2011-117-Minutes for Meeting March 16,2011 Recorded 4/11/2011DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL
NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL
1111111111111111111111111111 111
201 -117
RECORDS Q 7011'117
CLERK
041111201104:16:08 PM
Do not remove this page from original document.
Deschutes County Clerk
Certificate Page
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2011
Present were Commissioners Tammy Baney, Alan Unger and Tony DeBone. Also
present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Erik Kropp, Deputy County
Administrator; Laurie Craghead, County Counsel; Peter Russell, Nick Lelack and
Terri Payne, Community Development; Tom Blust Road, Department; and
approximately a dozen other citizens, including media representative Hillary
Borrud of The Bulletin.
Chair Baney opened the meeting at 2:05 p.m.
1. Discussion of Comprehensive Plan Policies for Deschutes Junction.
Peter Russell gave an update of the transportation plan for Deschutes Junction.
He said it is almost impossible for ODOT to build a roundabout on a high-speed
highway. Funding is also an issue. There may be enough dollars to do some of
the, but there has to be a happy medium.
Mr. Lelack said Deschutes County does not want to oppose the plan as offered.
Commissioner DeBone added that transportation needs are critical.
Commissioner Unger stated that he is having conversations with ODOT and
wonders how a place with a lot of traffic, like a mobile home park, which
doesn't have easy ways to let people get up to speed and merge, can have
access restricted. There should be more options.
Commissioner DeBone asked if this twenty-year view has projects to be done in
the meantime. Mr. Russell said locations would be prioritized and there would
be a variety of timeframes. However, the projects have not yet been prioritized
by transportation groups. The capital improvements project is updated each
year. If something changes, the Commissioners can bring a particular issue or
location up and ask for a review. Much is based on five-year planning. For
instance, the 19th Street extension was rejected/remanded from the plan at this
point.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Page 1 of 6 Pages
Mr. Blust said a big component is funding of the projects. Long-term funding
needs, sources and gaps that need to be filled are also analyzed.
2. Discussion of Declaratory Ruling on Structure at Highway 97/Tumalo
Place (Fagen).
Peter Russell gave an overview of the item. A public hearing has been held,
and staff feels that the building in question is not a permanent residence. The
Board should review staff s decision, hear public testimony and decide whether
they agree with staff s recommendation. The community feedback at this point
is to leave the area as rural as possible, without the designation of a rural
service center.
Mr. Lelack added that the implication of the declaratory ruling means that
Deschutes Junction as a rural service center in general ends at that point.
Otherwise, boundaries would need to be established. Most parties agree there
needs to be a frontage road to access properties and to have the interchange
work better. Staff proposed some trigger points to revisit the area in the future
depending upon land use modifications, potential development of Juniper Ridge
or 19th Street, or other possible changes.
Tumalo and Terrebonne are considered rural service centers. There are pre-
existing uses in Deschutes Junction, but most people prefer the area stay the
way it is. It would be extremely difficult, under current OARs, to establish or
implement a rural service center designation in the area. He referred to the staff
report. The vote for this by the Planning Commission was far from unanimous,
however.
Chair Baney clarified that if the Board agrees with the recommendation, it does
mean that it could never happen even though it might be possible, although
difficult, to do so.
Laurie Craghead referred to Section D, which pertains to the "master plan", which
in her opinion is too vague. It does not clarify what "master plan" means.
Mr. Russell said that ODOT does not like anything tying directly into Highway
97, and may also be establishing a median to further restrict access directly
from the highway to various properties. ODOT does not feel any need to
upgrade the interchange probably for the next twenty years. If land use patterns
should change, ODOT would be able to comment during that process and a
traffic impact analysis would likely be required.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Page 2 of 6 Pages
3. Transportation System Plan Update.
Peter Russell said that the plan was modeled to determine what would fail by
2030. Some changes will be the addition of `lane miles', additional lanes in
certain places, either turn or passing lanes, or extending the road. The total cost
is estimated at $227.5 million for the State and $9.3 million for County
improvements.
Lower Bridge Way and Highway 97, and Highway 20 and Old Bend-Redmond
Highway have a couple of ways to go. Access may be cut off in some
locations, such as Pinecrest Road, which has a poor left turn. The nearby
property owners appear to be okay with this change. Vandevert Road is another
consideration; however, there may be a lot of public interest in this location.
Rural roundabouts and intersections are also being discussed. The options are
limited when it comes to changing a location that is high-speed and heavily
traveled.
The group then viewed an oversized map of the area. Mr. Blust spoke about
19th Street and potential locations for extension and connection. Any other type
of connector to Redmond, for instance an interchange, adds millions dollars in
costs. It also depends on what the City of Redmond wishes to do, but likely a
Goal exception would be required. If someone wants a different plan, they will
need to apply for a land use change.
Commissioner Unger stated that Redmond does have a ring-road concept in
place.
Mr. Russell went over the options available. If the Commissioners are looking
at other solutions, they may want to indicate support of those solutions.
Mr. Blust said that in that case his department can provide a staff report, but
does not have the staff to write the document.
The next steps are a series of open house around the County.
4. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules.
Commissioner DeBone said that he is concerned about the salary demands of
the District Attorney regarding his new staff. Chair Baney said that it would be
helpful to know what counsel feels were appropriate or inappropriate actions
taken by the District Attorney.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Page 3 of 6 Pages
Mr. Pilliod stated that he feels that there is some guesswork as to under what
basis Mr. Flaherty would pursue this further. Mr. Frohnmeyer (representing the
County's interests) may be able to get some clarification.
Commissioner DeBone said he wants the costs of this situation to stop as soon
as possible. It is not productive. Commissioner Unger thinks they need more
information and do not want to come across as punitive. Chair Baney wants the
District Attorney's Office to be successful. Mr. Bell said that a lot of the
history goes back a long way before many of the individuals present were with
the County.
The Commissioners are individually going to be in Salem on Friday, Saturday
or Monday on various issues.
Chair Baney has been asked to represent AOC in regard to funding relating to
Commission on Children & Families or early childhood programs. It appears
these will go through the Governor's new committee, the Early Learning
Design Team. It fits in with the health reform work being done. However,
there are several meetings each month and they are in the evening, in the valley,
so it will be challenging for her to be involved.
Commissioner Unger had breakfast with the Governor on Monday along with
representatives from local counties and cities, talking about the Oregon
Solutions. They were asked about issues, and there were a lot of them around
economic development, most of them long-term.
Chair Baney pointed out that Central Oregon is doing exactly what the
Governor wants in regard to health reform.
Commissioner DeBone is working with citizens of La Pine on a community
block grant. He has also been contacted by representatives of the Bethlehem
Inn regarding funding. Commissioner Unger said they want more information
on how to build their board. Chair Baney stated that she does not have time to
talk about this at length right now, with all the other pending issues.
Commissioner Unger said they want people on their board that are able to help
them be successful. Mr. Kropp said he has some thoughts on this issue but just
does not know what community efforts meet the proper profile. A stakeholders
meeting is taking place soon.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Page 4 of 6 Pages
5. Other Items.
Executive session, called under ORS 192.660(2)(h), pending or threatened
litigation, occurred at this time.
Regarding the secure rural schools funding issue, Chair Baney said that things
are still not determined and support is marginal, even though this is not just an
Oregon problem. The Senate wants it to move forward while the House is not
so agreeable with its new rules. The hope is there will be enough support for
the 729 counties that receive these dollars for something positive to result.
Chair Baney is representing a group that is seeking this funding. Oregon has
the largest stake in this situation and Deschutes County is heavily dependent.
The group then discussed the redistricting issue - Senate and House. Rather
than testify at a public hearing, Commissioner Unger felt that the Board should
perhaps put its suggestions in writing. Dave Kanner said there are no formal
proposals, but the basic idea is to define communities of common interest.
Representatives of the cities of Bend and Redmond do not plan to offer
testimony, although these people can as individuals. A straw-man proposal is
to carve off Redmond and the northeast corner, with the rest being another
district. Another includes Bend and Redmond as a single Senate district. The
rest of the County may end up being parceled out to different Senate districts,
which is not good for representation. Another idea is to use Deschutes River as
a boundary, but that may mean west of the River ends up as part of the district
that includes Lane or Linn County.
The questions are, what are the Board's priorities, and how they define
communities of common interest. At this point it may not be wise to support
any particular option until more is known. The boundary now is the crest of the
Cascades, which is logical.
Commissioner Unger feels there is not enough time to put something together
before the meeting on Saturday. It is important to keep the region together. He
could see Redmond being part of Madras and Crook County.
Chair Baney asked if staff could do an exercise on how these breakdowns might
impact the area. Time is very limited. Mr. Kanner suggested doing this next
Monday afternoon when all three Commissioners are present.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Page 5 of 6 Pages
Being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at S: 00 p.m.
