HomeMy WebLinkAboutBackup - Sisters UGB ExpansionDeschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701 -1960
(541) 388 -6570 - Fax (541) 385 -3202 - www.deschutes.org
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board Business Meeting of January 26, 2009
Please see directions for completing this document on the next page.
DATE: 1/14/09
FROM: Will Groves
CDD x6518
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
A Public Hearing, and Consideration of First Reading, by title only, of Ordinance No. 2009 -004,
Amending Title 18, the Deschutes County Zoning Map, to Change the Zone Designation for Certain
Property From Forest Use Zone — F -1 to Forest Use Zone — F -2.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? Yes
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The applicant requested approval of a zone change from F -1 to F -2 for the subject property. On January
5, 2009, the Board deliberated and voted to approve the subject application and to adopt the Hearings
Officer's findings and conclusions with a revision regarding the discussion of the lot of record status.
Because of recent hearings officers' decisions related to whether or not parcels deeded from the federal
government are legal lots of record, the Board determined that such a determination should be made at
a later application stage and that it was not necessary for this decision.
Staff has also prepared an ordinance to implement the zone change approved by the Board's decision.
The county accepted the application as complete on September 21, 2008. The 150 -day clock will expire
on February 18, 2009.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Conduct First Reading; Second Reading and Consideration of Adoption to take place on Monday,
February 9, regarding the requested amendments to text of Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the
Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance.
ATTENDANCE: BOCC, Legal, Will Groves
DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS:
BOCC, Legal, Will Groves
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
January 6, 2009
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701 -1925
(541)388 -6575 FAX(541)385 -1764
http: / /www.co.deschutes.o -.us /cdd/
MEMORANDUM
To: Deschutes Board of County Commissioners
From: Will Groves, Senior Planner
Subject: A de novo hearing on the City of Sisters' proposal to change the plan
designation of the subject property from Forest to Urban Reserve, to
amend the Sisters UGB to include the property, and to change the zoning
of the property from F -1 to UAR -10.
BACKGROUND
The city requests approval of a plan amendment from Forest to Urban Area Reserve, a zone
change from F -1 to UAR -10, and an expansion of the Sisters UGB for the subject site tc
provide a location within the UGB, and ultimately within the city limits on which the fire
district may establish a new fire training facility.
The Hearings Officer found the application met, or could meet, all relevant criteria and
approved the applicant's proposal, in a decision dated December 4, 2008. The decision
included a condition requiring the Board to adopt a Resolution of Intent to Rezone, subject
to a successful vote to annex the property.
Under 22.28.030(C) zone changes concerning lands designated for forest use shall be
heard de novo before the Board of County Commissioners without the necessity of filing an
appeal, regardless of the determination of the Hearings Officer.
Because the proposed zone change is dependent upon approval of the proposed plan
amendment, and plan amendments are not subject to the 150 -day period for issuance of a
final local land use decision under ORS 215.427, the Hearings Officer finds these
applications are not subject to the 150 -day period.
Quality Services Performed with Pride
A public hearing on these applications was scheduled for August 19, 2008. On August 6,
2008, the city submitted an application to modify the plan amendment and zone change
applications to add two acres to the site (MA- 08 -8). The purpose of the modification was to
enlarge the UGB to provide a site for development of a yard debris recycling processing and
storage facility for High Country Disposal (HCD), the city's domestic solid waste and
recycling franchisee. By a letter dated October 6, 2008, the city withdrew its modification
application stating it had been advised that the proposed yard debris recycling and storage
facility is a use permitted in the F -1 Zone and does not require a plan amendment or zone
change. Accordingly, this hearing addresses only the applications for a plan amendment,
zone change and UGB expansion for the original four -acre site.
STAFF DISCUSSION
Staff concurs with the Hearings Officer decision.
Opponents argued the Hearings Officer should deny the city's proposal because the fire
training facility will have adverse impacts on surrounding property, such as smoke
drifting into surrounding residential neighborhoods. The Hearings Officer found that the
specific impacts from the proposed fire training facility and potential mitigation of those
impacts will be addressed after the subject site is annexed and the city or fire district
seeks approval of a zone change from UAR -10 to PF and site plan approval for the fire
training facility. These actions will be undertaken through one more public land use
proceedings in which neighboring property owners may participate.
Opponents argued the city's alternative sites analysis also should have included
industrial -zoned (IL) land within the UGB. The Hearings Officer found that existing IL-
zoned parcels would not reasonably accommodate the proposed fire training facility
considering its operating characteristics.
DOCUMENTATION
A copy of the staff report and Hearings Officer decision are attached for your review.
SCHEDULE
This item is scheduled for a de novo hearing at 10 A.M. on January 26, 2009. I am in
the process of scheduling a work session in advance of this hearing. Please feel free to
contact me with any questions or concerns.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT FOR A
QUASI- JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE
THE DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
I. INTRODUCTION
A. This is a de novo quasi-judicial hearing to change the plan designation of the
subject property from Forest to Urban Reserve, to amend the Sisters UGB to
include the property, and to change the zoning of the property from F -1 to UAR -10.
The purpose of this request is to facilitate the establishment of a four -acre fire
training facility for the Sisters /Camp Sherman Fire District. The County file
numbers are PA -08 -2 and ZC -08 -2.
B. The Board takes notice of the record below and includes that record as part of
the record before us.
II. BURDEN OF PROOF AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA
A. The applicants have the burden of proving that they are entitled to the proposal
sought.
B. The standards applicable to the application before us are listed in the Hearings
Officer decision. Copies are available on the table near the door.
C. Testimony and evidence at this hearing must be directed toward the criteria, as
well as toward any other criteria in the comprehensive land use plan of the County
or and use regulations which any person believes apply to this decision.
D. Failure on the part of any person to raise an issue with sufficient specificity to
afford the Board of County Commissioners and parties to this proceeding an
opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of
Appeals on that issue. Additionally, failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or
other issues relating to the approval with sufficient specificity to allow the Board to
respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.
III. HEARINGS PROCEDURE
A. Evidence to be reviewed by the Board.
The Board's decision on this application will be based upon the record before the
Hearings Officer, the Hearings Officer's decision, the Staff Report and the
testimony and evidence presented at this hearing.
1
IV. ORDER OF PRESENTATION
A. The hearing will be conducted in the following order.
1. The staff will give a report.
2. The applicant will then have an opportunity to offer testimony and evidence.
3. Proponents of the proposal then the opponents will then be given a chance
to testify and present evidence.
4. The applicants will then be allowed to present rebuttal testimony but may
not present new evidence.
5. At the Board's discretion, if the applicants presented new evidence on
rebuttal, opponents may be recognized for a rebuttal presentation.
6. At the conclusion of this hearing, the staff will be afforded an opportunity to
make any closing comments.
7. The Board may limit the time period for presentations.
B. If anyone wishes to ask a question of a witness, the person may direct the
question to the Chair during that person's testimony, or, if the person has already
testified, after all other witnesses have testified but before the Applicant's rebuttal.
The Chair is free to decide whether or not to ask such questions of the witness.
C. Continuances
1. The grant of a continuance or record extension shall be at the discretion of
the Board.
2. If the Board grants a continuance, it shall continue the public hearing to a
date and time certain.
3. If, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Board leaves the record open for
additional written evidence or testimony, the record shall be left open to a
date and time certain for submittal of new written evidence or testimony.
4. At the Board's discretion, the Board may leave the record open to a date
and time certain for an additional period for response to the evidence
received while the record was held open after the close of the hearing.
Written evidence or testimony submitted during this last period the record is
held open shall be limited to evidence or testimony that rebuts previously
submitted evidence or testimony.
2
4. If the hearing is continued or the record left open, after the record is closed
to all other parties, the applicant shall be allowed to submit final written
arguments but no new evidence in support of the application.
V. PRE - HEARING CONTACTS, BIASES, CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS
A. Do any of the Commissioners have any ex -parte contacts, prior hearing
observations; biases; or conflicts of interest to declare? If so, please state the
nature and extent of those.
B. Does any party wish to challenge any Commissioner based on ex -parte contacts,
biases or conflicts of interest?
(Hearing no challenges, I shall proceed.)
(STAFF REPORT)
3
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.Js/cdd/
STAFF REPORT
The Deschutes County Hearings Officer will hold a Public Hearing on September 30, 2008
at 6:30 P.M. in the Barnes and Sawyer rooms of the Deschutes Services Building located
at 1300 NW Wall Street in Bend, to consider the following request:
FILE NUMBER: PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2 and MA -08 -8
SUBJECT:
The applicant is requesting approval to change the plan designation of
the subject property from Forest to Urban Reserve and to change the
zoning of the property from F -1 to UAR -10. The purpose of these
requests is to expand the City of Sisters Urban Growth Boundary to
establish a 4 acre area for a new Fire Training facility for the Sisters /
Camp Sherman Fire District, and a 2 acre area for a new storage facility
for High Country Disposal on the subject properties.
APPLICANT
/OWNER: City of Sisters
Attn: Eric Porter
520 E. Cascade
Sisters, Or 97759
LOCATION: The property is identified on County Assessor's Map 15- 10 -09, as tax lot
1002.
STAFF CONTACT: Will Groves, Senior Planner
I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
1. Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions
2. Chapter 18.36, Forest Use - F -1 Zone
3. Chapter 18.136, Amendments
Title 21 of the Deschutes County Code, the City of Sisters Urban Area Zoning Ordinance
1. Chapter 21.72, Amendments
Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Development Procedures Ordinance
1. Chapter 22.28, Land Use Action Decisions
City of Sisters Urban Area Comprehensive Plan
Quality Services Performed with Pride
Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197.298, Priority of Land To Be Included Within Urban
Growth Boundary
Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660
1. Division 24, Urban Growth Boundaries
2. Division 12, Transportation Planning Rule
3. Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
II. FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. Location: The 6.00 acre portion of the subject property is located on the east side of S.
Locust Street, 460 feet south of the southern UGB border, and adjacent to and 451 feet
north of the portion of City land attached to the City proper via `cherry-stem' annexation.
The property is identified on County Assessor's Map 15- 10 -09, as tax lot 1002.
B. Lot of Record: The subject property was transferred to the City of Sisters from the
Federal Government on August 10, 2000. The quitclaim deed is recorded in the
Deschutes County Book of Records, Book 2000, Page 32344.
C. Zoning and Plan Designation: The subject property is designated Forest on the
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan Map and is zoned F -1 Forest zone.
D. Site Description: The subject site is partially treed with mature Ponderosa Pine trees,
and has a gentle slope rising in a southeasterly direction. The subject property is
approximately 160 acres and contains the City of Sisters sewage processing plant. The
proposed site encompasses 6.00 acres and contains storage sheds, gravel road and
material storage. The site is not presently in forest production, and is being used as an
effluent dispersal site for the Sisters sewer system.
E. Surrounding Land Use: Areas to the north, south and east of the site are zoned F -1
Forest zone and are undeveloped. The property to the north and south of the site (same
property) is owned by the City, and is used for effluent dispersal from the nearby sewage
treatment plant. The City maintains a 300 -foot `no spray area' between the UGB to the
north and the effluent dispersal area. The property to the east contains a 7 -acre portion
of the parent property that has been brought into the UGB, and is expected to be on the
November 2008 ballot for annexation into the City limits for purposes of expanding the
Public Works field storage facility. The property to the immediate west contains South
Locust Street (City owned / cherry-stem annexation leading to the sewage treatment
plant), beyond which is privately owned land which is undeveloped and zoned F -1 Forest
Zone.
G. Proposal: The applicant has requested approval of a plan amendment from Forest to
Urban Reserve and a zone change from F -1 to UAR -10 in order to establish the Fire
Training Facility and High Country Disposal (HCD) storage area on the subject sites.
The record indicates that following approval of these applications the City intends to
annex the site and to rezone it to Public Facility (PF). The PF Zone would allow the Fire
Training Facility and High Country Disposal (HCD) storage facility, but would not allow
private residential, commercial or industrial uses.
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 2 of 31
The interim zoning sought by the City is UAR -10. A vote would be held to bring this
property into the City limits, presumably in May 2009. Following the vote (assuming this
request is approved), the property would then be rezoned to PF, Public Facilities, by the
City for use - consistency.
The purpose of the proposed plan amendment is to change the underlying plan
designation for the subject property to expand the UGB for the following reasons:
• To provide a fire training facility that will enhance the ability of the Sisters / Camp
Sherman Rural Fire District to train firefighters and Emergency Medical
Technicians to serve the totality of the Fire District.
• To provide a facility within the City limits that can be served with public services,
particularly water, which is needed for fire training purposes.
• To include a property in the UGB that will be able to provide for the future fire
protection needs of the growing population in the greater Sisters area by
supporting a fire training facility.
• To provide a City -owned portion of land suitable for use by the High Country
Disposal company as container and yard debris storage that has minimal visual
and olfactory impacts to neighboring sites.
I. Public Agency Comments: The Planning Division mailed notice to several agencies
and as of the date of this Staff Report has received the following comments:
Deschutes County Transportation Planner: The Deschutes County Transportation
Planner has commented that DCC 17.16.115(C)(1 and 2) requires a traffic analysis to be
done by a licensed engineer. Since the land use is a plan amendment and a zone
change, the applicant must meet the requirements of the Transportation Planning Rule
(TPR) at OAR - 660 - 012 - 060(1) to determine whether there is a significant effect. The
TPR requires the applicant analyze the transportation effects to the end of the affected
jurisdiction's TSP at 660- 012- 060(1)(c). The County adopted TSP covers the time period
to 2016. DCC 17.16.115(E)(1)(d) requires zone changes look at a 20 -year timeframe.
The following agencies had no comments or have not responded to the requesl
for comments as of the writing of this staff report: Sisters Fire Department,
Deschutes County Road Department, Property Address Coordinator, Watermaster.
Department of Forestry, ODOT, Sisters Ranger District USFS, Deschutes County
Forrester, DLCD, and USFWS.
J. Public Notice and Comments: The Planning Division mailed written notice of the
applicant's proposal and the public hearing to the owners of record of all property
located within 750 feet of the subject property. In addition, notice of the public hearing
was published in the "Bend Bulletin" newspaper. Likewise, the Planning Division mailed
written notice of the applicant's modification (MA -08 -8) and the public hearing to the
owners of record of all property located within 750 feet of the subject property. In
addition, notice of the public hearing was published in the "Bend Bulletin" newspaper.
Public comment letters received as of the writing of this staff report identified issue°;
including the City of Sisters' commercial core, other uses for a UGB expansion beyond
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 3 of 31
this proposal, the failure of the alternatives analysis to fully consider existing industrial
land within the City, visual impacts, access to existing trails, fire hazard, and noise
pollution.
K. Review Period: The original application was submitted in June 16, 2008. The applicant
modified the application to include an additional 2 acres for the HCD storage site under
MA -08 -9, on August 6, 2008. Pursuant to DCC 22.20.040(D), these application are not
subject to the 150 -day time limit. The Public Hearing, scheduled for August 19, 2008
was opened and continued to September 30, 2008 to allow for notice of the submitted
modification.
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS AND GUIDELINES (OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
CHAPTER 660, DIVISION 15)
1. Goal 14
FINDINGS: Goal 14 provides in pertinent part:
To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban
land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment inside
urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for
livable communities.
Urban Growth Boundaries
Urban growth boundaries shall be established and maintained by
cities, counties and regional governments to provide land for urban
development needs and to identify and separate urban and urbanizable
land from rural land. Establishment and change of urban growth
boundaries shall be a cooperative process among cities, counties and,
where applicable, regional governments. An urban growth boundary and
amendments to the boundary shall be adopted by all cities within the
boundary and by the County or counties within which the boundary is
located, consistent with intergovernmental agreements, except for the
Metro regional urban growth boundary established pursuant to ORS
chapter 268, which shall be adopted or amended by the Metropolitan
Service District.
Land Need
Establishment and change of urban growth boundaries shall be
based on the following:
1. Demonstrated need to accommodate long -range urban
population, consistent with a 20 -year population forecast coordinated witt,
affected local governments; and
2. Demonstrated need for housing, employment opportunities
livability or uses such as public facilities, streets and roads, schools, park;
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 4 of 3
or open space, or any combination of the need categories in this
subsection (2).
In determining need, local government may specify characteristics,
such as parcel size, topography or proximity, necessary for land to be
suitable for an identified need.
Prior to expanding an urban growth boundary, local governments
shall demonstrate that needs cannot reasonably be accommodated on land
already inside the urban growth boundary.
Need for New Public Facilities Land
This proposal is consistent with the November 1998 intergovernmental agreement between the
City of Sisters and Deschutes County. The applicant has stated that neither the need for 4
acres that could be used as a Fire Training Facility nor for the 2 acres needed by High Country
Disposal for on -site container and yard debris storage were identified at the time of periodic
review, which began in 1998 and concluded in 2003. A number of changes since periodic
review have resulted in the need to new public facility land including: 1) significant increases in
the population of the City of Sisters; 2) an associated increased demand for additional fire
training /prevention facilities and yard debris storage; and 3) existing PF Public Facility- zoned,
Forest Serviced owned properties within the City of Sisters are unsuitable or have become
unavailable for fire facilities and yard debris storage.
