to complete this road. ORS 92.090(2) requires that streets and roads in an applicant's subdivision "conform to the plats of subdivisions and partitions already approved for adjoining properties as to width, general direction and in all other respects, unless the city or county determines it is in the public interest to modify the street or road pattern". The road location for the NE gth Street right-of-way and street improvements were established by previous developments located to the west of the subject property. The applicant and staff believe that approval of the goal Hearings Officer Decision (CU 04-113): 3/2/2005 Exhibit !31 Page 11 of 25 Page / I of Ordinance exception is essential to allow the applicant to conform to plats of existing subdivisions. It is not in the public interest to modify the existing street pattern, to construct NE 9th Street within the UGB, as it would create an unsafe off -set intersection, and require the condemnation portions of several properties, as well as cause existing dwellings on the lots identified on County Assessor's map 15-13-10BA, tax lots 4400, 4500, 4600 and 4900, as potentially violating required setbacks (i.e. the dwellings are already in place and additional right of way acquisition may cause these structures to violate City setback requirements for individual lots. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds that the amount of land to be used for road purposes is minimal and will not affect nearby agricultural activities. This criterion is satisfied. (b) "Areas which do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the useff: FINDING: The road proposed must be located on EFU lands in order for this segment of NE 9th Street to safely align with the existing dedicated sections of this road located to the south of NE Negus Way. To locate this road on lands not requiring an exception would necessitate the acquisition of rights of way from existing platted lots in the Remond UGB, several of which have existing dwellings already in place. Forty (40) feet of right of way would have to be taken from these lots, which could cause the structures to violate the City of Redmond's setback standards. And in fact these homes may need to be removed to accommodate the new road. Acquisition of property within the UGB would cause the cost of the road to escalate, with the additional cost to the project of condernining four dwellings in the City of at least one-half million dollars (each home is valued at over $130,000 x 4 homes, according to the County Assessor's records). There is no location west of the proposed road location that would accommodate the use and provide the necessary transportation connection envisioned by the City. Any proposal to move the road to the east would also require location within the EFU zone, which would require a Goal exception to Goal 3 as well. Areas that do not require a new exception cannot reasonable accommodate this very locationally dependent use. (A) The exception shall indicate on a map or otherwise describe the location of possible alternative areas considered for the use, which do not require a new exception. The area for which the exception is taken shaY be identifled; FINDING: There are no other alternatives for the use that will result in the alignment of NE 9th Street where it connects NE Negus Way with NE Hemlock Avenue. The applicant submitted Exhibit H, a map which indicates two other alternatives considered for the road, both of which require that properties be condemned and possible structures being torn down or moved. Hearings Officer Decision (CU 04-113): 3/2/2005 Exhibit Page 12 of 25 Page �1_�af �_i;K Ordinance (B) To show why the particular site is justfried, it is necessary to discuss why other areas which do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed use. Economic factors can be considered along with other relevant factors in determining that the use cannot reasonably be accommodated in other areas. Under the alternative factor the following questions shall be addressed. FINDING: As outlined above, alternative alignments require the acquisition of more expensive rights-of-way. Further, the use of the alternative alignments will cause certain existing uses to become nonconforming in some respects. For these reasons, the Hearings Officer concludes that alternative alignments cannot reasonably accommodate the use. (Q Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated on nonresource land that would not require an exception, including increasing the density of uses on nonresource land? ff not, why not? FINDING: The use cannot be reasonably accommodated on nonresource land as a location on resource land is required to align the project with an existing section of NE 9th Street. The alignment where NE 9th Street connects NE Negus Way and NE Hemlock Avenue is dictated by both the City and County TSPs, as well as the existing right of way. Forty (40) feet of right of way has already been dedicated for NE 90' Street adjacent to the Coho Run and Guy's Acres subdivisions. Additionally a portion of NE e Street was also dedicated as part of Partition Plat No. 1998-32. The findings submitted for OAR 660-004- 