DATED thisb Day of w~ 2011 for the
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners.
ni "14 1" L, /
Tamm aney, Chair
ATTEST:
6~u~ K&4kt~
Recording Secretary
Anthony DeBone, Vice Chair
66A,- Ui+ YI"I- -
Alan Unger, Commissioner
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Work Session Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Page 6 of 6 Pages
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orl?
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
2:00 P.M., WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 2011
(Please note later time)
1. Discussion of Comp Plan Policies for Deschutes Junction - Peter Russell
2. Discussion of Declaratory Ruling on Structure at Highway 97/Tumalo Place
(Fagen) - Peter Russell
3. TSP Update - Peter Russell
4. Update of Commissioners' Meetings and Schedules
5. Other Items
Executive session, called under ORS 192.660(2)(h), pending or threatened
litigation.
PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to ORS 192.660(2) (e), real
property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), litigation; ORS 192.660(2)(d), labor negotiations; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues.
Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for Try.
Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.
V
-/I Lly~
LLL /
G
t wo e~ E-LA 15 i A rasp Ct, ` a
2-o rs 3 6 ~c ar-) L u, ~
Gov DA L-C
13c5Ye-
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
STAFF REPORT
TO: Deschutes County Board of Count y Commissioners
FROM: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner
WORK
SESSION: March 16, 2011
HEARING: March 28, 2011
SUBJECT: Declaratory Ruling DR-10-3 (permanent residential status of a structure on the
northwest quadrant of Deschutes Junction)
Background
The Board at a September 29, 2010, work session directed staff to initiate a declaratory ruling
on the permanent residential status of a structure located at 21280 Tumalo Place, Bend.
The status of the structure was raised at Planning Commission hearings on the Comprehensive
Plan Update and Text Amendment (TA-10-6), the four proposed transportation and land use
policies for Deschutes Junction. Often referred to as the pink building or the former Funny
Farm, the building is located in the northwest quadrant of the Deschutes Junction interchange.'
In 1979 the County's Comprehensive Plan designated Deschutes Junction as a Rural Service
Center (RSC). In 1994, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)
created Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-022 for unincorporated communities, of which
an RSC is one type.2 The County reviewed the state's new criteria and determined in 1994,
1997, and by a land use decision in 2002 that Deschutes Junction no longer qualified as an
RSC based on OAR 660-022.
The linchpin of those decisions was that an RSC requires more than one permanent residence.
In 2002 Deschutes County ruled the structure at 21280 Tumalo Place was not a residence when
the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 2002-018. This ordinance replaced the
RSC designation with Rural Commercial (RC) for 1.77 acres on the northwest quadrant and
Rural Industrial (RI) on the eastern side of the interchange. The County's 2002 decision was
not appealed and thus still stands.
' 16-12-266, Tax Lot 500
2 http://arcweb.sos.state.or.us/rules/OARS 600/OAR 660/660 022.htmi
Quality Services Performed 7vith Pride
Key findings in DR-10-3
The key variables in the declaratory ruling and the pages where they are discussed are:
1) Past and proposed uses of the structure (pages 2-5 and 11);
2) Definition of residence in County code Title 18 and OAR 660-022 (pages 8-9); and
3) Definition of permanent (pages 9-10)
Past and proposed uses
Staff reviewed approximately 30 years of land use applications, building, and septic permits for
the structure and none was for a residential use. Second hand store, welding shop, gas station
with mini-mart, wholesaler of gardening supplies have all been actual or proposed uses in this
structure. While a residence is an outright permitted use in the RC zone, no one has ever
applied for a residence in those 30 years. Instead, the structure has alternated brief periods of
non-residential activity with long stretches of vacancy.
Definition of residence
Title 18, Chapter 4 provides definitions for County land uses. The code implies that a residence
is a stand-alone use.3 When there is economic activity in a structure, it must be secondary to
the residential use and be small scale. Even the code for Home Occupation permits makes that
distinction.4 Thus, the structure in question has been a commercial use for the last several
decades even if, for example, the operators of a second hand store lived upstairs.
Definition of permanent
OAR 660-022 requires more than one permanent residential dwelling for an RSC, but neither
OAR 660-022 nor Title 18 defines permanent. Staff therefore consulted three dictionaries
(American Heritage College Dictionary, Webster's 11 New College Dictionary, and Oxford
Dictionary On-Line) and all stressed permanent means:
• "lasting, enduring, without change, not expected to change, etc."
The one land use that has not been present at 21280 Tumalo Place is an uninterrupted
succession of residential dwellers. Instead, this structure has seen an array of non-residential
uses - either actual or proposed - separated by long periods of vacancy.
Conclusion
The structure is not a permanent residential dwelling based on its
• land use history;
• the application of OAR 660-022;
• Deschutes County's determinations in 1994 and 1997, and a land use decision in 2002
on the question of whether Deschutes Junction was an RSC under OAR 660-022;
• and the code and dictionary definitions of both residence and permanent.
3 18.04.030, see Dwelling, single-family as well as Home Occupation
4 18.116.280, Home Occupations
2
FINDINGS AND DECISION
OF THE
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FILE NUMBER: DR-10-3
APPLICANT Deschutes County
c/o Nick Lelack, Planning Director
PROPERTY OWNERS: Harry and Beverly Fagen
21208 Tumalo Road
Bend, OR 97701
REQUEST: An administrative determination of a declaratory ruling (DR-10-3)
that the structure on the northwest quadrant of the Deschutes
Junction interchange is a permanent residence and thus complies
with Oregon Administrative Rule 660-022, Unincorporated
Communities, specifically Rural Service Center.
STAFF CONTACT: Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner
II. APPLICABLE STANDARDS & CRITERIA:
A. Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 22.40, Declaratory Ruling
* Section 22.40.010, Availability of Declaratory Ruling
* Section 22.40.020, Persons Who May Apply
* Section 22.40.030, Procedures
* Section 22.40.040, Effect of Declaratory Ruling
* Section 22.40.050, Interpretation
B. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 18.74, Rural Commercial
*Section 18.74.010, Purpose
*Section 18.74.020, Uses Permitted - Deschutes Junction and Deschutes River
Woods Store
C. Oregon Administrative Rule, Chapter 660, Division 22, Unincorporated Communities
*Section 660-022-0010, Definitions
II. FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. Location: The 29.24-acre subject property is located at 21280 Tumalo Place, Bend, and
is further identified as Tax Lot 500 on Deschutes County Assessor's Map 16-12-26B.
Board Document 2011-041
(Structure on Fagen property at Deschutes Junction)
B. Zoning and Plan Designation: The 1.77-acre portion of the subject property that abuts
the northwest quadrant of the Deschutes Junction interchange and Tumalo Place is zoned
Rural Commercial (RC), with the remaining 27.47 acres zoned Multiple Use
Agricultural, 10-acre minimum (MUA-10). A portion of the property is also zoned
Landscape Management Combing Zone (LM) due to its proximity to US 97. The
Comprehensive Plan designation is Rural Commercial (RC) for the 1.77 acres and Rural
Residential Exception Area (RREA) for the remaining 27.47 acres.
C. Site Description: The subject property is irregular in shape and currently has a home on
the west side of the property and a vacant pink two-story building sits near the northwest
corner of the US 97/Tumalo Road-Deschutes Market Road interchange. That building is
the subject of this declaratory ruling. An irrigation lateral meanders through the MUA-10
portion of the property.
D. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: To the north are two commercial businesses on
land zoned Exclusive Farm Use-Tumalo/Redmond/Bend (EFU-TRB). To the east is US
97 and farther east across US 97 is The Funny Farm, a commercial business with eclectic
wares and novel landscaping. Directly south across Tumalo Place, which is the
southbound off-ramp from US 97 that ends at Tumalo Road, is a parcel zoned EFU-TRB
and engaged in hay sales. Farther south across Tumalo Road is the Seventh Day
Adventist school. Westward are vacant parcels zoned EFU and MUA-10 and the
Whispering Pines residential subdivision on land zoned MUA-10.
E. History of Property: The corner of the site that abuts the northwest quadrant of the
Deschutes Junction interchange where the vacant pink building now stands has had a
long history of land uses and interpretations by staff - with Board concurrence - of state
rules and the Deschutes County planning policies and zoning ordinances. Summarized
below are County land use decisions on 16-12-26B, Tax Lot 500 and any Assessor's
information or permits associated with the site.
The RC zone on this property has ranged in size in various land use decisions from 0.67
acres to 0.83 acres to 1.77 acres. This was due to a combination of interpreting size of
site plans when scaled against mylar sheets, sale of land to the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) for highway improvements, and changes to the property related
to the Deschutes Junction interchange and access issues. Neither County staff nor the
Board is disputing the current 1.77-acre size of the RC zoning.
Z-77-S3
Approved a rezone of two-thirds of the 0.83-acre parcel changing it from A-1, Exclusive
Agriculture, to A-S, Rural Service Center. The 1977 rezoning was done so the parcel
could be developed as a grocery store, but what ultimately was developed was Buffet
Flat, a flea market and secondhand store. The zoning and development of the 0.67-acre
area committed the land to commercial service center use. (Sometime between 1977 and
1993, the area zoned RSC increased from 0.67 acres to 0.83 acres. Additionally, the
remainder of the property was rezoned from A-1 to MUA-10.) The staff report described
the buildings on the site as being vacant.