Characteristics of Land Needed for Public Facilities
The applicant has identified mandatory criteria needed to support the Fire Training Facility and
HCD The site must meet the following requirements:
• City or Fire District ownership or jurisdictional control;
• 3 to 5 acres in size for the Fire Training Facility; 2 acres in size for the HCD site;
• must be compatible with surrounding land uses;
• can be served by public infrastructure including paved access, sewer and water;
• can be secured; will not be accessed by the general public for safety reasons; and
• adjacent to UGB and /or City limits to serve with City utilities.
Accommodation on land already inside the urban growth boundary
The applicant identified eight sites within the existing UGB as candidates for the proposed
facilities. These sites are:
1. Barclay property (53 acres) — owned by the U.S.F.S.
2. East Portal Triangle property (14.5 acres) — owned by the U.S.F.S.
3. Old City Hall property (less than 1 acre) — owned by the City
4. Public Works property (7 acres) — owned by the City
5. High School property (90 acres) — owned by the School District
6. Junior High School property (40 acres) — owned by the School District
7. Village Green park (1.2 acres) — owned by the City
8. School District Administration and Sisters Elementary School properties — owned
by the School District.
As discussed in the applicant's alternative analysis, incorporated by reference, each of these
sites fails to meet the required siting characteristics.
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 5 of 31
Staff believes that the submitted alternatives analysis demonstrates the identified need for fire
training and HCD storage cannot be accommodated on land already inside the urban growth
boundary.
Staff notes that the City's IL Light Industrial Zone allows 'primary and secondary wood products'
as permitted uses and the HCD facility will need to store grass clippings, mulch, dirt, compost,
and so forth, which are not 'primary or secondary wood products'. The IL zone, is thus, not
suitable for the proposed use.
Boundary Location
The location of the urban growth boundary and changes to the
boundary shall be determined by evaluating alternative boundary locations
consistent with ORS 197.298 and with consideration of the following
factors:
1. Efficient accommodation of identified land needs;
2. Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and
services;
3. Comparative environmental, energy, economic and social
consequences;
4. Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby
agricultural and forest activities occurring on farm and forest
land outside the UGB.
FINDINGS: The applicant's burden of proof includes an analysis of alternative potential sites
outside the existing UGB. These sites are:
• City land north of the 7 acre Public Works facility property (tax lot T15 R10 Section 09,
lot 01002).
• Lazy Z Ranch (T15 R10 Section 15, tax lot 200).
• 5 Pine property (T15 R10 Section 09AD, tax lot 1000).
• BLM property (T15 R10 Section 09, tax lot 1000).
• Leithauser property (T15 R10 Section 04, tax lot 1202).
• McKenzie Meadow Village property (T15 R10 Section 10, tax lot 1204).
The submitted alternative analysis, incorporated by reference, shows that each of these
alternative sites fails to provide an efficient accommodation of identified land needs. Only the
subject property and proposed boundary location provides an efficient accommodation ow
identified land needs. Additionally, the alternative analysis considers the orderly and economic
provision of public facilities and services, including water, sanitary sewer, storm wate
management, and transportation facilities. Likewise, the alternatives analysis evaluates each
property with regards to comparative environmental, energy, economic and social
consequences; and compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural and forest
activities occurring on farm and forest land outside the UGB. Again, this analysis concluded
that the subject property and proposed boundary location minimizes adverse consequences and
maximizes adjacent use compatibility.
Urbanizable Land
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 6 of 3 I
Land within urban growth boundaries shall be considered available
for urban development consistent with plans for the provision of urban
facilities and services. Comprehensive plans and implementing measures
shall manage the use and division of urbanizable land to maintain its
potential for planned urban development until appropriate public facilities
and services are available or planned.
FINDINGS: Both the City of Sisters and Deschutes County have developed Comprehensive
plans and implementing measures to manage the use and division of urbanizable land to
maintain its potential for planned urban development. These plans and their implementing
measures are discussed below.
Unincorporated Communities
Single - Family Dwellings in Exception Areas
Rural Industrial Development
FINDINGS: Staff believes these provisions of Goal 14 are not applicable to the applicant's
proposed UGB expansion because the subject property is not located within an unincorporated
community and does not include either single - family dwellings or rural industrial development.
Guidelines
FINDINGS: This Goal 14 provision is not applicable to the applicant's proposed UGB expansion
because it outlines factors to be considered during a legislative rather than a quasi - judicial
process to create an initial UGB and to expand an existing UGB. In addition, OAR 660 -024
0040(3) — discussed in the findings below, expressly allows a UGB expansion to address a
specific need as is proposed here.
2. Other Goals
Goal 1: Citizen Involvement
To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens
to be involved in all phases of the planning process.
FINDINGS: Staff believes that the applicant's proposal is consistent with Goal 1 because aF.
part of the UGB expansion process public notice will be provided by both the City and County to
all affected agencies and surrounding property owners. Additionally, both the City and County
will hold public hearings before a hearings officer, as well as public meetings before the City and
County governing bodies before the proposed UGB expansion is adopted.
Goal 2: Land Use Planning
To establish a land use planning process and policy framework as a basis for all
decision and actions related to use of land and to assure an adequate factual baso
for such decisions and actions.
FINDINGS: Staff believes that the applicant's proposal is consistent with Goal 2 because this
applicant has submitted applications to both the City and County to expand the Sisters UGB. IAi
addition, as of the date of this report the City had begun the process of approving the proposed
expansion, and Staff believes that the proposed expansion satisfies all applicable Count /
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 7 of 31
approval criteria. Therefore, both the City and County will be able to make an informed decision
regarding the proposed UGB expansion.
Staff notes that, under OAR 660 - 024- 0020(1)(a), the exceptions process in Goal 2 and OAR
660, division 4, is not applicable unless a local government chooses to take an exception to a
particular goal requirement, for example, as provided in OAR 660- 004 - 0010(1). No such
exception to a particular goal requirement has been proposed.
Goal 3: Agricultural Lands; Goal 4: Forest Lands
To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land base and to protect the
state's forest economy by making possible economically efficient forest practices
that assure the continuous growing and harvesting of forest tree species as the
leading use on forest land consistent with sound management of soil, air, water,
and fish and wildlife resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and
agriculture.
FINDINGS: The subject property is designated and zoned Forest (F1). However, under OAR
660 - 024 - 0020(1):
(1) All statewide goals and related administrative rules are
applicable when establishing or amending a UGB, except as follows:
(b) Goals 3 and 4 are not applicable;
Therefore, Goals 3 and 4 do not apply to this application.
Goal 5: Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources
To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and historic areas and open
spaces.
FINDINGS: Staff believes that the applicant's proposal is consistent with Goal 5 because the
record indicates there are no inventoried Goal 5 resources on the subject property. Staff notes,
that under OAR 660 - 024- 0020(1)(c), Goal 5 and related rules under OAR 660, division 23, apply
only in areas added to the UGB, except as required under OAR 660 - 023 -0070 and 660-023.
0250. Staff believes that these exceptions do not apply to this proposal.
Goal 6: Air, Water and Land Resources Quality
To maintain and improve the quality of the air, water, and land resources of the
state.
FINDINGS: Staff believes that the applicant's proposed UGB expansion is consistent with G0EI
6 because maintaining or improving the quality of the community's air, water and land resource;
would be assured through enforcement of state and local regulations at the time development cf
the property is evaluated by the City under the applicable conditional use and site plan approvs I
criteria.
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 8 of 31
Goal 7: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
To protect people and property from natural disasters and hazards.
FINDINGS: Staff believes that the applicant's proposed UGB expansion is consistent with Goal
7 because the record indicates there are no areas within the subject property that are identified
as natural hazard areas. Staff notes that, that the natural hazard of wildfire would be reduced by
including the subject property in the UGB and developing it with a fire training facility which
would be provided with adequate water to meet the minimum fire flow requirements and provide
valuable training to firefighters.
Goal 8: Recreational Needs
To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and,
where appropriate, to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities
including destination resorts.
Goal 9: Economic Development
To provide adequate opportunities throughout the state for a variety of economic
activities vital to the health, welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
Goal 10: Housing
To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
FINDINGS: Staff believes that in Tight of the relatively small size of the subject property and
specific need addressed by the proposed UGB expansion, Goals 8, 9, and 10 do not apply to
the applicant's proposal.
Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services
To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities
and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural development.
FINDINGS: This request complies with Statewide Planning Goal 11 by providing land that wil
be used to provide services for urban and rural development. This site would not require.
'leapfrog development' to be served with public infrastructure, thus furthering the compliance o'
this request with Statewide Planning Goal 11.
Goal 12: Transportation
To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic transportation
system.
FINDINGS: Goal 12 is implemented by the Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) found in OAR
660 -012. Generally speaking, applicants for plan amendments must demonstrate compliance
with the TPR. OAR 660- 024- 0020(d) provides in pertinent part:
The transportation planning rule requirements under OAR 660 -012-
0060 need not be applied to a UGB amendment if the land added to thy?
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 9 of 31
UGB is zoned as urbanizable land, either by retaining the zoning that was
assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary or by assigning interim zoning
that does not allow development that would generate more vehicle trips
than development allowed by the zoning assigned prior to inclusion in the
boundary; * *
As discussed in the Findings of Fact above, the subject property is zoned F1. This proposal
would assign interim zoning (UAR -10). Based on consultation with the Deschutes County
Transportation Planner, Staff believes that the proposed interim zoning (UAR -10) would allow
development that would generate more vehicle trips than development allowed by the existing
F1 zone. Therefore, this exception is not applicable.
A transportation plan shall (1) consider all modes of transportation
including mass transit, air, water, pipeline, rail, highway, bicycle and
pedestrian; (2) be based upon an inventory of local, regional and state
transportation needs; (3) consider the differences in social consequences
that would result from utilizing differing combinations of transportation
modes; (4) avoid principal reliance upon any one mode of transportation;
(5) minimize adverse social, economic and environmental impacts and
costs; (6) conserve energy; (7) meet the needs of the transportation
disadvantaged by improving transportation services; (8) facilitate the flow
of goods and services so as to strengthen the local and regional economy;
and (9) conform with local and regional comprehensive land use plans.
Each plan shall include a provision for transportation as a key facility.
FINDING: The Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR - 660 -012 -060) that implement Goal 12 are
addressed below.
OAR 660 -012 -060, Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments.
(1) Where an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged
comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation would significantly affect an
existing or planned transportation facility, the local government shall put in
place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule to assure than
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. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly
affects a transportation facility if it would:
(a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned
transportation facility (exclusive of correction of map errors in an adopted
plan);
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification
system; or
(c) As measured at the end of the planning period identified in
the adopted transportation system plan:
(A) Allow land uses or levels of development that would result in
types or levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional
classification of an existing or planned transportation facility;
(B) Reduce the performance of an existing or planned
transportation facility below the minimum acceptable performance
standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 10 of 31
(C) Worsen the performance of an existing or planned
transportation facility that is otherwise projected to perform below the
minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or
comprehensive plan.
FINDING: South Locust Street is paved with AC (2 to 3 inches thick) over 6" gravel base for a
southerly distance of 1240' on the subject tax lot; the pavement then continues in an easterly
direction on the subject tax lot with the same surface material for another 700' and into the
public works sewage treatment plant facility.
The Deschutes County Transportation Planner has commented that DCC 17.16.115(C)(1 and 2)
requires a traffic analysis to be done by a licensed engineer. Since the land use is a plan
amendment and a zone change, the applicant must meet the requirements of the Transportation
Planning Rule (TPR) at OAR - 660 - 012 - 060(1) to determine whether there is a significant effect.
The TPR requires the applicant analyze the transportation effects to the end of the affected
jurisdiction's TSP. The County is adopted TSP through 2016. DCC 17.16.115(E)(1)(d) requires
zone changes look at a 20 -year timeframe. Based on discussions with the applicant, Staff
anticipates this information will be submitted following the writing of this staff report.
The applicant has submitted a trip - generation letter, dated September 19, 2008, stating that the
proposed zone change, plan amendment, and ultimate development of the proposed facilities
will result in net reduction of 22 Average Daily Trips (ADT) to the subject property. Staff
believes that this proposal is consistent with the Goal 12 and the Transportation Planning Rule
(TPR), as it does not significantly affect any transportation facility.
Goal 13: Energy Conservation
To conserve energy.
FINDINGS: The applicant has stated that the result of approval of this request will be a net
reduction in Average Daily Trips (ADT) by 26 trips per day at the site from is present use.
Development of the site will also cut down on gas costs otherwise associated with individua
trips to the Cloverdale landfill to dispose of yard debris.
Goal 14: Urbanization
To provide for orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban use, to
accommodate urban population and urban employment inside urban growth
boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to provide for livable
communities.
FINDINGS: As discussed in the Goal 14 findings above, incorporated by reference herein, staff
believes that the applicant's proposed UGB expansion is consistent with Goal 14.
Goal 15: Willamette River Greenway
Goal 16: Estuarine Resources
Goal 17: Coastal Shorelands
Goal 18: Beaches and Dunes
Goal 19: Ocean Resources
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 11 of 31
FINDINGS: Staff believes that Goals 15 through 19 do not apply to the applicant's proposed
UGB expansion because the subject property is not located within any of the areas addressed
by these goals.
For the foregoing reasons, Staff believes that the applicant's proposed UGB expansion is
consistent with the applicable statewide land use planning goals.
OREGON REVISED STATUTES
1. ORS 197.298, Priority of land to be included within urban growth boundary.
(1) In addition to any requirements established by rule addressing
urbanization, land may not be included within an urban growth boundary
except under the following priorities:
(a) First priority is land that is designated urban reserve land under
ORS 195.145, rule or metropolitan service district action plan.
FINDINGS: There is no available land within the Sisters Urban Area Reserve that has not
already been brought into the Urban Growth Boundary. Staff notes that the 30 -acre McKenzie
Meadow property land and the 7 -acre Public Works property have not yet been annexed into
the City.
(b) If land under paragraph (a) of this subsection is inadequate to
accommodate the amount of land needed, second priority is land adjacent
to an urban growth boundary that is identified in an acknowledged
comprehensive plan as an exception area or nonresource land. Second
priority may include resource land that is completely surrounded by
exception areas unless such resource land is high -value farmland as
described in ORS 215.710.
FINDINGS: As previously stated, there is no land that qualifies under paragraph 'a'. Therefore..
the next priority is adjacent to the UGB that is identified in an acknowledged comprehensive
plan as exception area or non - resource land. Although much of the City of Sisters is
surrounded by exception lands, none of these lands meet the required siting criteria.
(c) If land under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection is
inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, third priority is
land designated as marginal land pursuant to ORS 197.247 (1991 Edition).
FINDINGS: No marginal land has been designated pursuant to ORS 197.247 in Deschutes
County.
(d) If land under paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection is
inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, fourth priority is
land designated in an acknowledged comprehensive plan for agriculture or
forestry, or both.
FINDINGS: The subject property is land designated in the comprehensive plan for forestry and
thus is fourth priority land.
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 12 of 3'
OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
1. OAR 660 -024, Urban Growth Boundaries
a. OAR 660 - 024 -0000, Purpose and Applicability
1. The rules in this division clarify procedures and requirements
of Goal 14 regarding local government adoption or amendment of an urban
growth boundary (UGB).
* * *
3. The rules in this division are effective April 5, 2007, except as
follows:
(a) A local government may choose to apply this division prior to
April 5, 2007;
(b) A local government may choose to not apply this division to a
plan amendment concerning the evaluation or amendment of a UGB,
regardless of the date of that amendment, if the local government initiated
the evaluation or amendment of the UGB prior to April 5, 2007; * * *.
FINDINGS: These rules became effective April 5, 2007. The applicant submitted its County
application for a plan amendment to expand the Sisters UGB on June 16, 2008, and therefore,
these rules apply.
b. OAR 660 - 024 -0020, Adoption or Amendment of a UGB
(1) All statewide goals and related administrative rules are
applicable when establishing or amending a UGB, except as follows:
(a) The exceptions process in Goal 2 and OAR 660, division 4, is
not applicable unless a local government chooses to take an exception to a
particular goal requirement, for example, as provided in OAR 660 -004•
0010(1);
FINDINGS: Staff believes that this rule is not applicable because the applicant is not seeking zi
goal exception.
(b) Goals 3 and 4 are not applicable;
FINDINGS: As discussed above, Goals 3 and 4 are not applicable.
(c) Goal 5 and related rules under OAR 660, division 23, apply
only in areas added to the UGB, except as required under OAR 660 -023-
0070 and 660 -023 -0250;
FINDINGS: There are no inventoried Goal 5 resources on the subject property or on
surrounding property.