0020(2)(b)(B) by the applicant also address this criterion and are incorporated herein by reference. (M) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodatedon resource land that is already irrevocably committed to nonresource uses, not allowed by the applicable Goal, including resource land in existing rural centers, or by increasing the density of uses on committed lands? lf not, why not? FINDING: There are no irrevocably committed lands in the immediate area. There is a site specific need for the road proposed in this exception. (M) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated inside an urban growth boundary? N no4 why not? FINDING: The road extension cannot reasonably be accommodated within the UGB because the existing 40 -foot dedicated portion of the road (80 feet required for an arterial) is located inside the UGB, and a 40 -foot wide additional strip of land is necessary to accommodate the proposed minor arterial. To align the roads, and avoid the existing dwellings within the Coho Run and Guy's Acres Hearings Officer Decision (CU 04-113): 13 3/2/2005 Exhibit Page 13 of 25 Page of Ordinance 2 00!E--JQ4T subdivisions, it is necessary to develop half the road outside the UGB. The road must also remain outside the UGB to also provide for reasonable clear sight distance at its intersection with NE Negus Way on this designated minor arterial roadway. (1y) Can the proposed use be reasonably accommodated without the provision of a proposed public facility or service? If no4 why not? FINDING: The proposed use is a public facility. (C) This alternative areas standard can be met by a broad review of similar types of areas rather than a review of specific altemative sites. Initially, a local government adopting an exception need assess only whether those similar types of areas in the vicinity could not reasonably accommodate the proposed use. Site specific comparisons are not required of a local government taking an exception, unless another party to the local proceeding can describe why there are specific sites that can more reasonably accommodate the proposed use. A detailed evaluation of specific alternative sites is thus not required unless such sites are specifically described with facts to support the assertion that the sites are more reasonable by another party during the local exceptions proceeding. FINDING: No other sites within the UGB, other than those identified by the applicant, could be used to extend NE 9th Street to connect NE Negus Way with NE Hemlock Avenue. The intersection proposed in this goal exception is the only intersection location that will align the new road with the existing right of way. This location adequately provides safety for vehicular and pedestrian uses. (c) The long-term environmental, economic, social and energy consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in other areas requiring a Goal exception. The exception shall describe the characteristics of each alternative areas considered by the jurisdiction for which an exception might be taken, the typical advantages and disadvantages of using the area for a use not allowed by the Goal, and the typical positive and negative consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. A detailed evaluation of specific alternative sites Is not required unless such sites are specifically Hearings Officer Decision (CU 04-113):. 3/2/2005 Exhibit Page 14 of 25 Page of Ordinance described with facts to support the assertion that the sites have significantly fewer adverse impacts during the local exceptlons proceeding. The exception shall include the reasons why the consequences of the use at the chosen site are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in areas requiring a goal exception other than the proposed site. Such reasons shall include but are not limited to, the facts used to determine which resource land is least productive; the ability to sustain resource uses near the proposed use; and the long-term economic impact on the general area caused by irreversible removal of the land from the resource base. Other possible impacts include the effects of the proposed use on the water table, on the costs of improving roads and on the costs to special service districts, FINDING: There are no alternate locations for the road connection that would require a goal exception that would accommodate the use. Some of the right of way for NE 9th Street was platted as part of subdivision and partition plats. MOT has acquired the necessary right of way for all of the NE e Street connection proposed as part of this application. The proposed option uses the least amount of EFU land while providing for an aligned and safe intersection. (co The proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or will be so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. The exception shag describe how the proposed use will be rendered compatible with adjacent land uses. The exception shag demonstrate that the proposed use is situated in such a manner as to be compatible with surrounding natural resources and resource management or production practices. OCompatible" Is not intended as an absolute term meaning no interference