SP-78-18
A site plan that approved a welding repair shop and ill-defined retail uses. The applicant
broadly described the intended retail use as possibly being a secondhand store, a grocery
store, or other form of retail. The applicant described the existing buildings as abandoned
in the submitted burden of proof. See permits B2777 and B 2798.
Board Document 2011-041
(Structure on Fagen property at Deschutes Junction)
19 79 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
The 1979 Comprehensive Plan recognized the historical use of this area for small-scale
commercial and industrial activities, designating a portion of the Fagen property as Rural
Service Center (RSC). Unlike most of the other RSC's designated in the Comprehensive
Plan, there were no Comprehensive Plan policies specific to Deschutes Junction. Rural
Development Policy #13 identified Deschutes Junction as an RSC (see Exhibit #1) and
Policy #14 provided policy language for development in all RSC's.
Rural Development Policy #14 stated:
Each Rural Service Center shall have a compact commercial area to serve
the convenience-commercial, agricultural and repair services needs of the
surrounding rural lands. In addition, larger Rural Service Centers along
major highways, where public facilities such as schools already exist, shall
have a residential area designated (see individual RSC maps and policies).
The size and uses of rural service centers shall be such as to maintain the
rural character of the area.
SP-82-22
Approved a site plan to construct a 5,040-square-foot addition on the north end of
the building and open Buffet Flat Flea Market, a secondhand store specializing in
antique furniture and collectibles. The staff report references a house on site
amongst other buildings. (With the impending construction of the Deschutes
Junction interchange in the late 1990s, the owners of Buffet Flat moved their
wares to the northeast side of the highway circa 1992 and established what is now
known as The Funny Farm.) The building permit for the addition, B 9903, appears
to not have been used.
PA-92-8 and ZC-92-3
This land use application attempted to change the zoning from MUA-10 to RSC
for 4.15 acres on 16-12-26B, Tax Lot 500 and add a gas station and mini-mart to
the parcel. In 1992 it was determined that 0.83 acres of the 29.71-acre parcel was
zoned RSC. Applicants had also sold 0.23 acres of the RSC land to ODOT for a
then-future grade-separated interchange at Deschutes Junction. The Hearings
Officer recommended denial of PA-92-8 and ZC-92-3 as the Comprehensive Plan
did not allow for RSC zoning on the property, the required Goal 14 exception was
not submitted by the applicant, and the proposed uses were already provided on
nearby lands inside an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). The Board accepted the
Hearing Officer's recommendation to deny the plan amendment and zone change.
Oregon Administrative Rule 660-022, Unincorporated Communities
In 1994, the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) crafted
OAR 660-022, Unincorporated Communities, to have local governments address
the anomaly of land uses of a type and/or intensity that were more urban in nature,
but occurring on rural lands.
Deschutes County planning staff examined all of the RSC's designated at the
time, culminating in the report "Unincorporated Rural Communities Land Use
Inventory" dated Oct. 26, 1994, for Periodic Review Work Task #7. Pages 10-13
dealt with Deschutes Junction. The County's report concluded Deschutes
Junction did not meet any of the OAR criteria for an Unincorporated Community.
The report found Deschutes Junction had four tax lots, with three zoned for
industrial and one zoned for commercial (Fagen property). The Assessor's date
Board Document 2011-041
(Structure on Fagen property at Deschutes Junction)
for those four lots listed three as industrial and one as exempt (Fagen property).
The exempt lot was listed as vacant as were two of the four industrial lots. The
industrial lots are on the east side of US 97.
The report summarized the land use pattern at Deschutes Junction as "...industrial
uses, which include United Pipe and Supply and Cascade Pumice, and retail
businesses including a gas/service station and caf6. (Fagen property)" The Oct.
26, 1994, report did not identify any residential uses at Deschutes Junction.
After receiving input from local governments, including Deschutes County,
DLCD published on January 30, 1997, "Survey of Oregon's Unincorporated
Communities." Deschutes Junction was not on this list as the then-Planning
Director and DLCD's field representative had discussed and determined in the
October 1994 report cited in the previous page that the two-story pink building on
the Fagen property was not a permanent residence. Thus, Deschutes Junction did
not meet the multiple permanent residential dwellings criteria of OAR 660-022-
0010 for an RSC.
PA-99-2 and TA-99-2
While under Periodic Review, the County began to apply OAR 660-022 to the
RSC's listed in the Comprehensive Plan. During this process, the County again
determined the vacant building on the Fagen property was not a permanent
residence and thus Deschutes Junction did not qualify as an RSC. The County
held public hearings on these land uses and their implementing ordinances, 2002-
018 and 2002-019. These ordinances removed the RSC designation from
Deschutes Junction, replacing it with Rural Commercial (RC) on the Fagen
property and Rural Industrial (RI) for other properties on the east side of the
interchange (Willamette Graystone, United Pipe, and Cascade Pumice, for
example).
Also during this land use process, the County took into consideration the effects
on the Fagen property of the Deschutes Junction interchange, which opened for
traffic in November 1998. The Fagen property no longer had direct access to US
97. PA-99-2 amended the RC boundaries from a narrow north-south alignment
into a more east-west alignment with access from Tumalo Place. (see Exhibits 2
and 3, which are Exhibits C, and D from Ord. 2002-018). PA-99-2 kept the RC
designation at 1.77 acres, which is the same size as the previous RSC designation.
(Neither staff nor the Board has found in the record when the size of the RSC
went from 0.83 acres to 1.77 acres. Neither staff nor the Board is disputing the
increased size; we just cannot explain it at this time. As the RC zoning does not
parallel lot lines but rather is an amorphous designation within the larger MUA-10
zoning, staff and the Board assume the inconsistent size relates to scrivener
interpretations over the years.)
SP-05-28
Approved a business for the retail and wholesale sale of potting soils, compost,
fertilizer, and other soil amendments with the vacant building becoming an office.
Products would be stored in large outdoor bins.
Septic Permit 5-748 (1978)
Remodel of a building classified as Commercial. S-748 was issued 4/14/78.
Board Document 2011-041 4
(Structure on Fagen property at Deschutes Junction)
Building Permit 2777 (1978)
Remodel of a building classified as Commercial. B2777 was issued 1/24/78 and
finalized 2/8/78. B2777 was for a welding shop approved under SP-78-18.
Building Permit 2798 (1978)
Remodel of a building classified as Commercial. B2798 was issued 1/24/78 and
finalized 4/6/78. B2798 was for a secondhand store approved under SP-78-18.
Building Permit 9903
New construction for an addition to a Commercial building. B9903 was issued
6/9/82 and finalized on 8/22/83. B9903 was for a flea market approved under SP-
82-22 and its status is listed as expired.
Septic Permit 554654 (2005) is the only County building or septic permit
associated with this change of use detailed in SP-05-28. The septic permit
classifies the vacant two-story building as "commercial landscape business/office
with bath."
The Deschutes County Assessors Office lists the building as a General Purpose
building, not as a residence.
F. Proposal: The Board adopts the administrative decision regarding the declaratory ruling
on whether the vacant pink building can be considered a permanent residence. The status
of the building is the fundamental question on whether Deschutes Junction could
potentially be designated a Rural Service Center (RSC) under the State's administrative
rules for Unincorporated Communities.
G. Public/Private Agency Comments: Notice was mailed on Dec. 2, 2010, to Deschutes
County Assessors Office; Building Division; Code Enforcement; Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT), and Department of Land Conservation and Development
(DLCD).
Dave Pederson, Deschutes County Building Official, submitted on Dec. 15, 2010, the
comment "Peter, based on our observations of the referenced structure and the existing
permitting record we find this structure is and has been in use as a Commercial
Occupancy."
Jon Jinings, DLCD, submitted on Dec. 15, 2010, the comment "It is our understanding
that the purpose of these proceedings is to make a local determination regarding the status
of a structure located at the northwest quadrant of the Deschutes Junction intersection.
More specifically, it is our understanding that the county intends to establish whether said
structure should be considered a "permanent residence."
"Our observations suggest that this structure probably is not a permanent residence. It
doesn't appear to be lived in or to be cared for as a home, nor is it designed or decorated
in the manner of an ordinary home. We trust that staffs review of the property's land use
and building history will be helpful in making a decision one way or another."
"What may be more important to recognize is that even if the county finds the structure to
be a permanent residence the area is still likely to fall short of qualifying as an
unincorporated community under OAR Chapter 660, Division 22. Deschutes County
completed its planning for unincorporated communities several years ago. We believe
Board Document 2011-041
(Structure on Fagen property at Deschutes Junction)
the county did a good job, as evidenced by LCDC's acknowledgment. There have been
no substantial changes to the area that would suggest to us that the original decision was
mistaken or is no longer applicable."