(d) The transportation planning rule requirements under OAP
660 - 012 -0060 need not be applied to a UGB amendment if the land added to
the UGB is zoned as urbanizable land, either by retaining the zoning that
was assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary or by assigning interim
zoning that does not allow development that would generate more vehicle
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 14 of 3
trips than development allowed by the zoning assigned prior to inclusion in
the boundary;
FINDINGS: As discussed in the Findings of Fact above, this provision does not apply to this
application. The applicant has submitted a trip - generation letter, dated September 19, 2008,
stating that the proposed zone charge, plan amendment, and ultimate development of the
proposed facilities will result in net reduction of 22 Average Daily Trips (ADT) to the subject
property. Staff believes that this proposal is consistent with the Goal 12 and the Transportation
Planning Rule (TPR), as it does not significantly affect any transportation facility.
(e) Goal 15 is not applicable to land added to the UGB unless the
land is within the Willamette River Greenway Boundary;
(t) Goals 16 to 18 are not applicable to land added to the UGB
unless the land is within a coastal shorelands boundary;
(g) Goal 19 is not applicable to a UGB amendment.
FINDINGS: These Goals do not apply to this application.
(2) The UGB and amendments to the UGB must be shown on the
City and County plan and zone maps at a scale sufficient to determine
which particular Tots or parcels are included in the UGB. Where a UGB does
not follow lot or parcel lines, the map must provide sufficient information to
determine the precise UGB location.
FINDINGS: The applicant submitted a UGB expansion map into the record that shows the
property to be added to the UGB. This map provides sufficient information to determine the
precise UGB location. Staff recommends that any approval of the applicant's proposed UGB
expansion should be subject to a condition of approval requiring the applicant to submit to the
County a metes and bounds description of the property to be included in the Sisters UGB.
c. Section 660- 024 -0030, Population Forecasts
(1) Counties must adopt and maintain a coordinated 20 -year
population forecast for the County and for each urban area within the
County consistent with statutory requirements for such forecasts under
ORS 195.025 and 195.036. Cities must adopt a 20 -year population forecast
for the urban area consistent with the coordinated County forecast, except
that a metropolitan service district must adopt and maintain a 20 -year
population forecast for the area within its jurisdiction. In adopting the
coordinated forecast, local governments must follow applicable
procedures and requirements in ORS 197.610 to 197.650 and must provide
notice to all other local governments in the County. The adopted forecast
must be included in the comprehensive plan or in a document referenced
by the plan.
d. Section 660 - 024 -0040, Land Need
(1) The UGB must be based on the adopted 20 -year population'
forecast for the urban area described in OAR 660- 024 -0030, and must
provide for needed housing, employment and other urban uses such as
public facilities, streets and roads, schools, parks and open space over the.
20 -year planning period consistent with the land need requirements of Goa'
14 and this rule. The 20 -year need determinations are estimates which.
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 15 of 3'1
although based on the best available information and methodologies,
should not be held to an unreasonably high level of precision.
FINDINGS: The record indicates the County adopted a coordinated population forecast through
2025 on September 8, 2004 by Ordinance 2004 -12 and the City adopted the same forecast. It is
unclear from the applicant's burden of proof how this proposed UGB expansion is based on the
adopted 20 -year population forecast. However, Staff notes that this section states that the 20-
year need determinations are estimates which, although based on the best available information
and methodologies, should not be held to an unreasonably high level of precision.
(2) If the UGB analysis or amendment is conducted as part of a
periodic review work program, the 20 -year planning period must
commence on the date initially scheduled for completion of the appropriate
work task. If the UGB analysis or amendment is conducted as a post -
acknowledgement plan amendment under ORS 197.610 to 197.625, the 20-
year planning period must commence either:
FINDINGS: Staff believes that this criterion does not apply because the applicant's proposed
UGB expansion is not being requested as part of a periodic review work program.
(3) A local government may review and amend the UGB in
consideration of one category of land need (for example, housing need)
without a simultaneous review and amendment in consideration of other'
categories of land need (for example, employment need).
FINDINGS: Staff believes that this paragraph authorizes the specific need -based UGE
expansion for which the applicant is seeking County and City approval.
(4) The determination of 20 -year residential land needs for an
urban area must be consistent with the adopted 20 -year coordinated
population forecast for the urban area, and with the requirements for
determining housing needs in Goal 10, OAR 660, division 7 or 8, and
applicable provisions of ORS 197.295 to 197.314 and 197.475 to 197.490.
FINDINGS: Staff believes that this criterion does not apply because the applicant's proposed,
UGB expansion is based on, and proposed to address, a specific need for a fire training facility
and container /yard debris storage.
(5) Except for a metropolitan service district described in ORS
197.015(14), the determination of 20 -year employment land need for an
urban area must comply with applicable requirements of Goal 9 and OAP
660, division 9, and must include a determination of the need for a short•
term supply of land for employment uses consistent with OAR 660 -009••
0025. Employment land need may be based on an estimate of job growth
over the planning period; local government must provide a reasonable
justification for the job growth estimate but Goal 14 does not require that
job growth estimates necessarily be proportional to population growth.
FINDINGS: Staff believes that this criterion does not apply because the applicant's proposes
UGB expansion is based on, and proposed to address, a specific need for a fire training facilit',
and yard debris storage.
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 16 of 3"
(6) The determination of 20 -year land needs for transportation
and public facilities for an urban area must comply with applicable
requirements of Goals 11 and 12, rules in OAR 660, divisions 11 and 12,
and public facilities requirements in ORS 197.712 and 197.768. The
determination of school facility needs must also comply with ORS 195.110
and 197.296 for local governments specified in those statutes.
FINDINGS: The proposed UGB expansion's consistency with Goals 11 and 12 is addressed it
this report. The applicant has submitted a trip - generation letter, dated September 19, 2008.
stating that the proposed zone change, plan amendment, and ultimate development of the
proposed facilities will result in net reduction of 22 Average Daily Trips (ADT) to the subject
property. Staff believes that this proposal is consistent with the Goal 12 and the Transportation
Planning Rule (TPR), as it does not significantly affect any transportation facility. ORS 197.712
and 197.768 require an analysis of general public facilities such as sewer and water to be
included in the comprehensive plans of cities and counties. Both the City and County
comprehensive plans include the required analyses.
e. OAR 660 - 024 -0050, Land Inventory and Response to
Deficiency
(1) When evaluating or amending a UGB, a local government
must inventory land inside the UGB to determine whether there is adequate
development capacity to accommodate 20 -year needs determined in OAR
660 - 024 -0040. For residential land, the buildable land inventory must
include vacant and redevelopable land, and be conducted in accordance
with OAR 660 - 007 -0045 or 660- 008 -0010, whichever is applicable, and ORS
197.296 for local governments subject to that statute. For employment land,
the inventory must include suitable vacant and developed land designated
for industrial or other employment use, and must be conducted in
accordance with OAR 660 -009- 0015(3).
FINDINGS: The applicant submitted this UGB expansion application for the purpose of
addressing a specific need for land within the UGB to accommodate the specific need for a fire
training and yard debris storage. OAR 660 - 024 - 0040(3) - discussed in the findings below,
expressly allows a UGB expansion to address a specific need as is proposed here, without
analysis of residential, industrial, or employment lands.
(5) When land is added to the UGB, the local government must
assign appropriate urban plan designations to the added land, consistent
with the need determination. The local government must also apply
appropriate zoning to the added land consistent with the plan designation,
or may maintain the land as urbanizable land either by retaining the zoning
that was assigned prior to inclusion in the boundary or by applying other
interim zoning that maintains the land's potential for planned urban
development until the land is rezoned for the planned urban uses. The
requirements of ORS 197.296 regarding planning and zoning also apply
when local governments specified in that statute add land to the UGB.
FINDINGS: As discussed above, the subject property is zoned F1 and, under this proposal
would be assigned an interim zoning of UAR -10 and Plan Designation of Urban Reserve. The
applicant has stated that the land will be zone Public Facility (PF) upon annexation.
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 17 of 31
f. OAR 660 - 024 -0060, Boundary Location Alternatives Analysis
(1) When considering a UGB amendment, a local government
must determine which land to add by evaluating alternative boundary
locations. This determination must be consistent with the priority of land
specified in ORS 197.298 and the boundary location factors of Goal 14, as
follows:
(a) Beginning with the highest priority of land available, a local
government must determine which land in that priority is suitable to
accommodate the need deficiency determined under 660 - 024 -0050.
(b) If the amount of suitable land in the first priority category
exceeds the amount necessary to satisfy the need deficiency, a local
government must apply the location factors of Goal 14 to choose which
land in that priority to include in the UGB.
FINDINGS: As discussed above, Staff believes the alternatives analysis is consistent with the
priority of land specified in ORS 197.298 and the boundary location factors of Goal 14.
(2) Notwithstanding OAR 660 - 024 - 0050(4) and subsection (1)(c)
of this rule, except during periodic review or other legislative review of the
UGB, a local government may approve an application under ORS 197.610 to
197.625 for a UGB amendment proposing to add an amount of land less
than necessary to satisfy the land need deficiency determined under OAR
660 - 024 - 0050(4), provided the amendment complies with all other
applicable requirements.
FINDINGS: Staff believes that this subsection authorizes the City and County to expand the
Sisters UGB to address a specific need with a specific piece of property as proposed by the
applicant. Under this section, the proposed UGB expansion would not need to satisfy a 20 -year
need.
(3) The boundary location factors of Goal 14 are not independent
criteria. When the factors are applied to compare alternative boundary
locations and to determine the UGB location, a local government must
show that all the factors were considered and balanced.
FINDINGS: The proposal's compliance with boundary location factors in Goal 14 is addressed
in the findings in this report. As discussed above, Staff believes that the applicant has
demonstrated the proposed UGB expansion satisfies all applicable requirements of Goal 14.
Staff believes that he submitted alternatives analysis shows that all the factors were considered
and balanced.
(4) In determining alternative land for evaluation under ORS
197.298, "land adjacent to the UGB" is not limited to those lots or parcels
that abut the UGB, but also includes land in the vicinity of the UGB that has
a reasonable potential to satisfy the identified need deficiency.
FINDINGS: The alternatives analysis selected candidates from possible parcels that abut the
UGB and also includes land in the vicinity of the UGB that has a reasonable potential to satisfy
the identified need deficiency.
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 18 of 31
(5) If a local government has specified characteristics such as
parcel size, topography, or proximity that are necessary for land to be
suitable for an identified need, the local government may limit its
consideration to land that has the specified characteristics when it
conducts the boundary location alternatives analysis and applies ORS
197.298.
FINDINGS: The applicant has identified mandatory criteria needed to support the Fire Training
and HCD. The site must meet the following requirements:
• City or Fire District ownership or jurisdictional control;
• 3 to 5 acres in size for the Fire Training Facility; 2 acres in size for the HCD site;
• Must be compatible with surrounding land uses;
• Can be served by public infrastructure including paved access, sewer and water;
• Can be secured; will not be accessed by the general public for safety reasons; and
• Adjacent to UGB and /or City limits to serve with City utilities.
The burden of proof indicates that these specified characteristics were used to limit the lands
under consideration.
(6) The adopted findings for UGB adoption or amendment must
describe or map all of the alternative areas evaluated in the boundary
location alternatives analysis. If the analysis involves more than one parcel
or area within a particular priority category in ORS 197.298 for which
circumstances are the same, these parcels or areas may be considered and
evaluated as a single group.
FINDINGS: A map and Assessor's map and tax lot description are provided below.
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 19 of 31
.1P, '1,!
McKenzie
Meadows
Pr
Legend
7.1 Srlee Orra& 9 «:ednr
laa
tiesam
Lars Um. Dinricn
Cy
r
A
.:A
g *AIMS OP
1'M.07 are c Ek.V. 1;
F.C.SCaot AYk
WICiDAVS.
E WOO AT
• PF
Leithauser
Property
q'.
*ANA AYV
R
PI
n ST/MANS
V, R• - rIFSB
- R
0 -25 0 -5
� I �
1 Mile.
Map prepared by City of.` r ier Illarch. 2005 Parcel data
hem De. c utea Comm CIS. December. NT/C4.
l l_Y,git. Y.1) LA1,5 rei
N PW Property
Lazy Z Ranch
5 Pine Property
Alternative Sites Beyond the City limits / UGB
The list of alternative sites beyond the City limits / UGB include the following;
• City land north of the 7 acre Public Works facility property (tax lot T15 R10 Section 09,
lot 01002).
• Lazy Z Ranch (tax lot T15 R10 Section 15, lot 00200).
• 5 Pine property (tax lot T15 R10 Section 09AD, lot 01000).
• BLM property (tax lot T15 R10 Section 09, lot 01000).
• Leithauser property (tax lot T15 R10 Section 04, lot 01202).
• McKenzie Meadow Village property (tax lot T15 R10 Section 10, lot 01204).
(7) For purposes of Goal 14 Boundary Location Factor 2, 11pub /ic
facilities and services" means water, sanitary sewer, storm water
management, and transportation facilities.
FINDINGS: The adequacy of public facilities and services is discussed in the Goal 14 findings
above. Based on those findings, incorporated by reference herein, Staff believes that adequate
public facilities and service will be available to the Fire training facility and yard debris storage
site.
The applicant has submitted a trip - generation letter, dated September 19, 2008, stating that the
proposed zone change, plan amendment, and ultimate development of the proposed facilities
will result in net reduction of 22 Average Daily Trips (ADT) to the subject property. Staff
believes that this proposal is consistent with the Goal 12 and the Transportation Planning Rule
(TPR), as it does not significantly affect any transportation facility.
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 20 of 31
(8) The Goal 14 boundary location determination requires
evaluation and comparison of the relative costs, advantages and
disadvantages of alternative UGB expansion areas with respect to the
provision of public facilities and services needed to urbanize alternative
boundary locations. This evaluation and comparison must be conducted in
coordination with service providers, including the Oregon Department of
Transportation with regard to impacts on the state transportation system.
"Coordination" includes timely notice to service providers and the
consideration of evaluation methodologies recommended by service
providers. The evaluation and comparison must include:
(a) The impacts to existing water, sanitary sewer, storm water
and transportation facilities that serve nearby areas already inside the
UGB;
FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, Staff believes
that water and sewer facilities are available and will be adequate to serve a fire training facility
and yard debris storage site on the subject property with connections and improvements the
applicant and /or others will install. With respect to storm water, Staff believes that the applicant
will be required at the time of development to comply with the City's storm water master plan.
As of the writing of this Staff Report, ODOT has not provided comment.
However, The applicant has submitted a trip - generation letter, dated September 19, 2008,
stating that the proposed zone change, plan amendment, and ultimate development of the
proposed facilities will result in net reduction of 22 Average Daily Trips (ADT) to the subject
property. Staff believes that this proposal is consistent with the Goal 12 and the Transportation
Planning Rule (TPR), as it does not significantly affect any transportation facility.
(b) The capacity of existing public facilities and services to serve
areas already inside the UGB as well as areas proposed for addition to the
UGB; and
FINDINGS: The record indicates there exists public facility capacity to serve areas inside the
UGB as well as the subject property located outside and proposed for inclusion within the UGB.
The alternatives analysis included an evaluation and comparison of existing public facilities for
each alternate site.
(c) The need for new transportation facilities, such as highways
and other roadways, interchanges, arterials and collectors, additional travel
lanes, other major improvements on existing roadways and, for urban
areas of 25,000 or more, the provision of public transit service.
FINDINGS: The applicant has submitted a trip - generation letter, dated September 19, 2008,
stating that the proposed zone change, plan amendment, and ultimate development of the
proposed facilities will result in net reduction of 22 Average Daily Trips (ADT) to the subject
property. Staff believes that this proposal is consistent with the Goal 12 and the Transportation
Planning Rule (TPR), as it does not significantly affect any transportation facility.
B. DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE
1. Title 22, the Development Procedures Ordinance
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 21 of 31
a. Chapter 22.28, Land Use Action Decisions
(1) Section 22.28.030, Decision on Plan Amendments and Zone
Changes
* * *
C. Plan amendments and zone changes requiring an exception
to the goals or concerning lands designated for forest or agricultural use
shall be heard de novo before the Board of County Commissioners without
the necessity of filing an appeal, regardless of the determination of the
Hearings Officer or Planning Commission. Such hearing before the Board
shall otherwise be subject to the same procedures as an appeal to the
Board under DCC Title 22.
FINDINGS: Since this plan amendment and zone change concerns lands designated for forest
use, it shall be heard de novo before the Board of County Commissioners without the necessity
of filing an appeal, regardless of the determination of the Hearings Officer.