or adverse impacts of any type with adjacent uses. FINDING: The road is located along the boundary of the UGB, and will not affect adjacent uses on agricultural lands. The road will act as a buffer between agricultural uses and residential uses within the UGB, There will be added noise from traffic in the area, and that additional noise will affect adjacent residential uses. However, the applicant has indicated that the additional noise does not trigger a requirement for noise barriers. Further, the residential subdivisions were developed in part because of the existence of a planned arterial. The Hearings Official concludes that the proposed road segment Will be compatible with adjacent land uses. Hearings Officer Decision (CU 04-113): Exhibit 3/2/2005 . Page 15 of 25 Page 16 of Ordinance A065'- 00 (3) ff the exception involves more than one area for which the reasons and circumstances are the same, the areas may be considered as a group. Each of the areas shall be identiffed on a map, or their location otherwise described, and keyed to the appropriate findings. FINDING: This exception applies to a single area, consequently this criterion is not applicable. (4) For the expansion of an unincorporated community defined under OAR 660-022-W10, or for an urban unincorporated community pursuant to OAR 660-022- 0040(2), The exception requirements of subsections (2)(b), (c) and (co of this rule are modifled to also include the following: FINDING: This section is not applicable; the applicant is not seeking to expand an unincorporated community or urban unincorporated community. E. OAR 660-004-0022, Goal 2, Part 11(c), Exception Requirements. An exception Under Goal 2, Part 11(c) can be taken for any use not allowed by the applicable goal(s). The types of reasons that may or may not be used to justify certain types of uses not allowed on resource lands are set forth in the following sections of this rule: (1) For uses not specirically provided for in subsequent sections of this rule or OAR 660, Division 014, the reasons shalijustify why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply, Such reasons include but are not limited to the following: (a) There is a demonstrated need for the proposed use or activity, based on one or more of the requirements of Statewide Goals 3 to 19: and either FINDING: The extension and alignment of NE 9th Street is needed to establish a well integrated and safe street grid network for the City of Redmond, as identified in both City and County TSPs. The street is proposed to be a minor arterial which will establish a connection between NE Negus Way and NE Hemlock Avenue. The City and County TSPs implement the Goal 12 portion of the Statewide Planning Goals. The need to provide for an adequate transportation system was recognized by TSP approval. The Redmond TSP shows NE gth Street in the location proposed by the applicant. Hearings Officer Decision (CU 04-113): Exhibit 3/2/2005 Page 16 of 25 Page ��Of Ordinance --Qa-0 �f Approval of the goal exception meets Goal 12 guideline A.2; "Transportation systems, to the fullest extent possible, should be planned to utilize existing facilities and right-of-way within the state provided that use is not inconsistent with the environmental, energy, land -use, economic or social policies of the state". Approval of the goal exception Will allow for safe and convenient use of a proposed minor arterial that has existing right-of-way and is on the Redmond transportation system plan. Approval of the goal exception would also comply with the following sections of Goal 12; "No major transportation facility should be planned or developed outside urban boundaries on Class / or // agricultural land, as defined by the US Soil Conservation Service unless no feasible altemative exists". "Major transportation facilities should avoid dividing existing economic farm units and urban social units uniessno feasible alternative exists". The soil on the parcel is Class V1 when not irrigated and according to the information provided by the applicant, the property has no water rights. The proposed road, which requires a goal exception, will not divide an existing economic farm unit. The property is not in farm use. The exception will avoid division of urban social units. If the road was required to be shifted entirely to land within the UGB, division of existing urban residential units would occur. (b) A resource upon which the proposed use or activity is dependent can be reasonably obtained only at the proposed exception site and the use or activity requires a location near the resource. An exception based on this subsection must include an analysis of the market area to be served by the proposed use or activity. That analysis must demonstrate that the proposed exception site Is the only one within that market area at which the resource depended can reasonably be obtained; or FINDING: The proposed road is not a market based activity. The land needed for the road is located in this area, which requires that it be constructed partially on resource land. (c) The proposed use or activity has special features or qualities that necessitatelts location on or near the proposed