"Please enter these comments into the record. Feel free to contact me if you have any
questions."
H. Public Notice and Comments: Notice was mailed on Dec. 2, 2010, to all property
owners within 250 feet of the subject property as required by Deschutes County Code for
public notification involving MUA-10 lands. Additionally, an e-mail was sent Dec. 1,
2010, to all members of the Deschutes Junction stakeholders group, which is a collection
of residents, property owners, and business owners, who have been involved for
approximately the last three years in the development of draft transportation and land use
policies for the area as part of the comprehensive plan update.
The Country received responses from Tony Aceti, Jack Holt, Hal Keesling, John
Lysaught, and Marian Woodall. Those responses and their attachments are identified and
incorporated herein by reference.
Mr. Aceti entered into the record a March 26, 2009, letter from Eugene Casey in which
Mr. Carsey wrote, "From 1980 to 1997 my partner and I lived in the two-story residence
located at 65005 N. Hwy 97 (the northwest corner of Hwy 97 and Tumalo Road). [staff
notes and Board concurs this is the pink building that is the subject of this land use. The
mailing address of the site was changed after construction of the Deschutes Junction
interchange, Phase I.] From 1977 to 1980 we lived in the small house (since razed)
which was located just north of the two-story residence. There has been a home located
on the property since at least 1947." Photos of the site, copied from Deschutes County
Assessors Office, showing the buildings described by Mr. Carsey were included. Also
included were diagrams and assessments for the site copied from Deschutes County
Assessors Office.
Finally, Mr. Aceti also entered into the record two transmittals to the Deschutes County
Planning Commission. One is an e-mail from Jack Holt dated Feb. 26, 2010, in which
Mr. Holt summarized how past land use and transportation changes make commercial
development at Deschutes Junction inevitable. (The e-mail does not address the
residential status of the pink building.) The second is a letter from Bruce Barrett dated
Dec. 12, 2009, where Mr. Barrett recounted his personal experience with commercial
development at Deschutes Junction beginning in the 1950s and expansion of
approximately 4,000 people who now live near Deschutes Junction. (The letter does not
address the residential status of the pink building.)
Mr. Jack Holt submitted an e-mail dated Dec. 9, 2010, observing the complexity of the
applicable rules and process. (This e-mail does not address the residential status of the
pink building.)
Mr. Hal Keesling submitted an e-mail dated Dec. 10, 2010, referencing all of his
previous comments on the Deschutes Junction Transportation Plan (there has never been
such a document; staff believes and Board concurs Mr. Keesling is referring to the draft
transportation and land use policies for Deschutes Junction proposed for addition to the
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan in TA-10-6), 19' Street, and the Deschutes
County Comprehensive Plan Update. While Mr. Keesling did not enter any copies of his
comments on those topics into the record, he did state "...those comments address the
need and want of the public to maintain the current rural character of the area." His e-
Board Document 2011-041
(Structure on Fagen property at Deschutes Junction)
mail also stated that he has not seen any residential use of the property for the last five
years.
Mr. John Lysaught submitted a Dec. 14, 2010, e-mail stating for the last 12 years he had
lived in the Boones Borough area that the pink building was not a residence, but was
briefly a commercial landscaping operation.
Ms. Marian Woodall submitted a letter Dec. 13, 2010, stating in the 12.5 years she has
lived in the Boones Borough neighborhood that she and her husband have not seen any
one living in the building, but there was a commercial landscaping business for a while.
1. Lot of Record: The County considers the subject property to be a legal lot of record on
the basis of previous development permits (see: B2777 and B2798).
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
A. Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Development Procedures Ordinance
1. Chapter 22.40, Declaratory Ruling
a. Section 22.40.010, Availability of Declaratory Ruling
A. Subject to the other provisions of this section, there shall be
available for the County's comprehensive plans, zoning
ordinances, the subdivision and partition ordinance and this
title a process for:
1. Interpreting a provisions of a comprehensive plan or
ordinance (and other documents incorporated by
reference) in which there is doubt or a dispute as to its
meaning or application;
FINDINGS: The County originally designated the property Rural Service Center in the 1979
Comprehensive Plan, a designation removed in 2002 and replaced with Rural Commercial (RC)
for portions of this property and Rural Industrial (RI) for property on the east side of US 97. The
removal of the RSC designation was based on the interpretation of the number of permanent
residences required for the revised traits set for a RSC in 1994 by the State's administrative rules
for Unincorporated Communities. The question at hand is the status of the pink building and
whether it qualifies as permanent residence under OAR 660-022.
B. A declaratory ruling shall be available only in instances
involving a fact-specific controversy and to resolve and
determine the particular rights and obligations of particular
parties to the controversy. Declaratory proceedings shall not
be used as a substitute for seeking an amendment of general
applicability to a legislative enactment.
Board Document 2011-041 7
(Structure on Fagen property at Deschutes Junction)
FINDING: The fact-specific controversy is what is meant by the term "permanent residential
dwellings" in OAR 660-022-0010(5) and "some residential dwellings" at OAR 660-022-0010(8)
and how those definitions apply to the vacant pink building at Deschutes Junction.
b. Section 22.40.020, Persons Who May Apply
A. Section 22.08.010(B) notwithstanding, the following persons
may initiate a declaratory ruling under this chapter:
1. The owner of a property requesting a declaratory ruling
relating to the use of the owner's property.
2. In cases where the request is to interpret a previously
issued quasi-judicial plan amendment, zone change or
land use permit, the holder of the permit; or
3. In all cases arising under DCC 22.40.010, the Planning
Director.
No other person shall be entitled to initiate a declaratory
ruling.
FINDINGS: At the August 26, 2010, public hearing before the Planning Commission (PC) on
TA-10-6 (proposed transportation and land use policies for Deschutes Junction); the PC
discussed the 2002 decision to replace the RSC designation with RC and RI. The PC directed
staff to seek direction from the Board of County Commissioners (Board) on whether a
declaratory ruling on the residential status of the vacant pink building should be initiated by the
property owner or staff. The Board at a Sept. 29, 2010, work session directed the Planning
Director and staff to initiate a declaratory ruling on the residential status of the vacant pink
building on the Fagen property.
B. A request for a declaratory ruling shall be initiated by filing an
application with the Planning Division and, except for
applications initiated by the Planning Director, shall be
accompanied by such fees as have been set by the Planning
Division. Each application for a declaratory ruling shall
include the precise question on which a ruling is sought. The
application shall set forth whatever facts are relevant and
necessary for making the determination and such other
information as may be required by the Planning Director.
FINDINGS: The Planning Director, through staff, filed an application for a declaratory ruling
on Dec. 1, 2010. The question is the residential status of the two-story, vacant pink building on
the land zoned RC.
C. Section 22.40.030, Procedures
Except as set forth in DCC 22.40 or in applicable provisions of a
zoning ordinance, the procedures for making declaratory rulings shall
Board Document 2011-041 g
(Structure on Fagen property at Deschutes Junction)
be the same as set forth in DCC Title 22 for land use actions. Where
the Planning Division is the applicant, the Planning Division shall
bear the same burden that applicants generally bear in pursing a land
use action.
FINDINGS: This administrative decision and its referenced materials and exhibits constitute
the Burden of Proof. The Board uses the procedures set forth in this Title in making this ruling.
d. Section 22.40.040, Effect of Declaratory Ruling
A. A declaratory ruling shall be conclusive on the subject of the
ruling and bind the parties thereto as to the determination
made.
B. DCC 22.28.040 notwithstanding, and except as specifically
allowed therein, parties to a declaratory ruling shall not be
entitled to reapply for a declaratory ruling on the same
question.
C. Except when a declaratory ruling is made by the Board of
County Commissioners, the ruling shall not constitute a policy
of Deschutes County.
FINDINGS: The intent of the declaratory ruling is to determine the meaning of the term
"permanent residential dwelling" as it applies to the vacant pink building. If the declaratory
ruling determines the vacant pink house is not a permanent residential dwelling, then the
County's 2002 application of OAR 660-022 to Deschutes Junction was correct and continues to
stand. If the declaratory ruling determines the vacant pink building does meet the definition of
the permanent residential dwelling, the County has the discretion, but not the obligation, to
revisit whether Deschutes Junction meets the RSC criteria of OAR 660-022.
e. Section 22.40.050, Interpretation
Interpretations made under DCC 22.40 shall not have the effect of
amending the interpreted language. Interpretation shall be made only
of language that is ambiguous either on its face or in its application.
Any interpretation of a provision of the comprehensive plan or other
land use ordinances shall consider applicable provisions of the
comprehensive plan and the purpose and intent of the ordinance as
applied to the particular section in question.
FINDINGS: The interpretation is for the language at OAR 660-022-0010(5) and underlined for
clarity: "'Permanent residential dwellings' includes manufactured homes, but does not include
dwellings primarily intended for a caretaker of an industrial use, commercial use, recreational
vehicle park or campground." Then at OAR 660-022-0010(8) Rural Service Center is defined as
an "...unincorporated community which consists primarily of permanent residential dwellings
but also has at least two other land uses that provide commercial, industrial, or public use..." The
language subject to interpretation is again underlined for emphasis.