2. Title 23, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
a. Chapter 23.48, Urbanization
(1) Section 23.48.020, Goals
FINDINGS: The goals and policies in the plan are largely aspirational and directed at actions to
be taken by the County, and therefore it is questionable to what extent they can be considered
approval criteria for the applicant's proposed quasi - judicial plan amendment to expand the
Sisters UGB to include the subject property. Because previous similar applications have
included findings on these goals and policies, staff has included such findings here as well.
1. To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to
urban lands.
FINDINGS: As shown in the submitted alternatives analysis, the proposed site represents the
most efficient and orderly location for the siting of the needed fire training facility and yard debris
storage site.
2. To assure that planning and implementation of plans in the
urban areas are consistent with the best interest of both urban and
urbanizing area residents.
FINDINGS: The applicant's proposed UGB expansion would allow the establishment of a new
fire training facility and yard debris storage site to meet the identified need described above.
The facilities will serve local residents within the UGB and outside the UGB in an area that
"urbanizing ".
3. To retain and enhance the character and quality of the urban
areas as growth occurs. To recognize and respect the unusual naturar
beauty and character of the area.
FINDINGS: Staff believes that the applicant's proposal will enhance the quality of the urbar
area by allowing the establishment of the fire training facility and yard debris storage to servm-
residents in the surrounding areas both within and outside the Sisters UGB. Development o
ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 22 of 3'
the new facilities will be subject to City development review to assure compliance with the City's
development standards.
4. To provide a sound basis for urbanization by establishing
proper relationships between residential, commercial, industrial and open
land uses; fostering intergovernmental cooperation; and providing an
efficient transportation system.
FINDINGS: This goal aims to facilitate urban expansion upon sound planning principals,
relating proposed urban expansion to the ability to serve such lands efficiently with urban
services and to provide for compatibility between adjacent land uses. The proposed expansion
of the Sisters UGB will be an orderly and efficient expansion to include properties that are
already bordered by urban land. The subject property has been historically committed to public
facility uses and is not in commercial timber production. As shown above, the subject property
has already transitioned from rural to urban lands by its location, public facility uses and
surrounding uses. Urban services, such as sewer and water are located adjacent to the subject
property. A public road provides access to the site.
The applicant has submitted a trip - generation letter, dated September 19, 2008, stating that the
proposed zone change, plan amendment, and ultimate development of the proposed facilities
will result in net reduction of 22 Average Daily Trips (ADT) to the subject property. Staff
believes that this proposal is consistent with the Goal 12 and the Transportation Planning Rule
(TPR), as it does not significantly affect any transportation facility.
5. To retain and enhance desirable existing areas and to
revitalize, rehabilitate and redevelop less desirable existing areas; to
encourage and promote innovations in development techniques in order to
obtain maximum livability and excellence in planning and design for
development.
FINDINGS: Staff believes that applicant's proposal will enhance the greater Sisters area by
facilitating construction of a needed fire training facility and yard debris storage site, and will
enhance livability in the surrounding area.
b. Section 23.60.010, Transportation
* * * The purpose of DCC 23.60 is to develop a transportation system
that meets the needs of Deschutes County residents while also considering
regional and state needs at the same time. This plan addresses a balanced
transportation system that includes automobile, bicycle, rail, transit, air,
pedestrian and pipelines. It reflects existing land use plans, policies and
regulations that affect the transportation system.
FINDING: The applicant has submitted a trip - generation letter, dated September 19, 2008,
stating that the proposed zone change, plan amendment, and ultimate development of the
proposed facilities will result in net reduction of 22 Average Daily Trips (ADT) to the subject
property. Staff believes that this proposal is consistent with the Goal 12 and the Transportation
Planning Rule (TPR), as it does not significantly affect any transportation facility.
c. Chapter 23.68, Public Facilities and Services
1. 23.68.010. Public Facilities and Services.
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 23 of 31
H. Goals. To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as framework for
urban and rural development, and thereby a system or plan that
coordinates the type, location and delivery of public facilities and services
in a manner that best supports the existing and proposed land uses.
FINDINGS: As shown in the submitted alternatives analysis, the proposed site represents the
most efficient and orderly location for the siting of the needed fire training facility and yard debris
storage site to support the City's development.
(2) Section 23.68.020, Policies
* * *
6. Fire.
a. Land for a fire station shall be dedicated in large
developments.
b. The minimum diameter for water distribution mains on which
fire hydrants are located shall be six inches.
c. Hydrant spacing should not exceed 1000 feet with minimum
fire flow of 500 gallons per minute on subdivisions or developments with a
population density of 2 or less single family units per acre; on subdivisions
or developments where population density exceeds two single family
dwellings per acre, hydrant spacing should not exceed 500 feet with a
minimum fire flow of 750 gallons per minute. Where structural
considerations warrant, additional requirements should be considered.
Urbanizing area standards shall be those of the incorporated City. In rural
fire protection districts final determination of standards will be made after
discussion with the R.F.P.D.
d. Water source or storage shall have a capacity to support the
required fire flow for a period of two hours in addition to maximum daily
flow requirements for other consumer uses. Refer to "Water Supply
Systems for Rural Fire Protection" NFPA Pamphlet #1231, 1975.
e. Fire protection and law enforcement agencies should strictly
enforce solid waste disposal ordinances.
f. Fire stations should be built in an architectural style that will
blend into the area of location.
FINDINGS: Staff believes that these polices pertain to specific site development and are not
applicable to a plan amendment or zone change.
3. Title 21 - Sisters Urban Area Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 21.40, AMENDMENTS
Section 21.40.010, Amendments.
DCC Title 21 may be amended by changing the boundaries of
districts, or by changing any other provisions thereof as set forth in DCC
21.40. The procedures for text or legislative map changes shall be as set
forth in DCC 22.12. A request by a property owner for a quasi-judicial map
amendment shall be accomplished by filing an application on forms
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 24 of 31
provided by the Planning Department and shall be subject to applicable
procedures of DCC Title 22.
FINDINGS: Staff believes Title 21 of the Deschutes County Code is applicable because the
subject property can be included in the Sisters UGB, and because Title 21 applies to land within
the Sisters UGB outside the City limits. The applicant proposes to rezone the property from F -1 to
UAR -10 and filed a zone change application with the County. As discussed above, the applicant
proposes that the UAR -10 zoning be an interim designation until the subject property is annexed
into the City of Sisters and is rezoned by the City from UAR -10 to Public Facility (PF).
Section 21.40.020, Standards for Zone Change.
The burden of proof is upon the applicant. The applicant shall in all
cases establish:
A. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, Staff believes
that the policies in the Comprehensive Plan do not constitute mandatory approval criteria for a
quasi-judicial plan amendment or zone change. Because previous similar applications have
included findings on these goals and policies, staff has included such findings this report as
well. To the extent policies within the Comprehensive Plan do provides mandatory approval
criteria, staff believes the relevant policies have been addressed in this report.
B. Conformance with all applicable statutes.
FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, staff believes
the applicants' proposal complies with the applicable statutes including the provisions of ORS
197.298 governing the conversion of resource land to urban land.
C. Conformance with statewide planning goals whenever they are
determined to be applicable.
FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, staff believes
the applicants' proposal complies with all applicable statewide planning goals, as well as with
the administrative rules implementing those goals, including the provisions of OAR 660,
Divisions 4, 6, and 15.
D. That there is a public need for a change of the kind in
question.
FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, Staff believes
that the applicant has demonstrated a need for additional fire facilities and yard debris storage,
and a need to site those facilities on land outside the current Sisters UGB. In addition, staff
believes the applicant has demonstrated the subject property is uniquely suited for the proposed
additional fire facilities and yard debris storage. Based on these findings, staff believes the
applicant has demonstrated a public need for a zone change and plan amendment from F -1 to
UAR -10 in order to facilitate their proposed development.
E. That the need will be best served by changing the
classification of the particular piece of property in question as compared
with other available property.
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 25 of 31
FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, staff believes
the applicant has demonstrated the proposed facilities require approximately 6 acres of land.
Staff believes the subject property is uniquely suited for the applicants' proposal because of its
City or Fire District ownership or jurisdictional control; 3 to 5 acres for the Fire Training Facility;
an additional 2 acres for the HCD site; compatibility with surrounding land uses; available public
infrastructure including paved access, sewer and water; security; and adjacency to the UGB
and /or City limits to facilitate connection to City utilities. Based on these findings, staff believes
the applicant has demonstrated the public need for additional fire facilities and yard debris
storage will best be served by rezoning the subject property from F -1 to UAR -10. Staff also
concurs with the applicant that the zone change to UAR -10 is appropriate in order to "hold" the
property in an urban reserve status until the property is annexed into the City and can be
rezoned to Public Facility (PF).
F. That there is proof of a change of circumstance or a mistake in
the original zoning.
FINDINGS: Staff believes that there was no mistake in the original F -1 zoning of the subject
property. The property is located adjacent to large tracts of forest -zoned land managed by the
USFS for timber production. Staff believes that there have been changes of circumstance
justifying the proposed zone change. These consist of: 1) significant increases in the population
of the City of Sisters; 2) an associated increased demand for additional fire facilities and yard
debris storage; 3) existing PF Public Facility- zoned, Forest Service owned properties within the
City of Sisters have become unavailable for fire facilities and yard debris storage; 4) a resultant
shortfall of lands available for necessary public facilities. Staff believes that these factors
constitute changes of circumstance justifying the proposed zone change from F -1 to UAR -10 to
facilitate development of the subject property.
G. That annexation to the City of Sisters will accompany the zone
change.
FINDINGS: The applicant has stated that the subject property will be up for an annexation vote
on November 2008 ballot. In a previous decision in which the City sought approval of a plan
amendment and zone change for the site of the municipal sewage treatment plant (PA- 00 -5 /ZC-
00-5), the Hearings Officer found that the requirement of this section can be met by conditioning
approval on the applicant's executing a consent to annexation agreement. However, because a
favorable vote is required for any annexation to the City of Sisters, and because the vote will not
occur until November 2008, Staff believes that it is necessary and appropriate to condition
approval of the applicants' proposal on the Board of County Commissioners' adoption of a
resolution of intent to rezone pursuant to Section 21.40.040, discussed in the findings below.
For the foregoing reasons, the Staff believes that with imposition of a condition of approval
requiring a resolution of intent to rezone, the applicants' proposal satisfies this criterion.
21.40.040, Resolution of Intent to Rezone.
If, from the facts presented and findings and the report and
recommendations of the Hearings Officer as required by DCC 21.72.040, the
County Commission determines that the public health, safety, welfare and
convenience will be best served by a proposed change of zone, the County
Commission may indicate its general approval in principal of the proposed
rezoning by the adoption of a "resolution of intent to rezone." This
resolution shall include any conditions, stipulations or limitations which the
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 26 of 31
County Commission may feel necessary to require in the public interest as a
prerequisite to final action, including those provisions which the County
Commission may feel necessary to prevent speculative holding of the
property after rezoning. Such a resolution shall not be used to justify spot
zoning to create unauthorized zoning categories by excluding uses
otherwise permitted in the proposed zoning.
A. Content of Site Plan. Where a site plan is required pursuant to
DCC 21.96, it shall include location of existing and proposed buildings,
structures, accesses, off - street parking and loading spaces and
landscaping; existing and proposed topography; mechanical roof facilities, if
subject property is so oriented as to become part of the view from adjacent
properties; architectural perspective, layout and all elevations drawn without
exaggeration except where noted, including locations, area and design of
signs, all landscaping and adjacent streets and facilities.
B. Resolution on Intent Binding. The fulfillment of all conditions,
stipulations and limitations contained in the resolution of intent on the part
of the applicant shall make the resolution binding on the County
Commission. Upon compliance with the resolution by the applicant, the
County Commission shall, by ordinance, effect such rezoning.
C. Resolution of Intent Void Upon Failure to Comply. The failure
of the applicant to meet any or all conditions, stipulations or limitations
contained in a resolution of intent, including the time limit placed in the
resolution, shall render said resolution null and void, unless an extension is
granted by the County Commission upon recommendation of the Hearings
Officer.
FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, in order for the applicant to develop the
proposed property, the subject property must be annexed to the City of Sisters. Such
annexation cannot take place until voters approve it through an election, presently scheduled for
November, 2008, and the City Council annexes the property. Therefore, staff believes any
approval of the proposed zone change should be conditioned on the Deschutes County Board
of Commissioners approving the proposed zone change subject to a resolution of intent to
rezone contingent on: 1) a favorable vote to annex the property; and 2) the City's annex and
execution of an intergovernmental agreement with the County by which the City agrees to
rezone the subject property from UAR -10 to Public Facility (PF) for the purpose of allowing the
applicants to develop the property.
CITY OF SISTERS GENERAL PLAN
FINDINGS: As discussed above in the findings concerning the County's comprehensive plan,
Staff believes that the goals and policies in the City's plan generally are aspirational and
directed toward actions to be undertaken by the City, and therefore it is questionable to what
extent they can be considered to constitute approval criteria for the applicant's proposed quasi -
judicial plan amendment to expand the Sisters UGB to include the subject property. Because
previous similar applications have included findings on these goals and policies, staff has
included such findings here as well.
Goal 11: Public Facilities and Services
11.1 GOAL
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 27 of 31
"To plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient arrangement of
public facilities to support the City's development"
FINDINGS: As shown in the submitted alternatives analysis, the proposed site represents the
most efficient and orderly location for the siting of the needed fire training facility and yard debris
storage site to support the City's development.
Goal 12: Transportation
12.1 Transportation Goal
"To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system."
FINDINGS: The applicant has submitted a trip - generation letter, dated September 19, 2008,
stating that the proposed zone change, plan amendment, and ultimate development of the
proposed facilities will result in net reduction of 22 Average Daily Trips (ADT) to the subject
property. Staff believes that this proposal is consistent with the Goal 12 and the Transportation
Planning Rule (TPR), as it does not significantly affect any transportation facility.
Goal 14: Urbanization
14.1 GOALS
"To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban
land use."
FINDINGS: As shown in the submitted alternatives analysis, the proposed site represents the
most efficient and orderly location for the siting of the needed fire training facility and yard debris
storage site to support the City's development. As discussed above, these needed facilities
cannot be located on the site under the existing zoning.
14.4 POLICIES
1. The City shall promote development within the UGB to minimize
the cost of providing public services and infrastructure and to protect
resource land outside the UGB.
2. The City shall promote a quality mix of development, including
mixed -use development, that addresses the housing, economic, and
community goals of the City.
3. The Urban Growth Boundary is the official area for which to plan
all land uses, public facilities, and annexations.
FINDINGS: As shown in the submitted alternatives analysis, no site within the existing UGB
meets the siting requirements for the proposed use.
4. The City shall provide for an orderly and efficient conversion of
urbanizable land to urban land, the City will manage the UGB to maintain
the potential for planned urban development on urbanizable lands.
5. The establishment and change of the Urban Growth Boundary
shall be based upon considerations of the following factors:
a. Demonstrated need to accommodate long -range urban population
growth requirements consistent with LCDC goals;
b. Need for housing, employment opportunities, and livability;
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 28 of 31
FINDINGS: Staff believes these policies do not apply to the site- and need - specific proposal for
fire training and yard debris storage facilities.
c. Orderly and economic provision for public facilities and services;
d. Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the
existing urban area;
e. Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences;
FINDINGS: This proposal conforms to these policies, as discussed above under Goal 14 and
demonstrated by the alternatives analysis.
f. Retention of agricultural land as defined, with Class I being the
highest priority for retention and Class VI the lowest priority; and,
g. Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural
activities.
FINDINGS: No agricultural lands are included in this proposal.
6. The following policies apply to the conversion of urbanizable land
to urban land:
a. Orderly economic provision for public facilities and services;
FINDINGS: As shown in the submitted alternatives analysis, the proposed site represents the
most efficient and orderly location for the siting of the needed fire training facility and yard debris
storage site to support the City's development.
b. Availability of sufficient land for the various uses to insure
choices in the market place;
FINDINGS: No impacts to commercial activities are anticipated under this plan amendment and
zone change.
c. Statewide planning goals and LCDC administrative rules; and
FINDINGS: Conformance to statewide planning goals and LCDC administrative rules are
discussed above.
d. Encouragement of development within the urban areas before
conversion of urbanizable areas.
Tasks -
a. Lands inside the UGB but outside the City Limits shall be rezoned
to an urban zoning designation consistent with the Comprehensive Plan at
the time of annexation.
FINDINGS: The alternatives analysis included lands within the existing UGB and found that
none of these sites would meet the required siting characteristics. The burden of proof states
that the subject property would be zoned Public Facility (PF) at the time of annexation.
7. Providing City services is an integral part of the City's growth
management strategy.
Extension of City services are guided by the following:
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 29 of 1
a The City shall require annexation prior to extending water or
sanitary sewer services to any property within the unincorporated portion
of the UGB.