exception site. FINDING: The proposed road will have a minor arterial classification. Arterial streets are identified for specific locations on transportation system plans. The Hearings Officer Decision (CU 04-113): 9 3/2/2005 Exhibit Page 17 of 25 Page I of 2= Ordinance 2005:-601 6 NE 9th Street road was planned to optimize the function of the Redmond street network. The existing alignment of the (ight-of-way for NE 9th Street and the development in the area necessitate that part of the road extension occur outside of the UGB. F. OAR 660, Division 12 - Transportation Planning Rule: 1. OAR 660-12-060, Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments (1) Amendments to functional plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans, and land use regulations which significandy affect a transportation facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. This shall be accomplished by either., (2 A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly affects a transportation facility if it. - (a) Changes the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; (b) Changes standards implementing a functional classification system; (c) Allows types or levels of land uses which would result in levels of travel or access which are inconsistent with the functional classification of a transportation facility; or (d) Would reduce the performance standards of the facility below the minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP. (3) Determinations under subsections (1) and (2) of this section shag be coordinated with affected transportation facility and service providers and other affected local governments. FINDING: Because OAR 660-004-0015 requires that exceptions be incorporated into a local comprehensive plan, the proposed conditional use will result in a plan amendment. However, as more fully explained above, the proposed exception Hearings Officer Decision (CU 04-113): 3 3/2/2005 Exhibit Page 18 of 25 Page ig of 2-5 Ordinance P'1065':00 will implement one aspect of the city and county TSPs and, therefore, Will not significantly affect a transportation facility, within the meaning of the rule. G. OAR 660-012-0070, Exceptions for Transportation Improvements on Rural Land FINDING: This section of the administrative rules describes rules that apply when a goal exception is required to construct a transportation system improvement. (1) Transportation facilities and improvements which do not meet the requirements of OAR 660-012-0065 require an exception to be sited on rural lands. FINDING: The proposed exception does not meet the requirements of OAR - 660 -012-0065, and consequently a goal exception is required. (2) Where an exception to Goals 3, 4, 11, or 14 is required, in addressing Goal Z Part 11(c), the exception shall be taken pursuant to ORS 197.732(l)(c), Goal 2, OAR chapter 660, division 4 and this division. FINDING: Compliance with ORS 197.732(l)(c) is addressed below. Compliance with Goal 2 and the rules for Goal 2 is addressed above. (3) An exception adopted as part of a TSP or refinement plan shall, at a minimum, decide need, mode, function -and general location for the proposed facility or improvement. - FINDING: This exception is not being adopted as part of a TSP. Approval of the exception will allow the construction of a planned connection identified the County and City TSPs. (4) To address Goal 2, Part 11(c)(1) the exception shall provide reasons justifying why the state policy in the applicable goals should not apply. Further, the exception shall demonstrate that there is a transportation need identified consistent with the requirements of OAR 660-012-0030 which cannot reasonably be accommodated through one or a combination of the following measures not requiring an exception: (a) Alternative modes of transportation; (b) Traffic management measures; and (c) Improvements to existing transportation facilities. Hearings Officer Decision (CU 04-113): 3/2/2005 Page 19 of 25 Exhibit 13 Page LL�y 0 �f2_ Ordinance FINDING: The Redmond TSP identifies a need to construct NE 9th Street as a minor arterial road. The proposed alignment was anticipated and planned in the TSP. To achieve correct alignment, and to build the road to the Redmond minor arterial standard, it is necessary to construct the road on a 1,200 linear foot segment of EFU zoned land. The transportation need cannot be accomplished elsewhere in the urban area as nearby lands have already been platted in a pattern to match the existing city grid system. It is not feasible to move NE 9th Street to another location, as existing portions of the right of way for this road were platted as part of two subdivisions and a partition in the proposed alignment. Alternative modes of transportation, traffic management measures or improvements to existing transportation facilities cannot meet the identified need for the construction of NE 9th Street, to enhance the city network of streets by providing safe and efficient travel corridors to the public. (5) To address Goal 2, Part 11(c)(2) the exception shall demonstrate that non -exception locations cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed transportation improvement or