Board Document 2011-041 9
(Structure on Fagen property at Deschutes Junction)
When applying OAR 660-022 to Deschutes Junction in 1997 and again in 2002, the County
determined there were not multiple permanent residential dwellings on the site. Thus Deschutes
Junction did not comply with RSC criteria set by OAR 660-022. The findings for PA-99-2 and
TA-99-2 lack an explanation of why the County decided there were not multiple permanent
residences. Staff and the Board can only assume it was due to the building's mix of previous
uses and continuing vacancy. Note that according to the March 26, 2009, letter submitted by Mr.
Aceti, that Mr. Carsey and his partner had quit living in the building in 1997. The pink building
was definitely vacant when the County applied OAR 660-022 to Deschutes Junction. Finally, the
County's 2002 land use decision was not appealed and therefore stands. The Fagens were
mailed notice of the proposed removal of the RSC designation and the application of the
replacement RC designation.
Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 18.04.030 defines residential as "...any dwelling unit or group
of units built or used for human occupancy." DCC 18.04.030 defines dwelling unit as "...one or
more rooms in a building designed for occupancy by one family and having not more than one
cooking area or kitchen." DCC 18.04.030 defines dwelling, single family, as "a detached
building containing one dwelling unit and designed for occupancy by one family only, not
including temporary structures such as tents, teepees, travel trailers and other similar structures."
The code implies residential is a stand-alone use, not a mixed use where commercial activity is
taking place on the ground floor and the business owners are living above. Where there is a mix
of economic and residential activity in a dwelling, the County has a code section for Home
Occupations. Even in Home Occupations, the economic activity within the dwelling is
secondary to the residential use. Clearly, the vacant pink building for much of its existence has
been a commercial building, not a residential dwelling.
The County code has no definition in DCC 18.04.030 for the term permanent. This is crucial, as
OAR 660-022 requires multiple permanent residential dwellings. Yet, as recounted in the
procedural history above, the vacant pink building has seen a multitude of active and proposed
uses with the vast plurality of those uses being non-residential in nature.
The American Heritage College Dictionary defines permanent as "1) lasting or remaining
without essential change" and "2) not expected to change in status, condition, or place."I
Webster's II New College Dictionary defines permanent as "1) lasting or meant to last
indefinitely: enduring" and "2) not expected to change in status, condition, or place. ,2 The
Oxford English Dictionary defines permanent as "1) lasting or intended to last or remain
unchained indefinitely" and "2) lasting or continuing without interruption."3
The vacant pink building has not been the site of a continuously occupied residence. Based on
research cited above, apparently the last time the building had a residential component was when
Buffet Flat existed; even then the building's primary use was commercial. Not only has the
building been unoccupied since 1997, the site has been the subject of several land use
applications for commercial and/or industrial uses. The latter is an equally critical component in
1 The American Heritage College Dictionary, Third Edition; Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997; page 1,018.
z Webster's II New College Dictionary; Houghton Mifflin Company, 1999; page 819.
3 Oxford Dictionaries On-Line, " Oxford Universities Press, 2010.
Board Document 2011-041 10
(Structure on Fagen property at Deschutes Junction)
the interpretation of "permanent residence." The building has not been merely vacant; the
building has been the subject of several land use actions whose intent was to conduct non-
residential uses in the building. Indeed, in a letter dated Sept. 9, 2010, from the property owner,
the Fagens themselves state, "The pink building has been used as both commercial and
residential (sic) through the years."
Given the history of non-residential uses in the pink building, both historical and intended, as
well as well as the time the structure has spent being unoccupied by either residential or non-
residential uses, the Board finds the vacant pink building is not a permanent residential dwelling
as the term permanent is defined by dictionaries or understood by the reasonable persons test.
B. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
1. Chapter 18.74, Rural Commercial
a. Section 18.74.010, Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to establish standards and review
procedures for development in the Rural Commercial Zone. The
Rural Commercial (RC) zone provisions implement the
comprehensive plan policies for rural commercial development
and associated uses outside of unincorporated communities and
urban growth boundaries.
FINDINGS: There is no development tied to this land use application nor are there any policy
changes proposed.
b. Section 18.74.020.Uses Permitted - Deschutes Junction and
Deschutes River Woods Store
A. Uses Permitted Outright. The following uses and their
accessory uses are permitted outright and do not require site plan
review:
1. Single-family dwelling.
2. Manufactured home subject to DCC 18.116.070.
3. Two-family dwelling.
4. Type 1 Home Occupation, subject to DCC 18.116.280...
5. Agricultural uses.
6. Class I and II road or street project subject to approval as
part of a land partition or subdivision, or subject to the
standards and criteria established in DCC 18.116.230.
7. Class III road or street project.
8. A lawfully established use existing as of 11/05/02, the date
this chapter was adopted, not otherwise permitted by this
chapter.
FINDING: A residential use, both single-family and multi-family, is an outright permitted land
use in the RC zone. Thus, from a regulatory standpoint there is no procedural barrier for the vacant
Board Document 2011-041 11
(Structure on Fagen property at Deschutes Junction)
pink building being used for residential purposes. The fact no one has lived there for
approximately 1.5 decades again indicates this is not a permanent residential dwelling. Mr. Carsey
had written he and his partner had not lived in the structure since 1997. When staff prepared the
findings for Ordinances 2002-018 to change the designation at Deschutes Junction from RSC to
RC there was no evidence provided or testimony given that the pink building was being used as a
residence.
C. Oregon Administrative Rule, Chapter 660, Division 22, Unincorporated Communities
a. Section 660-022-0010, Definitions
For purposes of this division, the definitions contained in ORS
197.015 and the statewide planning goals (OAR Chapter 660,
Division 15) apply. In addition, the following definitions apply:
(1) "Commercial Use" means the use of land primarily for the
retail sale of products or services, including offices. It does not
include factories, warehouses, freight terminals, or wholesale
distribution centers.
(2) "Community Sewer System" means a sewage disposal system
that has service connections to at least 15 permanent dwelling
units, including manufactured homes, within the unincorporated
community.
(3) "Community Water System" means a system that distributes
potable water through pipes to at least 15 permanent dwelling
units, including manufactured homes within the unincorporated
community.
(4) "Industrial Use" means the use of land primarily for the
manufacture, processing, storage, or wholesale distribution of
products, goods, or materials. It does not include commercial
uses.
(5) "Permanent residential dwellings" includes manufactured
homes, but does not include dwellings primarily intended for a
caretaker of an industrial use, commercial use, recreational
vehicle park or campground.
(6) "Resort Community" is an unincorporated community that
was established primarily for and continues to be used primarily
for recreation or resort purposes: and
(a) Includes residential and commercial uses; and
(b) Provides for both temporary and permanent
residential occupancy, including overnight lodging and
accommodations.
Board Document 2011-041 12
(Structure on Fagen property at Deschutes Junction)
(7) "Rural Community" is an unincorporated community which
consists primarily of permanent residential dwellings but also has
at least two other land uses that provide commercial, industrial,
or public uses (including but not limited to schools, churches,
grange halls, post offices) to the community, the surrounding
rural area, or to persons traveling through the area.
(8) "Rural Service Center" is an unincorporated community
consisting primarily of commercial or industrial uses providing
goods and services to the surrounding rural area or to persons
traveling through the area, but which also includes some
permanent residential dwellings.
(9) "Urban Unincorporated Community" is an unincorporated
community that has the following characteristics:
(a) Include at least 150 permanent residential dwellings
units;
(b) Contains a mixture of land uses, including three or
more public, commercial or industrial land uses;
(c) Includes areas served by a community sewer system;
and
(d) Includes areas served by a community water system.
(10) "Unincorporated Community" means a settlement with all of
the following characteristics:
(a) It is made up primarily of lands subject to an
exception to Statewide Planning Goal 3, Goal 4 or both;
(b) It was either identified in a county's acknowledged
comprehensive plan as a "rural community", "service
center", "rural center", "resort community", or similar
term before this division was adopted (October 28,
1994), or it is listed in the Department of Land
Conservation and Development's January 30, 1997
"Survey of Oregon's Unincorporated Communities";
(c) It lies outside the urban growth boundary of any
city;
(d) It is not incorporated as a city; and
(e) It met the definition of one of the four types of
unincorporated communities in sections (6) through (9)
of this rule, and included the uses described in those
Board Document 2011-041 13
(Structure on Fagen property at Deschutes Junction)
definitions, prior to the adoption of this division
(October 28, 1994).
FINDINGS: OAR 660-022 requires at 660-022-0010(8) some residential dwellings for a site to
be an Unincorporated Community (UC). At 660-022-0018(5), the OAR does not fully define
permanent residential dwellings, but again indicates more than one is needed for the UC
designation.