FINDINGS: The burden of proof states that the subject property would be annexed prior to any
development.
b. The City shall not authorize urban levels of development without
the provision of the all necessary urban service (see definition) to support
planned levels of development. The City will require provision of urban
services as lands are converted to urban lands.
c. Rural levels of development (authorized in the Urban Area
Reserves), sited without services on urbanizable land, shall be sited in
such a way as to not interfere with urban levels of development and
services when conversion from urbanizable land to urban land occurs.
d. The City and Deschutes County shall require property owners
and/or developers to pay their fair and proportionate share of the costs to
extend community services to their properties and to pay for or build
necessary on and off -site public improvements.
FINDINGS: The Sisters Urban Area Comprehensive plan defines Urban Services as key
facilities to support urban types and levels of development and to include at least the following:
City water and sewer services, and storm drainage facilities. Conformance to these policies will
be checked at the time of site plan review for the fire facility and yard debris storage.
However, The applicant has submitted a trip - generation letter, dated September 19, 2008.
stating that the proposed zone change, plan amendment, and ultimate development of the
proposed facilities will result in net reduction of 22 Average Daily Trips (ADT) to the subject
property. Staff believes that this proposal is consistent with the Goal 12 and the Transportation
Planning Rule (TPR), as it does not significantly affect any transportation facility.
IV. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
Based upon the findings noted above, the Statewide Planning Goals, County Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Ordinance criteria have been fully addressed.
Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the Sisters UGB, zone change, and
plan amendment to redesignate the subject property from Forest to Urban Area Reserve, and
zone change to rezone the subject property from F -1 to UAR -10, and would recommend the
following conditions of approval:
1. The Deschutes County Board of Commissioners adopts a resolution of intent to rezone
the subject property from F -1 to UAR -10 contingent upon:
a. A favorable vote to annex the subject property; and
b. The City's execution of an intergovernmental agreement with the Count/
by which the City agrees to annex and rezone the subject property frori
UAR -10 to Public Facility (PF)
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 30 of 31
c. The applicant submitting to the County a metes and bounds description of
the property to be included in the Sisters UGB.
PA -08 -2, ZC -08 -2, MA -08 -8 Page 31 of 1
MI5 MAP WAS PREPARED FOR
ASSESSMENT PURPOSE ONLY,
REVISES: 02/12/2008
SEE MAP 15 10 04CC
a fi
•
4 - ■
SECTION 09 T.15S. R.10E. W.M.
DESCHUTES COUNTY
= 400'
SEE MAP 15 10 040 5E0 MAP 15 10 04DC
�/A�e.ttt�'iE
SEE MAP 15 10 0400
///////6L
t.�.. v�
15 10 09
& INDEX
10
Cancelled Nos.
100 Ihru 301
40187
500 Ihru 800
B02 lhru 833
90101 lhru 90214 ,
96C
■
PI9C 1CAUae 91
15
8
900
10.91 AC
8
1001
50.00 AC
$ g
1000
6-1 011 AC
E6 91.54 AC
11 16
• •
• 1002
6 -1 47.20 AC
• 6-2 111.50 AC
•
617.2
■ 00201
H� N I H �F ■rt N l�
� I
6 -2 4 6 -1
I fi
SEE MAP 15 10
9 10
16
1515 10 09
& INDEX
rl
DECISION OF DESCHUTES COUNTY HEARINGS OFFICER
FILE NUMBERS:
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER:
REQUEST:
STAFF REVIEWER:
HEARING DATES:
RECORD CLOSED:
PA-08-2/ZC-08-2/MA-08-8
City of Sisters
520 East Cascade Street
Sisters, Oregon 97759
The applicant requests approval to change the plan designation of
the subject property from Forest to Urban Reserve, to amend the
Sisters UGB to include the property, and to change the zoning of
the property from F -1 to UAR -10.1 The purpose of this request is
to facilitate the establishment of a four -acre fire training facility for
the Sisters /Camp Sherman Fire District.
Will Groves, Senior Planner
August 19 and September 30, 2008
October 10, 2008
I. APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND CRITERIA:
A.
Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
1. Chapter 18.04, Title, Purpose and Definitions
* Section 18.04.030, Definitions
2. Chapter 18.08, Basic Provisions
* Section 18.08.010, Compliance
3. Chapter 18.12, Establishment of Zones
* Section 18.12.020, Location of Zones
* Section 18.12.040, Zone Boundaries
4. Chapter 18.36, Forest Use — F -1 Zone
* Section 18.36.020, Uses Permitted Outright
1
The applicant's burden of proof states it also requests an exception to Goal 4, Forest Lands. However, as
discussed in the findings below, the Hearings Officer has concluded no goal exception is required for the
proposed UGB amendment.
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 1 of 33
* Section 18.36.030, Conditional Uses Permitted
5. Chapter 18.136, Amendments
* Section 18.136.030, Resolution of Intent to Rezone
B. Title 21 of the Deschutes County Code, the City of Sisters Urban Area Zoning
Ordinance
1. Chapter 21.72, Amendments
* Section 21.72.010, Amendments
* Section 21.72.020, Standards for Zone Change
C. Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code, the Development Procedures Ordinance
1. Chapter 22.28, Land Use Action Decisions
* Section 22.28.030, Decision on Plan Amendments and Zone Changes
D. PL -16, the City of Sisters Urban Area Comprehensive Plan
E. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 197.298, Priority of Land To Be Included Within
Urban Growth Boundary
F. Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660
1. Division 12, Transportation Planning Rule
* OAR 660 -12 -060, Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments
2. Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
3. Division 24, Urban Growth Boundaries
II. FINDINGS OF FACT:
A. Location: The subject property does not have an assigned address. It is located on the
east side of South Locust Street, 460 feet south of the southern Sisters Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB), and 451 feet north of a portion of city land included within the Sisters
UGB and city limits by previous land use approvals and a "cherry- stem" annexation. The
subject property is identified as a portion of Tax Lot 1002 on Assessor's Map 15- 10 -09.
B. Zoning and Plan Designation: The subject property is designated Forest on the
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and is zoned Forest Use (F -1).
C. Site Description: The subject property is approximately 106 acres in size and is part of a
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 2 of 33
160 -acre parent parcel known as "Section 9" formerly owned and managed by the United
States Forest Service (USFS). Section 9 was conveyed to the City of Sisters (city) in
August of 2000. A 40 -acre portion of Section 9 was added to the Sisters UGB in 2000,
was developed with the city's sewage treatment facility and effluent dispersal area, and is
identified as Tax Lot 1000 on Assessor's Map 15- 15 -09. An approximately 14 -acre
portion of Section 9 abutting the sewage treatment facility site was added to the Sisters
UGB in September of 2005, and will be developed with the city's public works field
storage site following annexation. The portion of the subject property covered by the
applicant's proposed plan amendment and zone change (hereafter "site ") is four acres in
size and roughly rectangular in shape. It is north and west of the sewage treatment plant
and public works site. The site abuts and has access from Locust Street on the west,
which constitutes part of the aforementioned "cherry stem" annexation. The site currently
is developed with storage sheds, material storage and a gravel access road. It is relatively
level, has a vegetative cover of mature ponderosa pine trees and native shrubs and
grasses, and is part of the sewage effluent dispersal area.2
D. Soils: According to Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) maps of the area,
the subject property is composed of two soil types:
Ermabell Loamy Fine Sand, Mapping Unit 47A, 0 -3 percent slopes. The NRCS rates
this soil as having a woodland productivity classification of 4 and is capable of producing
69 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber. The NRCS rates this soil as having an
agricultural capability rating of 6c without irrigation and no capability rating with
irrigation. This soil is well drained with the composition being 90% inclusions and 10%
contrasting inclusions. Permeability is rapid with available water capacity of about 5
inches. The major management limitations are identified as climate and permeability.
According to the Soil Interpretations Record contained in the NRCS soils inventory, trees
common to Unit 47A are ponderosa pine and western juniper. Approximately 30 percent
of the subject site is composed of this soil.
Lundgren Sandy Loam, Mapping Unit 85A, 0 -3 percent slopes. The NRCS rates this
soil as having a woodland suitability productivity classification of 3 and is capable of
producing 46 cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber. The NRCS rates this soil as
having an agricultural capability rating of 6s without irrigation and no capability rating
with irrigation. This soil is well drained with the composition being 90% inclusions and
10% contrasting inclusions. Permeability is moderately rapid with available water
capacity of about 5 inches. The major management limitations are climate, low fertility,
susceptibility to compaction, surface texture and permeability. According to the Soil
Interpretations Record contained in the NRCS soils inventory, trees common to Unit 85A
are ponderosa pine. Approximately 70 percent of the 40 -acre site is composed of this soil.
E. Surrounding Zoning and Land Use: The subject site is surrounded on the north, east
and south by land zoned Forest (F -1) that constitutes portions of the original 160 -acre
Section 9 conveyed to the city by the USFS. Abutting F -1 land to the north and south is
undeveloped and being used for effluent dispersal. Land further to the southeast is
developed with the sewage treatment facility and public works field storage site. Land
2
The record indicates the subject site in fact may not have received effluent dispersal.
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 3 of 33
south of the treatment facility is zoned F -1 and owned and managed by the USFS. Further
to the north are residential subdivisions within the Sisters city limits Further to the east is
land zoned Exclusive Farm Use /Sisters - Cloverdale Subzone (EFU -SC) and engaged in
farm use. Land to the west across Locust Street is undeveloped private land zoned F -1.
Further to the west is land zoned EFU -SC and engaged in farm use.
F. Procedural History: In July of 1999 the USFS made the decision to convey Section 9 to
the city. On August 10, 2000 the property was conveyed to the city by a quitclaim deed
recorded in the Deschutes County Book of Records at Book 2000, Page 32344. A copy of
the deed is included in the record. In May of 2000 the city and the USFS applied for a
plan amendment and zone change in order to include within the UGB the 40 -acre portion
of Section 9 to be developed with the city's sewage treatment plant and effluent dispersal
area. By a decision issued in August of 2000 (PA- 00- 5 /ZC- 00 -2), this Hearings Officer
approved these applications, and subsequently the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners (board) approved the UGB and plan amendments and zone change. The
sewage treatment facility site is identified as Tax Lot 1000 on Assessor's Map 15- 10 -09.
On September 9, 2005 the board approved an ordinance amending the Sisters UGB to
include approximately 14 acres of Section 9 abutting the sewage treatment facility on the
north and rezoning this land from F -1 to UAR -10. This acreage was included in the UGB
in order for it to be annexed to the city and developed with the city's public works field
storage site.
On June 16, 2008 the city submitted the subject applications for a plan amendment and
zone change from F -1 to UAR -10 and expansion of the UGB for the subject four -acre site
(PA- 08- 2/ZC- 08 -2). The applications were deemed complete on July 17, 2008. Because
the proposed zone change is dependent upon approval of the proposed plan amendment,
and plan amendments are not subject to the 150 -day period for issuance of a final local
land use decision under ORS 215.427, the Hearings Officer finds these applications are
not subject to the 150 -day period. The purpose of the proposed plan amendment, zone
change and UGB expansion is to facilitate annexation of the subject site to the city limits
and development of the site with a new fire training facility for the Sisters /Camp
Sherman Fire District (fire district).
A public hearing on these applications was scheduled for August 19, 2008. On August 6,
2008, the city submitted an application to modify the plan amendment and zone change
applications to add two acres to the site (MA- 08 -8). The purpose of the modification was
to enlarge the UGB to provide a site for development of a yard debris recycling
processing and storage facility for High Country Disposal (HCD), the city's domestic
solid waste and recycling franchisee. The modification application was deemed complete
on September 5, 2008. Due to the filing of the modification, at the scheduled public
hearing on August 19, 2008, the Hearings Officer continued the hearing to September 30,
2008.
At the continued public hearing on September 30, 2008, Senior Planner Will Groves
advised the Hearings Officer that the Planning Division's written requests for public
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 4 of 33
agency comments on the applications had been mailed on September 18, 2008, and
requested that the written record remain open an additional week to assure adequate time
for agency responses. The Hearings Officer received testimony and evidence at the
continued hearing, left the written evidentiary record open through October 14, 2008, and
allowed the applicant through October 21, 2008 to submit final argument pursuant to
ORS 197.763.
By a letter dated October 6, 2008, the city withdrew its modification application stating it
had been advised that the proposed yard debris recycling and storage facility is a use
permitted in the F -1 Zone and does not require a plan amendment or zone change.
Accordingly, this decision addresses only the applications for a plan amendment, zone
change and UGB expansion for the original four -acre site.3 The record in this matter
closed on October 10, 2008 when the applicant submitted its final argument.
G. Proposal: The city requests approval of a plan amendment from Forest to Urban Area
Reserve, a zone change from F -1 to UAR -10, and an expansion of the Sisters UGB for
the subject site to provide a location within the UGB and ultimately within the city limits
on which the fire district may establish a new fire training facility. The record indicates
the city has an intergovernmental agreement with the fire district to provide a location
within the city limits for such a facility by August of 2009. The record also indicates that
following approval of these applications the city intends to place on the May 2009
election ballot a proposal to annex the subject site into the city, and following annexation
to rezone the site to Public Facility (PF).
According to the applicant's burden of proof and the public hearing testimony of Ryan
Karjala, training officer for the fire district, the training facility would consist of a
building in which to store a fire engine, a two -story fire training tower, security fencing,
and paved areas. Activities on the site would include training up to 5 firefighters at a time
through 2- hour - per -week training sessions between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
The training activities would include practice extricating victims from structures and
vehicles, pulling hoses in simulated structure and wildland fires, accomplishing forced
entry through a metal door, and firefighting on multiple levels of a structure. Activities
would not include live fires except for small controlled fires with flammable liquids. The
facility would use large quantities of water. The applicant estimates the facility would
generate approximately 10 vehicle trips per day during weekday activities and
approximately 30 vehicle trips per day during weekend activities. Mr. Karjala testified
the fire district currently does its training exercises on a city street behind its existing fire
station on Elm Street. This location is close to residences and other occupied structures,
and because of very limited available space and safety considerations requires the fire
district to close the public street during training exercises.
H. Public /Private Agency Comments: The Planning Division mailed notice of the
applicant's plan amendment, zone change and modification applications to a number of
public and private agencies and received responses from the Deschutes County Road
3
Because the applicant withdrew the modified application concerning the recycling site the Hearings
Officer will not address that application and related issues.
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 5 of 33
Department (road department), Senior Transportation Planner, Forester, and Property
Address Coordinator. These comments are included in the record. The following agencies
either had no comment or did not respond to the notices: the Oregon Departments of
Land Conservation and Development (DLCD), Forestry and Transportation (ODOT); the
Oregon Department of Water Resources, Watermaster- District 11; the USFS, Sisters
Ranger District; and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
I. Public Notice and Comments: The Planning Division mailed individual written notice
of the applicant's proposal and the initial public hearing to the owners of record of all
property located within 750 feet of the subject property. In addition, notice of the initial
public hearing was published in the "Bend Bulletin" newspaper and the subject property
was posted with a notice of proposed land use action sign. As of the date the record in
this matter closed the Planning Division had received six letters in response to these
notices. In addition, seven members of the public testified at the public hearing. Public
comments are addressed in the findings below.
J. Lot of Record. The subject site is part of an approximately 160 -acre tract of land
formerly known as Section 9 that was transferred to the city by the USFS in August of
2000. As discussed above, since the city acquired Section 9, the county has approved two
amendments to the Sisters UGB that included 40 acres and 14 acres. The subject
proposal, if approved, would remove another four acres from Section 9 for inclusion in
the UGB. The city has not requested approval of a land division or a lot -of- record
determination for the portions of Section 9 included, or proposed for inclusion, in the
Sisters UGB. The question is whether the subject site must be a lot of record before it can
be re- designated, rezoned and included in the Sisters UGB. The answer to that question
turns on the history of the subject site, as well the effect of county code provisions
governing plan amendments and zone changes and state law governing UGB
amendments.
At the time Section 9 was conveyed to the city in August of 2000, Title 17 of the
Deschutes County Code, the subdivision and partition ordinance, required subdivision or
partition approval to create new lots or parcels. The record indicates no subdivision or
partition approval was obtained by the USFS prior to conveying Section 9 to the city. In
addition, in 2000 Section 18.04.030 of the county's zoning ordinance defined "lot of
record" to include a lot or parcel created by a deed, but only where the lot or parcel
"conformed to all zoning and subdivision or partition requirements, if any, in effect on
the date the lot or parcel was created." Because Section 9 was created by a deed but did
not conform to the county's land division requirements, the Hearings Officer finds
Section 9 did not constitute a lot of record.