facility. FINDING: As explained above, non -exception locations cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed transportation improvement. (6) To determine the reasonableness of alternatives to an exception under sections (4) and (5) of this rule, cost; operational feasibility, economic dislocation and other relevant factors shall be addressed. The thresholds chosen to judge whether an alternative method or location cannot reasonably accommodate the proposed transportation need or facility must be jusdried in the exception. FINDING: COST: The applicant has stated that the cost of road construction for the extension of NE 9th Street would be significantly more for the alignments that do not require an exception. The applicant also notes that the other alternatives would require the rerouting of traffic onto NE 5th Street, which is an existing local street. The applicant states that the acquisition of homes needed for either of the other two alternatives would require the city to condemn or otherwise acquire existing homes in developed residential areas at high public cost. ECONOMIC DISLOCATION: The applicant states that the relocation of NE 9th Street would dislocate area residents and result in negative consequences for the public entity acquiring private property, with the residents forced to move. Approval of the goal exception will allow NE 9th Street to be built without economic dislocation of platted subdivisions. Hearings Officer Decision (CU 04-113): 3/2/2005 Exhibit 13 Page 20 of 25 Page aQ af Ordinance OPERATIONAL FEASIBILITY: The applicant states that the proposed option is the only alternative that creates an aligned intersection with the existing NE 9P Street, as well as the only option which is "operationally feasible" that develops the planned street. SAFETY: The uncontested evidence provided by the applicant supports the conclusion that the proposed alignment is the safest alternative. In summary, based on the considerations listed above, the proposed conditional use, in the identified location is the best alternative to implement the applicable provisions of the city and county TSPs. (7) To address Goal 2, Part 11(c)(3), the exception shalk (a) Compare the economic, social, environmental and energy consequences of the proposed location and other alternative locations requiring exceptions, FINDING: No alternatives that require exceptions can meet the need identified by the applicant. The proposed alignment requires only a 1,200 linear foot area of land zoned EFU to be utilized for a road. (b) Determine whether the net adverse impacts associated with the proposed exception site are signiflicantly more adverse than the net impacts from other locations which would also require an exception. A proposed exception location would fall to meet this requirement only if the affected local government concludes that the impacts associated with it are signiflicandy more adverse than the other identifled exception sites, FINDING: No alternatives that require exceptions can meet the need identified by the applicant. As stated above, the proposed alignment requires only a small area of EFU-zoned land to be utilized for a road. (c) The evaluation of the consequences of general locations or corridors need not be site-speciric, but may be generalized consistent with the requirements of section (3) of this rule. FINDING: The findings above also pertain to this criterion. Again, there are no alternatives that require exceptions that can meet the need for the minor arterial location. (8) To address Goal 2, Part 11(c)(4), the exception shall. Hearings Officer Decision (CU 04-113): -6 3/2/2005 xhibit Page 21 of 25 Page �AL of Ordinance (a) Describe the adverse effects that the proposed transportation improvement is likely to have on the surrounding rural lands and land uses, Including increased traffic and pressure for nonfarm or highway oriented development on areas made more accessible by the transportation improvement; FINDING: The land adjoining the exception area is not currently in farm use, and therefore there should not be any adverse effects to agriculture from the proposed road alignment. In addition, the road segment will provide a buffer between urban and rural uses. Approval of this exception will not increase traffic or increase pressure for nonfarm or highway oriented development, as the exception is for roadway purposes only, no rezoning or nonfarm potential is created by allowing this planned facility. This road improvement will not increase accessibility other than to provide the movement of urban area traffic from north to south. Both tax lots that are part of this conditional use application have existing dwellings, and no additional dwellings (except for medical hardship dwellings) can be approved on these small parcels in the EFU zone. (b) Demonstrate how the proposed transportation improvement is compatible with other adjacent uses or will be so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts; FINDING: This proposed facility is identified in two jurisdictions' TSPs as a minor arterial street in the general vicinity as proposed in this application. The goal exception does not change the nature of the potential conflicts that arise when placing an arterial street adjacent to property zoned EFU. (c) Adopt as part of the exception, facility design and land use measures which minimize accessibility of rural lands from the proposed transportation facility or improvement and support continued rural use of surrounding lands. FINDING: Deschutes County limits road access points by issuance of road access permits. The County has control over access to the rural property adjacent to the proposed road alignment. The access permit process will minimize access to the EFU-zoned property, considering established policies regarding access onto arterial roads, which is to separate them by at least 500 feet (see DCC 17.48.090(B)). 