While OAR 660-022-0010 provides definitions of types of unincorporated communities and their
land use characteristics, it does not provide an elemental definition of permanent as used to
modify residential dwelling. The County internally in 1997 and again in a series of public
hearings in 2002 determined Deschutes Junction was not a Rural Service Center based on the
lack of multiple permanent residential dwellings.
The vacant building on the Fagen property was judged by the County to not be a permanent
residential dwelling due to the non-residential activities cited above and the building's chronic
vacancy and/or disuse. Given that determination, it followed there was not more than one
permanent residential dwelling in the area previously designated the Deschutes Junction RSC.
With the changing State definition of a RSC, the County applied OAR 660-022 and found
Deschutes Junction was no longer an RSC. Instead the County designated RC and RI on various
parcels to reconcile the pre-existing and in some instances continuing land uses.
IV. DECISION:
Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, the Board finds the two-story
vacant pink building on the Fagen property is not a permanent residential dwelling unit.
Dated this 28th day of March 2011.
Mailed this day of 2011.
THIS DECISION BECOMES FINAL TWENTY-ONE DAYS (21) AFTER MAILING
UNLESS TIMELY APPEALED BY A PARTY OF INTEREST TO THE LAND USE
BOARD OF APPEALS (LUBA).
Board Document 2011-041 14
(Structure on Fagen property at Deschutes Junction)
1'E- S
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Soils Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM:
WORK
SESSION:
HEARING:
SUBJECT:
Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
Peter Russell, Senior Transportation Planner
March 16, 2011
March 28, 2011
Text Amendment TA-10-6 (transportation and land use policies for Deschutes
Junction)
Background
Staff initially attempted to do a community plan for Deschutes Junction, similar to what was done for
the urban unincorporated communities of Terrebonne and Tumalo. After two years, it became
apparent that unlike Terrebonne and Tumalo, there was no common agreement between residents
and business and property owners on the future of Deschutes Junction, outside of the need for
improvements to the Deschutes Junction interchange.
Residents identified with their respective subdivisions (Boones Borough, Starwood, Vale View,
Whispering Pines Estates, etc.,) and not the interchange itself. Residents strongly preferred the
area retain its rural character. They cited the reason they moved to the area was to get away from
urban development and that most traveled to Bend or Redmond daily, purchasing necessary goods
and services during those trips.
Business and property owners were equally passionate about the need for economic development.
They often cited the historic commercial services (cafe, gas station, second-hand store, etc.,) once
available at Deschutes Junction. They spoke of the need for small-scale services to be offered
again. Business and property owners often claimed the County erred when it removed the Rural
Service Center (RSC) designation in 2002 from Deschutes Junction, replacing it with Rural
Commercial (RC) on 1.77 acres on the northwest side and Rural Industrial (RI) on the northeast
and southeast quadrants.
(A full discussion of the RSC and Deschutes Junction is found at DR-10-3, a declaratory ruling on
the permanent residential status of a two-story structure on the northwest quadrant of Deschutes
Junction. In summary, Deschutes Junction was an RSC in the 1979 Comprehensive Plan. The
state in 1994 wrote Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 660, Division 22, Unincorporated
Communities. Deschutes Junction did not meet the new criteria and after public hearings, the
Quality Services Performed with Pride
County changed the designation to RC for 1.77 acres on the northwest quadrant and RI for the
northeast and southeast. The 2002 land use decision was not appealed and thus stands.)
Eventually, the Deschutes Junction stakeholders group agreed that it made more sense to write
policies for Deschutes Junction instead of a specific plan. Staff drew up four broad transportation
and land use policies for the Comprehensive Plan. Those policies for 23.40.65(D) were the subject
of TA-10-6. The policies attempted to take into account the desires of both rural residents and
business and property owners.
Planning Commission and TA-10-6
The Planning Commission held several public hearings on TA-10-6 (August 26 and October 14,
2010; January 13, 2011) at which residents again called for keeping the status quo at Deschutes
Junction while business and property owners supported a RSC designation and more economic
development. Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) staff submitted
testimony that the County was correct in 2002 when it removed the RSC designation.
At the January 13 hearing the Planning Commission voted 4-3 to recommend approval of TA-10-6
with the language at 23.40.65(D) being modified with new language.
The PC's recommended language was:
"Review Policies 23.40.65 (A through C) and consider creating a Deschutes Junction Master Plan
by 2015. Encouraqe the County to establish an unincorporated community." (New language is
underlined)
The original language read:
"Review Policies 23.40.65 (A through C) and consider creating a Deschutes Junction Master Plan
by 2015. A Maste' Plan should be developed a^'r°' of OAR r'hapt°' 660, Division 22 amended
" (Deleted text is shown
as c+r%nough.)
Since that modification, staff has received several letters from the public expressing keen
disappointment in the PC's recommended language.
Key points in TA-10-6
Staff would note, based on review of OAR 660-022 and discussions with DLCD staff, that it
would be extremely difficult to establish Deschutes Junction as an RSC under the current OAR
language. The intent of OAR 660-022 was to be a "one and done" approach to identifying
anomalous uses outside of established urban growth boundaries (UGB's), applying the new
criteria, and establishing these quasi-urban areas as one of four types of unincorporated
community (resort, rural, rural service center, or urban unincorporated).
The County in PA-99-2 and TA-99-2 applied OAR 660-022 to Deschutes Junction with public
hearings before both the Planning Commission and the Board; those 2002 approvals were not
appealed. There has been no change in circumstance in the intervening years so staff would
find it extremely difficult to prove why Deschutes Junction would now be a potential RSC in
2011 when it clearly was not in 2002.
Conclusion
Staff recommends the Board reinstate the deleted language in 23.40.65(D) to ensure a proper
balance between public sentiment and entrepreneurial aspirations.
2
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
For Recording Stamp Only
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Deschutes County Code
23.40.065, Creating Transportation and Land Use * ORDINANCE NO. 2011-005
Policies for Deschutes Junction.
WHEREAS, Deschutes County Planning Division staff initiated a text amendment to add Deschutes
County Code ("DCC") 23.40.065, Deschutes Junction Policies, to create transportation and land use policies for
the area around the interchange of U.S. 97/Deschutes Market-Tumalo roads, a locale generally and historically
known as Deschutes Junction; and
WHEREAS, after notice was give in accordance with applicable law, a public hearing was held on
August 26, 2010, and on October 14, 2010, before the Deschutes County Planning Commission and, on January
13, 2011 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the text amendments; and
WHEREAS, after notice was given in accordance with applicable law, a public hearing was held on
March 28, 2011, before the Board of County Commissioners ("Board"); and
WHEREAS, the Board considered this matter and concluded that the public will benefit from changes to
the land use regulations; now therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
as follows:
Section 1. ADDING. DCC 40.065, Deschutes Junction Policies, is added to read as described in
Exhibit "A", attached and incorporated by reference herein.
Page 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2011-005
Section 2. FINDINGS. The Board adopts as its findings in support of this decision Exhibit "B",
attached and incorporated by reference herein.
Dated this of , 2011 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
TAMMY BANEY, Chair
ATTEST:
ANTHONY DeBONE, Vice Chair
Recording Secretary ALAN UNGER, Commissioner
Date of 1" Reading: XX`h day of XXX, 2011.
Date of 2"d Reading: XX`h day of XXXX, 2011.
Record of Adoption Vote:
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Tammy Baney
Anthony DeBone
Alan Unger
Effective date: day of , 2011.
Page 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2011-005
23.40.65 Deschutes Junction Policies.
A. Maximize protection of the rural character of neighborhoods in the Deschutes
Junction area while recognizing the intended development of properties designated
for commercial, industrial and agricultural uses.
B. Review cumulative impacts of future development and future traffic improvements in the
Deschutes Junction area in a manner consistent with Deschutes County traffic study
requirements at 17.16.115, the Oregon Highway Plan, access management standards of OAR
Chapter 734, Division 51, and OAR Chapter 660, Division 12, the Transportation Planning
Rule (TPR).
C. Support safe and efficient travel around Deschutes Junction, including a frontage road
extending north from Tumalo Road on the west side of Highway 97.
D. Review Policies 23.40.65(A through C) and consider creating a Deschutes Junction Master
Plan by 2015. Encourage the County to establish an unincorporated community.
Exhibit A to Ordinance 2011-005 Page 1 of 1
-C~
1-~
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
FINDINGS
The Deschutes County Planning Commission (PC) held public hearings on August 26 and
October 14, 2010, and January 13, 2011, to recommend amending Title 23.40, Deschutes
County Comprehensive Plan Unincorporated Communities to add 23.040.065 Deschutes
Junction Policies. The history, purpose, and need are provided below. The text amendment
does not change any existing land use designations, but rather outlines a process for how such
changes could be triggered and what transportation and land use aspects must be addressed
by any proposed changes.
BACKGROUND
Deschutes Junction, as the name implies, is a crossroads about five miles north of Bend and
eight miles south of Redmond on U.S. Highway 97 (U.S. 97). The rural community of Tumalo is
approximately three miles west. Development in the area has historically included some
commercial, light industrial, agricultural, and residential uses. In 1979 Deschutes County
adopted a Comprehensive Plan that referred to the area as a Rural Service Center, but there
were no policies applied.