Although Section 9 was not a lot of record, the Hearings Officer nevertheless finds it was
lawfully created when it was conveyed to the city. That is because the USFS was not
required to obtain partition or subdivision approval prior to conveying Section 9 to the
city. The USFS conveyed Section 9 to the city under the authority of the Federal Lands
Policy Management Act (FLPMA). In Thompson (LR- 07 -52, April 29, 2008), Hearings
Officer Kenneth Helm concluded language in FLPMA conflicts with the county's land
division regulations because it requires the federal government only to give notice to
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 6 of 33
affected local governments prior to any conveyance of federal land. Hearings Officer
Helm found that in light of this conflict, the FLPMA preempted the county's partition
requirements. However, Hearings Officer Helm found the legal effect of this preemption
terminated when the federal land was conveyed into private ownership, and therefore
subsequent uses of the land would be subject to the applicable county land use
regulations. I find the reasoning in the Thompson decision is equally applicable here
because the USFS conveyance of Section 9 to the city was authorized by the Townsite
Act of July 31, 1958 (7 U.S.C. 1012) which was amended in October of 1976 by the
FLPMA.
The subject site clearly is not a lot of record since it was not created by a partition or
subdivision, and is not exempt from the county's land division requirements since the
federal preemption terminated when Section 9 was transferred to the city. The remaining
question, then, is whether the subject site must be a lot -of- record to be re- designated,
rezoned and included in the Sisters UGB.
Section 18.04.030 defines "lot" as "a unit of land created by a subdivision of land" and
defines "parcel" as a "unit of land created by a partitioning of land." Section
18.08.010(A) states "a lot may be used * * * only as DCC Title 18 permits." This
language read in conjunction with the lot -of- record definition could be interpreted to
mean no lot may be "used" unless it is a lot of record as defined in Section 18.04.030
However, the provisions of Chapter 18.136 governing plan amendments and zone
changes, discussed in detail in the findings below, do not use the terms "lot" and
"parcel," and do not require that land be a lot of record in order to be re- designated and/or
rezoned. Moreover, the provisions of Goal 14 and its guidelines and implementing
administrative rules governing UGB amendments, also discussed in detail in the findings
below, do not require that land to be included within a UGB constitutes a lot of record. In
fact, these provisions of state law limit UGB amendments to only that amount of land
demonstrated to be adequate and necessary to meet the identified need for urban land,
thus contemplating that only a portion of an existing lot, parcel or area might be included
in a UGB amendment — as has occurred with previous UGB amendments involving
portions of Section 9.
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the subject site is not a lot of record,
but that it need not be in order to be re- designated, rezoned and included within the
Sisters UGB.
III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
A. Preliminary Issues:
FINDINGS: Opponents raised several issues not directly related to the applicable approval
criteria for the proposed plan amendment and zone change. These issues are addressed below.
1. Intent of USFS Land Conveyance. Opponents argue the Hearings Officer should deny the
city's proposal because they believe the USFS transferred Section 9 to the city for the sole
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 7 of 33
purpose of providing a location for the city sewage treatment plant and effluent dispersal areas.
However, the quitclaim deed from the USFS to the city contains no such limitation. It does
include the following boilerplate conveyance language:
"This instrument will not allow use of the property described in the instrument in
violation of applicable land use laws and regulations. Before signing or accepting
this instrument, the person acquiring fee title to the property should check with
the appropriate City or County Planning Department to verify approved uses and
to determine any limits on lawsuits against farming or forest practices as defined
in ORS 30.930."
The Hearings Officer finds there is no basis in the record from which I can conclude the
applicant's proposal is contrary to the conveyance or the federal law under which it was
authorized. And in any event, I find the terms of the conveyance and/or authorization must be
enforced by the grantor — the USFS — and not the county.
2. Other Uses on USFS Land. Opponents argue the city should develop the remaining acreage
in Section 9 with uses other than the proposed fire training facility, such as affordable housing.
The Hearings Officer finds I cannot consider other potential uses of the subject site because the
only use that is properly before me in this proceeding is the proposed fire training facility.
3. Precedent for Other Uses on Site. Opponents argue the Hearings Officer should deny the
city's proposal because approval would set a precedent for the development of other types of
uses on Section 9 that they believe would not be appropriate. I disagree. The applicant has
proposed a plan amendment and zone change for 4 acres of Section 9 in order ultimately to
annex this site and rezone it to PF. Following such annexation and rezoning, uses on the subject
site would be limited to those permitted outright or conditionally in the PF Zone. The remainder
of Tax Lot 1002 would remain designated and zoned F -1, and uses on that land would be limited
to those permitted outright or conditionally in the F -1 Zone.4
4. Potential Adverse Impacts from Fire Training Facility. Opponents argue the Hearings
Officer should deny the city's proposal because the fire training facility will have adverse
impacts on surrounding property, such as smoke drifting into surrounding residential
neighborhoods. I find the specific impacts from the proposed fire training facility and potential
mitigation of those impacts will be addressed after the subject site is annexed and the city or fire
district seeks approval of a zone change from UAR -10 to PF and site plan approval for the fire
training facility. These actions will be undertaken through one more public land use proceedings
in which neighboring property owners may participate.
5. "Bias" of Hearings Officer. Opponent Rick Francis argues the Hearings Officer was biased
against opponents because in his opinion I was not willing to listen to both sides concerning the
issue of need for the proposed fire training facility. Mr. Francis is correct that during the public
hearing I discussed whether the need for the proposed facility is relevant under the applicable
approval criteria. To the extent that my comments during the hearing suggested need is not a
4
The applicant's October 10, 2008 submission states the city has no immediate plans to further expand
the PF Zone in the near future.
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 8 of 33
relevant consideration I misspoke. However, such comments did not reflect bias on my part
against opponents or in favor of the applicant, but rather my failure to clearly articulate the
applicable standards. Moreover, Mr. Francis and other opponents did raise the issue of need in
their oral and written testimony which I have read and which, as discussed in detail in the
findings below, I have considered in reaching this decision.
F -1 ZONE STANDARDS
B. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
1. Chapter 18.36, Forest Use — F -1 Zone
a. Section 18.36.020, Uses Permitted Outright
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright,
subject to applicable siting criteria set forth in this chapter and any
other applicable provisions of this title.
* * *
I. Towers and fire stations for forest fire protection.
b. Section 18.36.030, Conditional Uses Permitted
The following uses and their accessory uses may be allowed in the
Forest Zone, subject to applicable provisions of the Comprehensive
Plan, Section 18.36.040 of this title and other applicable provisions of
this section.
* * *
J. Fire stations for rural fire protection.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the initial question before me is whether the proposed
fire training facility is a use allowed in the F -1 zone without the need for a plan amendment and
zone change. The term "fire station" is not defined in Title 18. The ordinary definition of the
term "station" is "a building, etc., at which a service, etc. is provided (police station)." Webster's
New World Dictionary and Thesaurus, Second Edition. Based on this definition, I find a "fire
station" is a building or location at which fire prevention and protection services are provided.
As discussed in the Findings of Fact above, the fire district has a fire station on Elm Street a few
blocks west of the subject site that houses fire and emergency vehicles, firefighting equipment,
quarters and offices for firefighters, and the types of communication/dispatch facilities found in a
typical fire station. The record indicates the proposed new training facility would not have these
features. Rather, it would provide the district's firefighters with a location off a public street and
away from residences and other occupied structures at which they could engaged in a variety of
training exercises designed to prepare them for the types of fires and other emergencies the fire
district encounters — e.g., structure, vehicle and wildland fires, medical emergencies, and
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 9 of 33
handling of hazardous substances. This new training facility would not be the location from
which actual firefighting services would be dispatched or provided or where the majority of the
district's fire and emergency vehicles and equipment would be housed. Therefore, I find the
proposed training facility cannot reasonably be considered a "fire station."
Even assuming for purposes of discussion that the proposed facility could be considered a "fire
station," the record indicates it would not provide training or services exclusively or primarily
for forest fire protection, and therefore the Hearings Officer finds it would not fall within the fire
station use permitted outright in the F -1 Zone. With respect to the conditional use in the F -1
Zone, the record indicates the fire district provides both "urban" fire protection within Sisters
and Camp Sherman and "rural" fire protection in the rural areas within the district's boundaries
which may include both structure and brush/forest fires. Nevertheless, given the purpose of the
F -1 Zone to conserve forest lands, and the significant restrictions on uses in the zone, I find the
proposed training facility could not reasonably be considered a "fire stations for rural fire
protection" since ultimately it would be sited within the city limits and would provide training in
urban fire protection techniques.
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the proposed fire training facility is not a
use permitted either outright or conditionally in the F -1 Zone.
UGB AMENDMENT STANDARDS
C. Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 660, Division 24, Urban Growth
Boundaries
1. OAR 660 - 024 -0020, Adoption or Amendment of a UGB
(1) All statewide goals and related administrative rules are applicable
when establishing or amending a UGB, except as follows:
(a) The exceptions process in Goal 2 and OAR 660, division 4, is
not applicable unless a local government chooses to take an
exception to a particular goal requirement, for example, as
provided in OAR 660- 004 - 0010(1);
(b) Goals 3 and 4 are not applicable; * * *.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds that because under this rule Goal 4, Forest Land, is not
applicable to the applicant's request to amend the Sisters UGB, no exception to Goal 4 is
required.
2. OAR 660, Division 15, State -wide Planning Goals and Guidelines
(14) # 14, Urbanization
To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 10 of 33
land use, to accommodate urban population and urban employment
inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of land, and to
provide for livable communities.
Urban Growth Boundaries
Urban growth boundaries shall be established and maintained by
cities, counties and regional governments to provide land for urban
development needs and to identify and separate urban and
urbanizable land from rural land. Establishment and change of urban
growth boundaries shall be a cooperative process among cities,
counties and, where applicable, regional governments. An urban
growth boundary and amendments to the boundary shall be adopted
by all cities within the boundary and by the County or counties within
which the boundary is located, consistent with intergovernmental
agreements, except for the Metro regional urban growth boundary
established pursuant to ORS chapter 268, which shall be adopted or
amended by the Metropolitan Service District.
Land Need
Establishment and change of urban growth boundaries shall be based
on the following:
1. Demonstrated need to accommodate long -range urban
population, consistent with a 20 -year population forecast
coordinated with affected local governments; and
2. Demonstrated need for housing, employment opportunities,
livability or uses such as public facilities, streets and roads,
schools, parks or open space, or any combination of the need
categories in this subsection (2).
In determining need, local government may specify characteristics,
such as parcel size, topography or proximity, necessary for land to be
suitable for an identified need.
Prior to expanding an urban growth boundary, local governments
shall demonstrate that needs cannot reasonably be accommodated on
land already inside the urban growth boundary. (Emphasis added.)
FINDINGS: The applicant submitted the subject applications in order to provide a location for a
fire training facility for the fire district. This facility ultimately would be located within the city
limits a few blocks southeast of the district's existing fire station on Elm Street and would be
zoned PF. The applicant's burden of proof asserts there is a need for this new fire training facility
and the public facilities land on which it would be located due to a number of changes within the
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 11 of 33
city limits and the fire district's boundaries since the subject property was zoned F -1 and since
the city's last periodic review. These include: 1) a significant increase in the city's population; 2)
an associated increase in demand for fire prevention and protection facilities and services
including training facilities; and 3) the lack of suitable existing PF -zoned land within the city
limits to accommodate the need.
The proposed fire training facility would include a building in which to store a fire engine, a two -
story fire training tower, security fencing, and paved areas. Activities at the facility would
consist of training fire district staff in firefighting and emergency response techniques and use of
equipment to address the types of fires and other emergencies encountered within the district's
boundaries. The proposed facility would not use live fires except for small controlled fires with
flammable liquids. The fire district currently does its training exercises at the back of the existing
fire station on Elm Street, close to residences and other occupied structures, and requiring that a
public street be closed during training exercises.
The applicant's burden of proof states that considering the operational characteristics of the
proposed fire training facility, the city and the fire district identified the following criteria for a
new fire training facility site:
• city or fire district ownership or jurisdictional control of the facility property;
• 3 to 5 acres in size;
• in a location compatible with surrounding land uses;
• served by public infrastructure including paved access and city sewer and water;
• in a location adjacent to the UGB and/or city limits to facilitate urban service
connections; and
• securable to prevent access by the general public.
The Hearings Officer finds these criteria are reasonable in light of the nature of the proposed use.
It is understandable that the city and fire district would require ownership and/or control of the
site so it can secured from access by the general public. And considering the facility's need for
large quantities of water I find it reasonable to specify a 3- to 5- acre site at a location close
enough to existing public facilities so it can be served by city water, but far enough from
dwellings and other occupied buildings and public streets to avoid or minimize potential adverse
impacts.
The applicant's burden of proof states the city examined the following eight alternative sites
zoned PF and within the existing Sisters UGB that were considered potential candidates for the
proposed new training facility in light of these factors:
• Barclay property (53 acres) — owned by the USFS;
• East Portal Triangle property (14.5 acres) — owned by the USFS;
• Old City Hall property (less than 1 acre) — owned by the city;
• Public works property (7 acres) — owned by the city;
• Sisters High School property (90 acres) — owned by the Sisters School District;
• Sisters Junior High School property (40 acres) — owned by the school district;
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 12 of 33
• Village Green Park (1.2 acres) — owned by the city; and
• The combined Sisters School District Administration and Sisters Elementary School
properties — owned by the school district.
The applicant concluded that none of these alternative sites was suitable for the proposed fire
training facility for the reasons discussed in the findings below.
Barclay and East Portal Triangle properties. These parcels currently are being offered for sale
by the USFS as "future development property," the sale proceeds from which would fund
construction of a new headquarters facility for the Sisters Ranger District. The applicant's burden
of proof states the city would not be able to purchase these properties because it cannot compete
on the purchase price with private developers. In addition, the city notes these parcels are located
west of the populated areas of Sisters which therefore would be downwind of any smoke that
might be generated at the fire training facility. The record indicates the prevailing wind is from
the west and northwest.
Old City Hall property. This parcel is less than one acre in size, is developed with a structure
currently being leased by Habitat for Humanity, and is located in the center of the Sisters
downtown area surrounded by residential and commercial uses.
Public Works property. Although this parcel is seven acres in size, the city has identified it as
the site for a public works facility and future expansions thereto, and it is located considerably
further from Locust Street and existing public services making access to city water more
difficult.
Junior and Senior High School properties. These parcels, although they are over 5 acres in
size, already are developed with schools, are owned by the Sisters School District, and are
located west (upwind) of the populated areas of Sisters.
Village Green Park. This property is only 1.2 acres in size, is fully developed with a park, and
is located in the center of Sisters and surrounded by dwellings.
School District Administration and Sisters Elementary School properties. Although these
parcels are over five acres in size, they already are developed with a school administration
building and school, they are located near the center of Sisters, and they are near many dwellings
and commercial buildings and upwind from some.
The staff report states, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that the city's analysis of existing PF-
zoned land within the Sisters UGB demonstrates these properties are not suitable for
development with the proposed fire training facility considering its site requirements and
operating characteristics, and therefore the proposed facility cannot be accommodated on PF-
zoned land already inside the UGB.
Opponents argue the city's alternative sites analysis also should have included industrial -zoned
land within the UGB. In response, the city argued in its October 10, 2008 submission that the
proposed fire training facility is not permitted in the IL Zone for the following reasons:
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 13 of 33
"* * * In fact, the light industrial zone appears to be a poor fit for this use, given
the parameters of uses permitted in this zone.
For comparison's sake, we have listed the uses permitted that are `near fits' to
the training facility use for the IL Light Industrial Zone, and for the PF Public
Facility Zone.
Sisters Development Code, Chapter 2.3, IL Light Industrial Zone, Table 2.3.110A,
subsection 3, lists the uses that appear to be the closest to the fire training facility
use as follows:
a. Government facilities (e.g., public safety, utilities, school district bus
facilities, public works yards, transit and transportation, and similar
facilities,)
b. Utilities (e.g., natural gas, electricity, telephone, cable, and similar
facilities);
c. Special district facilities (e.g., irrigation district, and similar facilities);
d. Uses similar to those listed above.
Table 2.4.110A, Public Facility Zone, Permitted Uses, lists the following uses:
4. Public buildings, structures and /or yards, excluding correctional facilities
7. Public reservoirs, well sites, pump stations, and similar utility buildings or
structures. Sewerage facilities.
8. Public or private schools.
11. Accessory uses and buildings customarily used to support a permitted use
or an approved conditional use (CU).
12. Minor repairs and maintenance to any permitted or conditional use.
14. Public utility maintenance facilities and operation yards with outdoor
storage of materials and supplies (CU). (Emphasis added.)
The training facility may in the future house a fire truck, but will never house
staff and cannot accurately be regarded as a 'public safety' use. Rather, the use
is more of a hybrid of a school that provides specific public safety training
opportunities that are reserved for firefighters and those in related fields. The
applicant believes that the use is clearly better suited, if not exclusively suited, for
land having PF Public Facility zoning."