3. Conformance with Oregon Revised Statutes 197.732 Goal exceptions; criteria; rules; review. (1) A local government may adopt an exception to a goal if. Hearings Officer Decision (CU 04-113): 3/2/2005 Exhibit Page 22 of 25 Page -2=2-- Ordinance (a) The land subject to the exception is physically developed to the extent that it is no longer available for uses allowed by the applicable goal; (b) The land subject to the exception is irrevocably committed as described by Land Conservation and Development Commission rule to uses not allowed by the applicable goal because existing adjacent uses and other relevant factors make uses allowed by the applicable goal impracticable; or (c) The following standards are met., (A) Reasons jusW why the state policy embodied in the applicable goals should not apply, (B) Areas which do not require a new exception cannot reasonably accommodate the use; (C) The long term environmental, economic, social and energy consequences resulting from the use at the proposed site with measures designed to reduce adverse Impacts are not significantly more adverse than would typically result from the same proposal being located in areas requiring a goal exception other than the proposed site; and (D) The proposed uses are compatible with other adjacent uses or will be so rendered through measures designed to reduce adverse impacts. (2) "Compatible," as used in subsection (1)(c)(D) of this section, is not intended as an absolute term meaning no interference or adverse impacts of any type with adjacent uses. (3) The commission shall adopt rules establishing: (a) Under what circumstances particular reasons may or may not be used to justify an exception under subsection (1)(c)(A) of this section; and (b) Which uses allowed by the applicable goal must be found impracticable under subsection (1) of this section. FINDING: The applicant has addressed these rules in the burden of proof statement under similar criteria in the OARs, and therefore, has demonstrated compliance with this portion of ORS 197-732. (4) A local government approving or denying a proposed exception shall set forth findings of fact and a statement of Hearings Officer Decision (CU 04-113): 3/2/2005 Exhibit Page 23 of 25 Page of C r uli i i a n c e - 21-LV�-- reasons which demonstrate that the standards of subsection (1) of this section have or have not been met. (5) Each notice of a public hearing on a proposed exception shall specfflcally note that a goal exception is proposed and shall summarize the issues in an understandable manner. (6) Upon review of a decision approving or denying an exception: (a) The board or the commission shall be bound by any finding of fact for which there is substantial evidence in the record of the local government proceedings resulting in approval or denial of the exception; (b) The board upon petition, or the commission, shall determine whether the local government's findings and reasons demonstrate that the standards of subsection (1) of this section have or have not been met, and (c) The board or commission shall adopt a clear statement of reasons which sets forth the basis for the determination that the standards of subsection (1) of this section have or have not been met. FINDING: These sections specify procedural rules that apply to review and approval of a goal exception. These requirements are the same as the administrative rules review process, and thus have been previously discussed within this report. IV. DECISIONICONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearings Officer hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF the applicant's proposed exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3 to allow the construction of a segment of NE 9th Avenue in Redmond on land zoned EFU-TRB. Hearings Officer Decision (CU 04-113): 3/2/2005 Page 24 of 25 2 It, h 1 bit B page >-!I Of 2a, Ordinance -26QL--Q1 Lq -4 P. 0 B. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearings Officer hereby APPROVES the applicant's conditional use application to allow the construction of a segment of NE 9th Avenue in Redmond on land zoned EFU-TRB. Dated this Z -6 of 2005. Mailed this=—of 2005. C(M- Agne Corcoran Briggs Hearings Officer THE DECISION APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BECOMES FINAL TWELVE DAYS AFTER MAILING UNLESS TIMELY APPEALED. Hearings Officer Decision (CU 04-113): 3/2/2005 Page 25 of 25 Exhibit 13 Page �� �af-3�- Ordinance -2405-PJ-1