In 1994 the Land Conservation and Development Commission created a new Oregon
Administrative Rule, 660-22, to define and regulate rural areas with existing residential
development as well as commercial, industrial or public uses. The intent was to support the
Oregon land use system that promotes growth in urban areas while protecting rural lands for
rural uses. The new "unincorporated communities" rule defined four types of unincorporated
communities and required counties to review existing Rural Service Centers and similar areas
for compliance with the new rule.
Quality Services Performed With Pride
Aerial photograph of Deschutes Junction interchange on US 97
In 2002, the County reviewed Deschutes Junction and determined that the area did not fit into any
of the new unincorporated community categories. Consequently, areas of Deschutes Junction
were designated as Rural Commercial for a small area on the northwest quadrant of U.S. 97 and
Rural Industrial on the northeast and southeast quadrants. Uses on those lands are required to
be less intense than what is allowed in an unincorporated community, such as nearby Tumalo,
and are discussed further in the Rural Economy section of the Comprehensive Plan.
Deschutes Junction Community Process
In 2008-2010, the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners directed planning staff to engage
Deschutes Junction area residents and businesses in a closer look at existing and potential
future land uses in the area. Changes to the transportation patterns, including a grade-
separated interchange at U.S. 97 and Tumalo/Deschutes Market roads in 1998, had impacted
the area. Some residents whose lands were zoned for farming questioned the viability of that
designation. There was also discussion over whether the area had been appropriately
classified in 2002. After researching the issue and discussing it with the Department of Land
Conservation and Development, Deschutes Junction appears to be classified correctly.
Establishing the area as an unincorporated community, which would provide opportunities for
new and expanded zoning districts and land uses in the area, is both legally challenging to
achieve and divisive among residents, property and business owners. A private party could
certainly prepare a land use application to amend the plan if they felt differently.
Due to the recent and expected changes to and around the area, the County initiated a public
conversation regarding creating a Deschutes Junction community plan. The intent was to
determine how the County should plan for the future of this important area.
In 2009 Deschutes County held three community meetings in Deschutes Junction: on
February 10, October 29, and December 16. At the initial meeting staff listened to residents,
property and business owners to understand their land use values, hear what they would like
to see changed or remain the same, answer questions, and explain the Comprehensive Plan
process. During questions and answers with staff, one member of the audience asked for an
impromptu straw poll of whether attendees desired commercial lands. The vote leaned toward
allowing additional commercial uses. At the second community meeting, attendees voted on
options for future land use, transportation improvements, a boundary to define the area, and
other land use issues. In the third community meeting attendees critiqued the draft community
plan, which included goals and policies based on the input from the previous two public
meetings and stakeholder input.
The stakeholders committee was informally created in June 2009 to assist County staff in
conducting public outreach to the area's businesses and residents, and to identify and define
the key land use policy issues in the area. Four stakeholder meetings were held. Additional
tools were used to assess community input, including questionnaires and surveys.
Results of Public Input
There was considerable diversity of opinions regarding the future of Deschutes Junction.
Different people showed up at different meetings, leading to some meetings appearing to
support more development in the area and some meetings appearing to oppose it. In general,
there was no agreement over a possible Deschutes Junction boundary or preferred land use
future.
Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-005 Page 2 of 8
To achieve more clarity, a draft set of goals and policies was created and distributed based on
the public input received. The Community was invited to vote on these policies. Residents and
business owners also passed out petitions and wrote letters. Approximately 130 people
opposed any changes in the area, including additional commercial uses. Approximately the
same number of people supported the idea of changes to the area, including additional
commercial uses. Some of the responses were from people who do not live in Deschutes
Junction, but who work or own property in the area.
Given the wide range of views, at the February 24, 2010, stakeholders meeting the main topic
was whether to proceed and if so, then how. There were three broad approaches.
1. Simply end the process and continue with the current language in the comprehensive
plan and zoning code.
2. Add language to the comprehensive plan to revisit the planning issues for Deschutes
Junction as conditions and state regulations change.
3. Continue to develop a detailed community plan for Deschutes Junction.
After considerable discussion, the stakeholders and staff agreed on option two, to add a few
policies specific to Deschutes Junction to the overall draft Comprehensive Plan.
There was not universal agreement to add language to the Comprehensive Plan to revisit
planning issues for this area as conditions and state regulations change. Some noted that the
recent highway improvements have already changed the area. Additionally there are potential
impacts on the horizon which need to be planned for, including:
The City of Bend's Juniper Ridge which lies between Highway 97, Deschutes Market
Road and Cooley Road, especially the third phase as it abuts Deschutes Junction;
• The planned large lot industrial development of Department of State Lands property of
approximately 900 acres just south of Redmond;
• The potential future construction of 19th Street extension from the south end of the City
of Redmond to Deschutes Junction; and
Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-005 Page 3 of 8
Deschutes Junction Comprehensive Plan Designations
The potential development of a regional soccer field immediately south of the
interchange.
These changes to the area might demonstrate a need for creating a more specific plan for the
area at this time.
On the other hand, local residents were adamant in their concerns over a community plan.
First, they noted their identification is with their individual neighborhoods, not Deschutes
Junction. They were not interested in being included in a Deschutes Junction community plan.
Second, they expressed uneasiness over losing the rural character of their neighborhoods,
which is an important component of the area neighborhoods. Third, there was concern over the
impacts to local traffic if additional development, especially commercial development, were
permitted in the area.
Several property and business owners reiterated their desire to have the County either re-
designate land from EFU to commercial as part of the comprehensive plan update or at a
minimum craft policy language to support a private party's land use application to accomplish
such a plan amendment
Interestingly, the one area where most participants agreed was the need for additional
transportation changes to improve safety in the area. A frontage road on the west side of
Highway 97 extending north from Tumalo Road to Gift Road generated little opposition, as long
as it did not lead to further development in the area. In general the need for traffic safety
improvements was raised at every public or stakeholders committee meeting for Deschutes
Junction.
The public continued to provide input at several PC work sessions on the draft policies for
Deschutes Junction on March 25 and May 13, 2010.
To recognize the recent and potential changes in the area, as well as the concerns of the
residential and business communities, four policies have been proposed for the Deschutes
Junction area.
PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
Staff proposes a text amendment to add a new section to the Deschutes County
Comprehensive Plan Title 23.40 for Unincorporated Communities. This section would be
23.40.065, Deschutes Junction Policies, and would provide broad guidance on what would
trigger the beginning the process to attempt to designate Deschutes Junction as an
Unincorporated Community. The text amendment does not change any existing land use
designations; it provides a framework for how such changes could be attempted. The
Deschutes Junction Master Plan could be as simple as solely identifying a future frontage road
on the west side of US 97 to serve existing comprehensive and zoning designations or as
complex as proposing an unincorporated community with attendant goal exceptions and
potential changes in comprehensive plan and land use designations.
REVIEW CRITERIA
The draft text amendment language is proposed for adoption under TA-10-6 and Ordinance
2011-005. TA-10-6 codifies the goals and objectives expressed by the staff, residents, property
Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-005 Page 4 of 8
and business owners, and the PC. The policy language represents an effort to resolve the often
competing interests of all parties. The PC recommended the Deschutes County Board of
County Commissioners (BOCC) who are the final decision-makers, adopt the amendment and
its and ordinances as amended.
Deschutes County lacks specific criteria in DCC Titles 18, 22, or 23 for reviewing a legislative
plan amendment. Nonetheless, because this is a Deschutes County-initiated text amendment,
the County bears the responsibility for justifying that the amendments are consistent with the
statewide planning goals and Deschutes County's Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS
1. Statewide Planning Goals
The following findings demonstrate that TA-10-6 and Ordinance 2011-005 comply with
applicable statewide planning goals and state law. The state's system provides
guidelines for each goal; the guidelines in turn are divided into planning and
implementation portions. Planning is defined as "the process of developing plans that
incorporate the provisions of the goals. Implementation guidelines should relate
primarily to the process of carrying out the goals once they have been incorporated into
the plans."'
Statewide Goal 1, Citizen Involvement, is met through this adoption process because
the amendment will have received two public hearings, one before the PC (County's
citizen review board for land use matter) and a subsequent one before the Board.
The first evidentiary hearing was Aug. 26, 2010, before the PC, and the first
evidentiary hearing before the BOCC will be March 28, 2011. The proposed policies
were developed after numerous public meetings then revised following a second and
third round of public and stakeholder meetings. Should the Board direct staff to
begin the process of designating Deschutes Junction an unincorporated community,
there would be another iteration of public meetings and public hearings before the
PC and the Board.