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 14 of 33
The Hearings Officer finds the use descriptions underscored above in the IL and PF Zones are
quite similar. And I concur with the city that the proposed fire training facility would fall within
the PF Zone use of "public buildings, structures or yards." However, I also agree with opponents
that the proposed facility would fall within the IL Zone use of "government facilities (e.g., public
safety, utilities, school district bus facilities, public works yards, transit and transportation, and
similar facilities)." I am not persuaded by the city's argument that the proposed fire training
facility could not reasonably be considered a "public safety" facility simply because it would not
house firefighters. The training of firefighters clearly is a "public safety" function. And the
description of the "government facilities" use permitted in the IL Zone does not support the
limitation suggested by the city. To the contrary, I find the proposed fire training facility is very
similar to the listed examples of "government facilities." For these reasons, I concur with
opponents that the city erred in not including IL -zoned sites within the UGB in its alternative
sites analysis.
The question is whether there is sufficient evidence in this record and in public records from
which the Hearings Officer can determine whether the proposed fire training facility reasonably
can be accommodated on IL -zoned land in the UGB considering the city's site criteria. I have
examined the official Sisters zoning map published on the city's website. It shows all zoning
districts as well as parcel and /or tax lot boundaries, and shows the city's IL zoning district is
located in the northeast quadrant of the city.
The Hearings Officer finds it is reasonable to assume all parcels in the IL Zone have city water
and sewer service and access to public streets because they are within the city limits. However,
the zoning map shows that only one or possibly two of the IL -zoned tax lots or parcels are at
least 3 acres in size, and therefore only these two IL -zoned parcels would satisfy the city's and
fire district's minimum site size criterion. The zoning map does not indicate whether these two
parcels are in public or private ownership. Assuming they are in public ownership or it is feasible
for the city to acquire them, I find these parcels are located in an area with which fire training
activities — such as the use of large quantities of water and drifting smoke — likely would be
incompatible. These two parcels are surrounded by other smaller IL -zoned parcels as well as
smaller commercial -zoned parcels in the North Sisters Business Park District to the north and the
Sun Ranch Tourist Commercial District to the east. Lands further to the north and south of these
IL -zoned parcels are residential districts. For this reason, I find these two IL -zoned parcels would
not reasonably accommodate the proposed fire training facility considering its operating
characteristics. Finally, I find that because these two parcels are located across town from the
existing fire station on Elm Street, locating the proposed fire training facility on one of these two
parcels would significantly reduce the operating and energy efficiency of the fire training facility
compared with the subject site which is just a few blocks east of the existing fire station.
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the proposed fire training facility cannot
reasonably be accommodated on either PF- or IL -zoned land within the Sisters UGB.
Boundary Location
The location of the urban growth boundary and changes to the
boundary shall be determined by evaluating alternative boundary
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 15 of 33
locations consistent with ORS 197.298 and with consideration of the
following factors:
1. Efficient accommodation of identified land needs;
2. Orderly and economic provision of public facilities and
services;
3. Comparative environmental, energy, economic and social
consequences;
4. Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby
agricultural and forest activities occurring on farm and forest
land outside the UGB.
FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings
Officer has found the proposed fire training facility cannot reasonably be accommodated on PF-
or IL -zoned land within the UGB based on the applicant's alternative sites analysis and my
analysis of IL -zoned land. I find the subject site will efficiently accommodate the proposed use
and will provide orderly and economic provision of public facilities and services because the
site: (a) is adjacent to and will have access from Locust Street, a public street; (b) will be
annexed to the UGB; and (c) it is located close enough to the existing UGB boundary to permit
the economic connection to existing public facilities and services, including city water and sewer
and public streets.
The Hearings Officer also finds the subject site, which is located a considerable distance from
the nearest residential and commercial development, will allow the fire training facility to be
located where it will have minimal if any impact on surrounding land and uses. I also find the
applicant's alternative sites analysis, and my analysis of IL -zoned sites, demonstrate the subject
site is superior to alternative PF- and IL -zoned sites considering comparative environmental,
energy, economic and social consequences. That is because the subject site is located further
from potentially incompatible land uses and closer to the existing fire station. Finally, with
respect to impacts on farm and forest activities, the record indicates the abutting F -1 zoned
property is not engaged in forest activities, and the EFU -zoned parcels in the vicinity of the site,
while engaged in farm use, are sufficiently distant from the site to assure an adequate buffer from
any incompatible uses at the training facility.
Urbanizable Land
Land within urban growth boundaries shall be considered available
for urban development consistent with plans for the provision of
urban facilities and services. Comprehensive plans and implementing
measures shall manage the use and division of urbanizable land to
maintain its potential for planned urban development until
appropriate public facilities and services are available or planned.
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 16 of 33
FINDINGS: Both the city and county have developed comprehensive plans and implementing
ordinances to manage the use and division of urbanizable land to maintain its potential for
planned urban development. These plans and their implementing measures are discussed in the
findings below and with which the Hearings Officer has found the applicant's proposal is
consistent.
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposed UGB expansion to
include the 4 -acre subject site is consistent with Goal 14 and its implementing guidelines and
administrative rule.
D. Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 197, Comprehensive Land Use Planning
Coordination
1. ORS 197.298, Priority of Land To Be Included Within Urban Growth
Boundary
(1)
In addition to any requirements established by rule addressing
urbanization, land may not be included within an urban growth
boundary except under the following priorities;
(a) First priority is land that is designated urban reserve land
under ORS 195.145, rule or metropolitan service district action
plan.
FINDINGS: The record indicates there is no available land within the designated Sisters Urban
Area Reserve that has not already been brought into the UGB, and therefore the Hearings Officer
finds there is no available first- priority land.
(b) If land under paragraph (a) of this subsection is inadequate to
accommodate the amount of land needed, second priority is
land adjacent to an urban growth boundary that is identified
in an acknowledged comprehensive plan as an exception area
or non - resource land. Second priority may include resource
land that is completely surrounded by exception areas unless
such resource land is high -value farmland as described in ORS
215.710.
FINDINGS: The record indicates there are exception areas located outside the UGB consisting
of lands zoned Rural Residential (RR -10) and developed with rural residences and small -scale
farms. In addition, these exception areas abut land within the UGB that is developed with
residential and commercial uses with which the proposed fire training facility could be
incompatible considering its operating characteristics. The applicant argues, and the Hearings
Officer agrees, that for these reasons none of these exception areas is adequate for the proposed
fire training facility. The record indicates there is no resource land adjacent to or near the Sisters
UGB that is completely surrounded by exception areas. Therefore, I find there is no available
second - priority land.
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 17 of 33
(c) If land under paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection is
inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, third
priority is land designated as marginal land pursuant to ORS
197.247 (1991 Edition).
FINDINGS: Deschutes County is not a marginal lands county and therefore the Hearings
Officer finds there is no available third - priority land.
(d) If land under paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection is
inadequate to accommodate the amount of land needed, fourth
priority is land designated in an acknowledged comprehensive
plan for agriculture or forestry or both.
FINDINGS: The subject site is designated and zoned F -1, Forest Land, and therefore the
Hearings Officer finds it constitutes available fourth - priority land.
(2) Higher priority shall be given to land of lower capability as measured
by the capability classification system or by cubic foot site class,
whichever is appropriate for the current use.
FINDING: As discussed in the Findings of Fact above, the record indicates the subject site
consists of two soil types -- Soil Units 47A and 85A.The NRCS data in the record indicate Soil
Unit 85A soil has a woodland productivity classification of 3 and is capable of producing 46
cubic feet per acre per year of wood fiber, and an agricultural capability rating of 6s without
irrigation and no rating with irrigation. Approximately 70% of the subject 4 -acre site is
composed of this soil unit. The NRCS data indicate Soil Unit 47A soil has a woodland
productivity classification of 4 and is capable of producing 69 cubic feet per acre per year of
wood fiber, and an agricultural capability rating of 6c without irrigation and no rating with
irrigation. Approximately 30% of the subject 4 -acre site is composed of this soil.
As discussed above, the Sisters UGB abuts resource land consisting of land zoned F -1 and EFU -
SC. The applicant's burden of proof includes an analysis of the relative farm and forest
capability of following five farm- and forest -zone parcels adjacent to or near the Sisters UGB:
• City -owned land in Section 9 north of the new Public Works facility site zoned F -1 -- a
portion of Tax Lot 1002 on Assessor's Map 15- 10 -09;
• Lazy Z Ranch property zoned EFU -SC — Tax Lot 200 on Map 15- 10 -15;
• Five Pine property zoned F -1 — Tax Lot 1000 on Map 15- 10 -9A;
• BLM property zone EFU -SC— Tax Lot 1000 on Map 15 -10 -9; and
• Leithauser property zoned EFU -SC — Tax Lot 1202 on Map 15 -10 -4.
Each of these parcels is addressed separately in the findings below.5
5
The city also analyzed the McKenzie Meadow Village property. However, the applicant's burden of
proof states that parcel was brought into the Sisters UGB. Therefore it does not constitute resource land.
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 18 of 33
City land in Section 9 north of the Public Works facility (zoned F -1). The city concluded it
would be possible to utilize 4 acres of this land for the proposed fire training facility. However,
the city land consists exclusively of Soil Unit 47A soil which has a higher forestry capability
rating than the Soil Unit 85A soil which is the predominant soil on the subject site (Class 3 vs.
Class 4). Therefore, this land would have higher productivity than the combined soils on the
subject site and consequently would have a lower priority than the subject site for inclusion in
the UGB.
Lazy Z Ranch (zoned EFU -SC). The record indicates the city owns a portion of this property
and therefore theoretically could site the proposed fire training facility here. However, the record
indicates this property is engaged in farm use and the portion owned by the city consists
exclusively of Soil Unit 47A soil which has the same agricultural capability rating without
irrigation — Class 6 — as the subject site. Therefore, the Lazy Z Ranch property would have a
priority for UGB inclusion equal to the subject site.
Five Pine property (zoned F -1). The record indicates this property is privately owned and also
consists exclusively of Class 3 Soil Unit 47A soil. Therefore, this property has a higher forestry
capability rating than does the subject site — which includes both Class 3 and Class 4 soils — and
consequently would have a lower priority than the subject site for inclusion in the UGB.
BLM property (zoned F -1). This property is owned and managed by the BLM, and the record
indicates it consists entirely of Class 4 Soil Unit 85A soil which has a comparable forestry
capability rating to the subject site — which includes both Class 3 and Class 4 soils — and
therefore would have a priority equal to the subject site.
Leithauser property (zoned EFU -SC). This property is in private ownership, and the record
shows it consists of approximately 50 percent Soil Unit 85A soil and approximately 50 percent
Soil Unit 47A soil — roughly equivalent to the subject site — and therefore would have a priority
equal to the subject site for inclusion in the UGB.
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the subject site is of equal or lower
capability than the five F -1 and EFU -zoned parcels adjacent to the Sisters UGB, and therefore
none of those parcels has a higher priority for inclusion in the UGB than the subject 4 -acre site.
(3)
Land of lower priority under subsection (1) of this section may be
included in an urban growth boundary if land of higher priority is
found to be inadequate to accommodate the amount of land estimated
in subsection (1) of this section for one or more of the following
reasons;
(a) Specific types of identified land needs cannot be reasonably
accommodated on higher priority lands;
(b) Future urban services could not be provided to the higher
priority due to topographical or other physical constraints; or,
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 19 of 33
(c) Maximum efficiency of land uses within a proposed urban
growth boundary requires inclusion of lower priority lands in
order to include or to provide services to higher priority lands.
FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings
Officer has found the identified land needed for the proposed fire training facility cannot
reasonably be accommodated on first- through third- priority lands. Among the fourth priority
lands, I have found based on the city's alternative sites analysis and my analysis of IL -zoned
sites within the UGB that the subject site is the site that will best accommodate the proposed
training facility based on the identified site criteria and the facility's operating characteristics. I
also find inclusion of the 4 -acre site in the Sisters UGB will result in the maximum efficiency of
land uses within the UGB by locating the proposed fire training facility adjacent to the existing
UGB where it will have access to a public street and to city water and sewer service.
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant has demonstrated its proposal
satisfies the priorities under ORS 197.298 for inclusion of land in the UGB.
PLAN AMENDMENT STANDARDS
E. PL -16, the Sisters Urban Area Comprehensive Plan 6
1. Part VI. Implementation Programs and Policies
Comprehensive Plan Review Adoption, Amendments
* * * Any changes should be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies
and statements of intent of the plan or these guidelines should first be
changed or amended to reflect the new policies. This should be true of both
changes resulting from periodic Planning Commission review and from
individual petitions. Hearings on plan amendments shall follow the
amendment procedures set forth in the ordinance adopting the Plan. (Plan,
page 108.)
FINDINGS: The applicant proposes to change the plan designation of the subject 4 -acre site
from Forest to Urban Area Reserve. The applicant has identified a number of plan policies as
applicable to the proposed plan amendment. However, the Hearings Officer finds it is necessary
first to determine to what extent these plan policies constitute mandatory approval criteria for
this quasi-judicial plan amendment application. Whether a plan policy constitutes such a
criterion depends not only on the language of the policy but also on the function the plan assigns
to the policy. Von Lubken v. Hood River County, 104 Or App 683, 689, 803 P2d 750 (1990),
adhered to 106 Or App 226, rev den 311 Or 349 (1991). Schellenburg v. Polk County, 21 Or
LUBA 425 (1991).
6
The applicant's burden of proof states, and the Hearings Officer agrees, that the county's comprehensive
plan is not applicable because the applicant proposes to include the subject property within the Sisters
UGB which by intergovernmental agreement is governed by PL -16.
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 20 of 33
The city's comprehensive plan includes the following language describing its purpose:
The comprehensive plan provides the foundation for the planning process by
establishing long -range goals and objectives and by providing, through its various
elements, an integrated view of future public and private development patterns in
the community. It is not the last word, nor is it the first * * *. The comprehensive
plan is not the zoning plan * * *. The plan recommends appropriate uses for
various areas and attempts to provide a maximum range of choice in the urban area
within the limits of community living. (Plan, page 2; emphasis added.)
The plan must be implemented if it is to be of value to the community. It requires
* * * the administration of appropriate codes and ordinances which influence
development * * *. The Comprehensive Plan provides basic guidelines with which
the community can chart a course for change * * *. (Plan, page 3; emphasis added.)
The Comprehensive Plan policies are based on the established general goals and
objectives described in Part III and are supported by adequate findings * * *. The
Plan maps and text are intended as a statement of public policy encompassing
development objectives of and for the urbanizing area of Sisters * * *. (Plan, Page
56; emphasis added.)
In this Hearings Officer's decision approving the UGB amendment that included the 40 -acre
sewage treatment facility site (PA- 00- 5/ZC- 00 -2), I found the above - underscored language
suggests the plan and its policies were intended only to be recommendations and statements of
broad public policy rather than to establish mandatory approval criteria for quasi-judicial land
use applications. Nevertheless, I also found that some plan policies are written in mandatory
terms, suggesting they were intended to be more than mere recommendations or statements of
policy. I found that in the absence of a clear statement in the plan that its policies are not
intended to apply to quasi-judicial plan amendment applications, I must examine each plan
policy identified by the city as applicable in order to determine its applicability. I adhere to that
holding here and review the following plan policies identified by the applicant and planning
staff.
Chapter 4 — Forest Lands (page 30)
Plan Findings:
* * *
2. When forested lands are converted from rural to urban use, or from
Deschutes County to City of Sisters jurisdiction, lands will not be used for
the commercial growing or harvesting of timber. Large -scale forest
management and harvesting practices are not appropriate within the City
limits.
Plan Policies
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 21 of 33
* * *
2. When forest -zoned lands are included in the Sisters UGB, they shall be
rezoned to an appropriate zoning designation that prevents commercial
forestry practices. (Emphasis added.)
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the above - underscored language requiring rezoning of
forest -zoned lands is mandatory in nature. Nevertheless, I find this language does not obviate the
need for the applicant also to demonstrate compliance with the applicable zone change criteria
discussed in the findings below. The applicant proposes to redesignate and rezone the subject 4-
acre site to Urban Area Reserve and UAR -10, respectively, which do not allow commercial
forest practices. In addition, following annexation of the subject site into the Sisters city limits
the site would be rezoned to PF which also does not allow commercial forestry operations.
Therefore, I find the applicant's proposal is consistent with this plan policy.
Chapter 7 — Natural Disasters (page 37)
Plan Goal:
To protect people and property from natural hazards.
Plan Policies
* * *
4. Portions of the City are contiguous with National Forest lands and are at risk
from forest fires.
5. Sisters /Camp Sherman Rural Fire Protection District provides fire
protection and emergency services to the City.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer concludes these findings simply identify current conditions
and therefore do not establish approval criteria.
Chapter 14 — Urbanization (page 93)
Policies
1. The City shall promote development within the UGB to minimize the cost of
providing public services and infrastructure and to protect resource land
outside the UGB.
* * *
3. The Urban Growth Boundary is the official area for which to plan all land
uses, public facilities, and annexations.
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 22 of 33
4. The City shall provide for an orderly and efficient conversion of urbanizable
land to urban land, the City will manage the UGB to maintain the potential
for planned urban development on urbanizable lands.