Goal 2, Land Use Planning, was met because ORS 197.610 allows local
governments to initiate post acknowledgments amendments. An Oregon Land
Conservation and Development Department 45-day notice was initiated on July 7,
2010. Deschutes County initiated the amendment following two years of public
meetings, stakeholders meetings, and meetings with affected state agencies to
identify issues, opportunities, and constraints at Deschutes Junction. Staff also held
workshops with the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners on
the diverse opinions of the property and business owners and residents on the
threshold question of increased economic development vs. retaining the rural
character.
• Goals 3, Agricultural Lands, and 4, Forest Lands, are not applicable because no land
use designations are being changed by this text amendment nor are any roads being
mapped. The proposed policies only identify catalysts and/or timelines for
subsequent more refined planning to occur. If the Board directs staff to begin the
process of creating an unincorporated community for Deschutes Junction, staff
' "Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals & Guidelines." Goal 2: Land Use Planning. Page 5, March 12,
2010.
Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-005 Page 5 of 8
would have to a) identify a boundary; b) seek goal exceptions and provide findings
for any farm or forest lands that would be inside the boundary; c) any frontage road
would be on the west side of US 97 and would go north to Gift Road, crossing a
mixture of Rural Residential Exception Area and Exclusive Farm Use lands. The
latter would require a goal exception.
Staff believes under OAR 660-022, Unincorporated Community, the only suitable
choice is Rural Service Center (RSC). RSC would accommodate the preservation
and maintenance of farm land. The lands on the northwest quadrant of Deschutes
Junction are Multiple Use Agriculture 10-acre minimum (MUA-10) with a less than
two acre of Rural Commercial (RC); the eastern half is a mix of Exclusive Farm Use
(EFU) and Rural Industrial (RI) and the southwest quadrant is EFU.
Goal 5, Natural Resources. Scenic and Historic Areas and Open Spaces, is met
through existing County policy and regulations. There are no identified Goal 5
resources in Deschutes Junction, based on a review of the adopted Comprehensive
Plan and its Goal 5 inventory. If there are no Goal 5 resources, then there are no
changes to any Goal 5 sites as part of this land use. If the Board directs staff to
begin the process of creating an unincorporated community for Deschutes Junction,
then Goal 5 will need to be addressed. There are parcels designated Open Space
and Conservation adjacent to US 97, but those are at least a half-mile away from the
area historically considered Deschutes Junction.
Goals 6. Air. Water, and Land Resources Quality and 7 Natural Hazards are met
through other code provisions in DCC Chapter 18.66 and no land use designations
are being proposed to change as part of this text amendment. A frontage road,
according to ODOT testimony, would only be done if a raised median were
constructed on US 97 between Gift Road south to the current raised median. At that
time, the parcels on the west side of US 97 would lose their direct access to the
highway. Thus the intent of the frontage road is merely to redirect existing traffic to
the highway via another route, but does not increase the number of vehicles.
Therefore, there would be no adverse effect to air quality. Parcels in Deschutes
Junction would remain on their current permitted septic systems, thus there would be
no adverse affect to water quality. If the Board directs staff to begin the process to
establish an unincorporated community, there would minimal increase in density as
an RSC is rural by nature, thus preserving the land resources. There are no natural
hazards in the area; given the current agricultural and industrial uses along with the
open terrain there is no threat of catastrophic wildfire.
• Goal 8. Recreational Needs, is not applicable as these are not recreational lands.
While several parcels now have a destination resort overlay zone, the County is in
the process of remapping that overlay zone (PA-10-6/ZC-10-4) and these lands are
proposed to be removed from the map. Any issues regarding this goal will be
addressed during any destination resort remapping process.
Goal 9. Economic Development, is met as the proposed language recognizes the
ability of designated lands to develop for economic purposes and also includes
language about potential future economic development. On the northwest quadrant
is an area of less than two acres zoned Rural Commercial (RC) and the eastern
quadrants are zoned for Rural Industrial (RI). The policy language at 23.40.65(A)
explicitly states lands will be allowed to develop according to their commercial and
industrial designations. Should the Board direct staff to begin the process to make
Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-005 Page 6 of 8
Deschutes Junction a RSC, that designation allows for small-scale commercial and
industrial development.
• Goal 10, Housing, is not applicable because unlike municipalities, unincorporated
areas are not obligated to fulfill the housing requirements of this goal.
Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services, is met as no land use designations are being
changed as part of this text amendment, but TA-10-6 requires compliance with
Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-022 Unincorporated Communities. A
frontage road would be constructed on the west side of 97 between Gift Road and
Tumalo Road in conjunction with a raised median on the highway. Properties
abutting U.S. 97 would lose direct access to the highway. The two-lane frontage
road would then carry the traffic from those parcels. As the underlying zoning will not
have changed, the traffic would still be serving rural needs. If the Board directs staff
to begin the process to designate Deschutes Junction an RSC the allowed uses
under OAR 660-022 are small scale and intended to serve the surrounding rural
areas.
Goal 12, Transportation, is met as TA-10-6 explicitly requires compliance with the
OAR 660-012 (the Transportation Planning Rule), the Oregon Highway Plan,
Deschutes County Code's requirement for traffic studies, and the state's access
management standards of OAR 734-051. Should ODOT apply to the County to
construct a frontage road, the state will need to provide findings demonstrating
compliance with the TPR and DCC 17.16.115 for traffic studies.
Goal 13, Energy Conservation, is not applicable. The proposed policies will not alter
the current land use designations so no new uses can develop which would generate
new trips. As explained above, a frontage road would merely redistribute existing
traffic from parcel that would lose direct access to US 97. The policies speak to
encouraging development on properties already with commercial and industrial
designations. Thus, no further Goal 13 compliance findings are necessary for those
properties because no expansion of lands with those designations or any others in
this area is being proposed at this time. If the Board directs staff to begin the
process to designate Deschutes Junction as an unincorporated community this goal
will have to be readdressed. The small-scale commercial and industrial activities
allowed for an RSC under 660-022 might result in nearby residents making fewer
shopping trips to Bend and or Redmond.
Goal 14, Urbanization is not applicable because Deschutes Junction's existing
comprehensive plan designations and zoning districts remain intact and TA-10-6
requires compliance with OAR 660-022, Unincorporated Communities. If the Board
directs staff to begin the process to designate Deschutes Junction as an
Unincorporated Community the area does not meet the criteria of an Urban
Unincorporated Community (UUC). A RSC is the only OAR 660-022 the area might
possibly meet. .
• Goals 15 through 19, Willamette River Greenway, Estuarine Resources, Coastal
Shorelands, Beaches and Dunes, and Ocean Resources, are not applicable to any
amendments to the County's comprehensive plan because the county has none of
those types of lands.
2. Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Unincorporated Communities Chapter
Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-005 Page 7 of 8
The 1979 Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan designated Deschutes Junction a Rural
Service Center (RSC), but there were no policies adopted.
In 1994, the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission adopted Oregon
Administrative Rule (OAR) 660, Division 22, Unincorporated Communities. This OAR instituted
new land use requirement for rural areas with existing residential, commercial, or industrial
development as well as public uses.
Deschutes County in 2002 reviewed Deschutes Junction against the yardstick of the four types
of unincorporated communities of OAR 660-022: 1) Urban Unincorporated; 2) Rural
Community; 3) Rural Service Center; and 4) Resort Community. The County determined during
Periodic Review that Deschutes Junction did not fit into any of the four categories. Instead, the
County recognized pre-existing land uses by designating 1.77-acres on the northwest quadrant
as Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial on northeast and southeast quadrants of the US
97/Deschutes Market-Tumalo Road interchange.
The proposed language complies with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan at 23.40.060 (Rural
Commercial Deschutes Junction, Deschutes River Woods Store, Pine Forest, Rosland and
Spring River) as this is applicable to the designated residential and commercial lands located
outside unincorporated communities and urban growth boundaries. Any development would
have to comply with the limitations set by OAR 660-022 in terms of type, intensity, and size of
use. This would be in compliance with 23.40.060(C). Rural uses are limited in size and scope
for lands designated with the RC designation. The uses are intended to serve the needs of the
immediate rural area and passing travelers. Any text amendment put forth under the proposed
policy language of TA-10-6 would likely first require a comprehensive plan text and map
amendment that complies with the statewide planning goals and would have to comply with
OAR 660-022, the rule for unincorporated communities.
DCC 23.40.070 (Rural Industrial) is applicable to industrial lands outside unincorporated
communities and urban growth boundaries. DCC 23.40.070 specifically states the intent of RI
"is to recognize existing industrial areas in rural areas of the County and to allow the appropriate
development of additional industrial uses that are consistent with the rural character, facilities,
and services." The language at 23.40.65(A) calls for protecting the rural aspects of existing
residential neighborhoods while simultaneously "recognizing the intended development of
properties designated for commercial, industrial and agricultural uses." Clearly, DCC 23.40.070
anticipated some modest expansion of RI. Also any text amendment put forth under the
proposed policy language of TA-10-6 would still have to comply with OAR 660-022 and DCC
23.40.070 in terms of size, type, and intensity for industrial uses.
Exhibit B to Ordinance 2011-005 Page 8 of 8