5. The establishment and change of the Urban Growth Boundary shall be based
upon considerations of the following factors:
a. Demonstrated need to accommodate long -range urban population
growth requirements consistent with LCDC goals;
b. Need for housing, employment opportunities, and livability;
c. Orderly and economic provision for public facilities and services;
d. Maximum efficiency of land uses within and on the fringe of the
existing urban area;
e. Environmental, energy, economic and social consequences;
f. Retention of agricultural land as defined, with Class I being the
highest priority for retention and Class VI the lowest priority; and
g.
Compatibility of the proposed urban uses with nearby agricultural
activities.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds Policy 3 simply states broad planning policy and does
not establish an approval criterion for the proposed plan amendment. I find Policies 1 and 4 are
written in mandatory terms and require that development within the UGB be provided with
adequate public facilities and services. For the reasons discussed in the findings above,
incorporated by reference herein, I find inclusion of the subject 4 -acre site within the Sisters
UGB will be consistent with these policies because the site is adjacent to the existing UGB and
will have access to a public street (Locust Street) and to city water and sewer. I find Policy 5,
while including mandatory language, merely requires consideration of the listed factors in
changing the UGB. As discussed in detail in the findings below, these factors have been
considered extensively in determining the proposal's compliance with Goal 14 and its guidelines
and implementing administrative rules.
For the foregoing reasons, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal satisfies the
applicable plan amendment criteria in the city's comprehensive plan.
ZONE CHANGE STANDARDS
F. Title 21 of the Deschutes County Code, the Sisters Urban Area Zoning Ordinance
1. Chapter 21.72, Amendments
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 23 of 33
This title may be amended by changing the boundaries of districts, or by
changing any other provisions thereof as set forth in this chapter * * *.
a. Section 21.72.020, Standards for Zone Change
The burden of proof is upon the applicant. The applicant shall in all
cases establish:
1. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS: The applicant proposes to change the zoning of the subject property from F -1 to
UAR -10. The burden of proof states that once the site is annexed to the city it will be rezoned to
PF. As discussed in the findings above, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings Officer
has found the applicant's proposal is consistent with applicable policies in the city's
comprehensive plan. Therefore, I find the applicant's proposed zone change satisfies this
approval criterion.
2. Conformance with all applicable statutes.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer has found the applicant's proposal is consistent with the
provisions of ORS 197.298 governing the priorities for inclusion of land within a UGB. No other
statutes have been identified as applicable. Based on my previous findings under ORS 197.298,
incorporated by reference herein, I find the applicant's proposal satisfies this zone change
approval criterion.
3. Conformance with Statewide Planning Goals wherever they
are determined to be applicable.
FINDINGS: The proposal's conformance with Goal 14 is discussed in the findings above.
Compliance with the remaining applicable statewide planning goals is discussed in the findings
below. The Hearings Officer has found the applicant's proposal is consistent with all applicable
goals. Therefore, I find the applicant's proposal satisfies this zone change approval criterion.
4. That there is a public need for a change of the kind in question.
FINDINGS: As discussed in the findings above, the applicant argues the city and the fire district
have identified a need for the proposed zone change because of the need for a new fire training
facility, and have entered into an intergovernmental agreement through which the city will
provide land within the city limits for such a facility. Training of fire district firefighters now
takes place behind the existing Sisters fire station close to residences and other occupied
structures near downtown Sisters and requiring closure of a public street during training
exercises.
According to the applicant's burden of proof and the public hearing testimony of Ryan Karjala,
firefighters require training and practice in extricating victims from structures and vehicles,
pulling hoses in simulated structure and wildland fires, accomplishing forced entry through a
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 24 of 33
metal door, and firefighting on multiple levels of a structure. Although generally only small
controlled live fires are involved in the training, large quantities of water would be used. And in
order to provide an adequate and appropriate setting for the necessary training, the facility would
require a two -story fire training tower as well as space to store a fire engine and a means of
securing the site from general public access. The fire district and the city have determined a four -
acre parcel is necessary to assure sufficient space for the training facility. And they have
identified the subject site as an appropriate location because it has access to a public street as
well as city water and sewer services, it is a considerable distance from the closest residences
and other occupied structures, and closure of public streets would not be required for training
activities.
Opponents argue the city and fire district have not demonstrated a need for the proposed training
facility. In particular, they argue the city did not adequately consider the option of sharing a
training facility with another fire department or district, or the additional burden on Sisters
taxpayers from establishing a new training facility. In response to opponents' shared facility
argument, the applicant stated in its October 10, 2008 submission:
"* * * the city believes that the cost efficiency proposed by Mr. Francis (sharing
other facilities owned by other jurisdictions) would be cost inefficient given the
high costs of fuel that would be used in taking 5 trucks /3 days per week, to either
Redmond or Bend for training exercises, and to the additional hour per person
per training day that would be spent in transit. According to a conversation with
Shift Commander Gary Lovegren of the Sisters /Camp Sherman Fire District,
emergency vehicles used by the Fire District on average get between 6 and 10
miles to the gallon depending on the truck, the terrain, and the response code
which dictates speeds traveled by the District. Taking the average of 8 miles to
the gallon and assuming $4.00 /gallon of fuel, each trip to either Redmond or
Bend would use $20 of fuel per round trip. Adding cost of each employee (one
hour travel time) adds to the overall cost of using another jurisdiction's facility,
coupled with the fact that the Fire District would be remiss in sending its team out
of the area, thus leaving little or no coverage in the event of an emergency.
Conversely, the travel distance between the Sisters /Camp Sherman Fire Station
and the [proposed] training facility is less than a mile."
The applicant also questioned the relevance of opponents' fiscal impact argument to the
applicable approval criteria for a zone change.
The Hearings Officer finds the comparative fiscal impact and cost /staff efficiency analyses
involved in evaluating competing methods for providing public facilities and services are
inherently the sort of policy decisions made by cities, counties and service districts, and within
their special expertise and purview. Therefore, I find it is not appropriate for me to second -guess
such policy decisions in these proceedings. I find that for purposes of this zone change approval
criterion the city and fire district have submitted substantial, credible evidence from which I can
find there is a need for a fire training facility on a site other than the existing fire station on Elm
Street, and that the subject site will be of adequate size, will accommodate the facility's unique
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 25 of 33
operating characteristics, and will be at a location that will not require the closure of a public
street and will be sufficiently distant from dwellings and other occupied buildings to preclude
incompatibility with such uses.?
5. That the need will be best served by changing the classification
of the particular piece of property in question as compared
with other available property.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds that for purposes of this approval criterion "other
available property" means the alternative sites zoned PF and IL, analyzed by the applicant and
the Hearings Officer, and discussed in the findings above. I have found the applicant's
alternative sites analysis and my analysis of IL -zoned land indicate there are no lands within the
Sisters UGB, or nonresource or lower - priority resource land outside the UGB, that reasonably
can accommodate the proposed fire training facility. For the reasons set forth in those findings,
incorporated by reference herein, I find the applicant has demonstrated the need for the fire
training facility will best be served by including the subject 4 -acre site in the Sisters UGB.
6. That there is proof of a change of circumstances or a mistake
in the original zoning.
FINDINGS:
1. Mistake. The Hearings Officer finds there was no mistake in the original F -1 zoning of the
subject property. As discussed above, it is part of a large forested parcel previously owned and
managed by the USFS as part of the Deschutes National Forest. It is located outside the Sisters
UGB and is composed of soils capable of producing wood fiber, and no exception to the
statewide planning goals previously was taken for the property to change its resource
designation.
2. Change of Circumstances. The applicant argues the proposed zone change from F -1 to UAR-
10 is justified by changes of circumstance. Specifically, the applicant asserts that at the time the
subject property was zoned F -1 the city did not foresee the need for additional PF -zoned land in
general, or for a fire training facility in particular. The applicant's burden of proof suggests the
city contemplated that the PF -zoned land owned by the USFS and located on the west side of
Sisters would be available for public facilities uses, but recently learned that the USFS intends to
market and sell this PF -zoned property for other types of potential development in order to raise
sufficient funds to build a new Sisters Ranger District compound. In addition, the Hearings
Officer is aware the Sisters population has nearly doubled since the city developed its sewage
treatment facility. The applicant argues, and I agree, that this dramatic increase in population has
created a similar increased need for public facilities and services including fire prevention and
protection. I find these factors constitute changes of circumstance justifying the development of a
new fire training facility on the subject site, as well as the proposed zone change from F -1 to
UAR -10, in order to bring the site into the UGB for future annexation and rezoning to PF.
7
If the citizens of Sisters believe the cost and efficacy of providing a new fire training facility on the
subject site do not justify the site's annexation into the city, they will not vote to approve the annexation.
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 26 of 33
Therefore, I find the applicant's proposal satisfies this criterion.
7. That annexation to the City of Sisters will accompany the zone
change.
FINDINGS: At the public hearing, the applicant's representative testified the city intends to
annex the subject 4 -acre site by placing the annexation on the May 2009 election ballot. The
applicant argues, and the Hearings Officer concurs, that the requirement of this section will be
met by imposition of a condition of approval that the board adopt a resolution of intent to rezone
pursuant to Section 18.136.030 and requiring annexation, as discussed in the findings below.
G. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer has found the proposed zone change is subject to the
approval criteria in Title 21. However, because the proposed zone change, if approved, would
leave a remainder parcel within the county zoned F -1, I find certain provisions of Chapter 18.12
of the county code also may be applicable, as discussed in the findings below.
1. Chapter 18.12, Establishment of Zones
a. Section 18.12.020, Location of Zones
The boundaries for the zones listed in DCC Title 18 are indicated on
the Deschutes County Zoning Map which is hereby adopted by
reference. The boundaries shall be modified subject to zoning map
amendments which shall be adopted by reference.
b. Section 18.12.040, Zone Boundaries
Unless otherwise specified, zone boundaries are section lines,
subdivision lines, lot lines, center lines of street or railroad rights of
way, water courses, ridges, or rimrocks, other readily recognizable or
identifiable natural features, or the extension of such lines. Whenever
uncertainty exists as to the boundary of a zone as shown on the zoning
map or amendment thereto, the following rules shall apply:
* * *
C. If a zone boundary as shown on the zoning map divides a lot or
parcel between two zones, the entire lot or parcel shall be
deemed to be in the zone in which the greater area of the lot or
parcel lies, provided that this adjustment involves a distance
not exceeding 100 feet from the mapped zone boundary. DCC
Title 18 does not apply to areas zoned flood plain. (Emphasis
added.)
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the provisions of Section 18.12.040 were adopted for
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 27 of 33
the purpose of determining the location of existing zoning district boundaries when there is doubt
or confusion about their locations. I also find the above - underscored language appears to reflect
a policy against so- called "split zoning" where a single lot or parcel has more than one zone.
However, this section does not appear to prohibit split zoning. Moreover, the county previously
permitted the rezoning of portions of Section 9 for the sewage treatment facility site and the
public works field storage site. I find these actions suggest that any policy against split zoning
does not apply in cases involving UGB amendments.
2. Chapter 18.136, Amendments
a. Section 18.136.030, Resolution of Intent to Rezone
A. If from the facts presented and findings and the report and
recommendations of the Hearings Officer, as required by this
section, the County Commission determines that the public
health, safety, welfare and convenience will be best served by a
proposed change of zone, the County Commission may indicate
its general approval in principal of the proposed rezoning by
the adoption of a "resolution of intent to rezone." This
resolution shall include any conditions, stipulations or
limitations which the County Commission may feel necessary
to require in the public interest as a prerequisite to final action,
including those provisions that the County Commission may
feel necessary to prevent speculative holding of property after
rezoning. Such a resolution shall not be used to justify "spot
zoning" or to create unauthorized zoning categories by
excluding uses otherwise permitted in the proposed zoning.
B. The fulfillment of all conditions, stipulations and limitations
contained in the resolution on the part of the applicant shall
make such a resolution a binding commitment on the Board of
County Commissioners. Upon completion of compliance action
by the applicant, the board shall, by ordinance, effect such
rezoning. The failure of the applicant to substantially meet any
or all conditions, stipulations or limitations contained in a
resolution of intent, including any time limit placed in the
resolution, shall render the resolution null and void
automatically and without notice, unless an extension is
granted by the board.
FINDINGS: In order to establish the proposed fire training facility two events first must take
place — i.e., annexation of the site into the Sisters city limits, and rezoning the site from UAR -10
to PF. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds this is an appropriate case in which to recommend
that the board approve the proposed zone change through a resolution of intent to rezone. The
resolution would be contingent on: (1) the city's providing the county with documentation of a
favorable vote on annexation of the subject property; and (2) the city's execution of an
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 28 of 33
intergovernmental agreement with the county whereby the city would agree to rezone the site to
PF and to limit uses permitted on the site to the fire training facility. Accordingly, I find approval
of the applicant's proposal will be conditioned on a recommendation that the board adopt such a
resolution of intent to rezone.
OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE RULE AND GOAL COMPLIANCE
H. OAR 660 -012, Transportation Planning Rule
1. OAR 660 -12 -060, Plan and Land Use Regulation Amendments
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this administrative rule — the Transportation Planning
Rule (TPR) -- is applicable because the applicant proposes a plan amendment from Forest to
Urban Reserve and a zone change from F -1 to UAR -10.
(1) Amendments to functional plans, acknowledged comprehensive plans,
and land use regulations which significantly affect a transportation
facility shall assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the
identified function, capacity, and level of service of the facility. This
shall be accomplished by either:
(a) Limiting allowed land uses to be consistent with the planned
function, capacity and level of service of the transportation
facility;
(b) Amending the TSP [Transportation System Plan] to provide
transportation facilities adequate to support the proposed land
uses consistent with the requirements of this division; or
(c) Altering land use designations, densities, or design
requirements to reduce demand for automobile travel and
meet travel needs through other modes.
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;
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the proposed plan amendment and zone change, in and
of themselves, will not affect transportation facilities. However, if approved they would facilitate
development of a fire training facility on the subject property site that will generate additional
vehicle traffic on Locust Street from the fire district employee vehicles that will travel to the
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 29 of 33
facility on a periodic basis. However, I find the applicant's proposal will not change either the
functional classification or standards implementing the functional classification of Locust Street.
The record indicates it will remain a designated local street.
(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 level of service of the facility below the
minimum acceptable level identified in the TSP.
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds these two standards focus on the impact of the proposed
plan amendment and zone change on the actual function of Locust Street. The record includes a
"trip generation letter" dated September 19, 2008 from Brad Grimm, Sisters Public Works
Director. The letter states the existing sewage treatment facility generates 44 average daily
vehicles trips (ADTs) on Locust Street by facility employees, and that according to Ryan Karjala
of the fire district the new fire training facility would generate up to 10 ADTs three days per
week and up to 30 ADTs on weekend days. I find the addition of this minimal amount of traffic
on Locust Street will not result in levels of travel inconsistent with the street's functional
classification, reduce the level of service below the minimum acceptable level identified in the
Sisters TSP for a local street, or exceed the capacity of Locust Street. For these reasons, I find
the applicant's proposal conforms with the TPR because it will not significantly affect a
transportation facility.
(3) Determinations under section (1) and (2) of this rule shall be
coordinated with affected transportation facility and service providers
and other affected local governments.
FINDINGS: The county's senior transportation planner Peter Russell and the county's road
department commented on the applicant's proposal. The road department noted that Locust
Street is a city street over which the county does not have jurisdiction. Mr. Russell stated that in
his opinion the minimal additional traffic generated by the proposed fire training facility will not
significantly affect Locust Street. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds this portion of the TPR
has been satisfied.
I. OAR 660 -015, Statewide Planning Goals
FINDINGS: The applicant proposes an amendment to the comprehensive plan. Therefore, the
Hearings Officer finds the applicant must demonstrate the proposal is consistent with applicable
statewide planning goals. I make the following findings concerning compliance with the goals.
1. Goal 1, Citizen Involvement
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal is consistent with this goal
because the county has provided opportunities for public comment and involvement in the
proposed new training facility and public facilities land on which to locate it. I held a public
hearing on the subject applications and a public hearing or meeting will be held by the board
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 30 of 33
before the plan amendment and zone change can be approved. Owners of record of property
located within 750 feet of the subject property received individual written notice of the proposal
and the initial public hearing, and the initial public hearing also was noticed through publication
in the "Bend Bulletin" newspaper and by posting the subject property.
2. Goal 2, Land Use Planning
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal is consistent with this goal
because it has been reviewed under the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance as well
as the county code, and public hearings have been conducted in accordance with the county's
procedures ordinance.
3. Goal 3, Agricultural Lands
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this goal is not applicable because the subject site is not
designated or zoned for agriculture.
4. Goal 4, Forest Lands
FINDINGS: The subject property is designated and zoned for forest use. As discussed in the
findings above, the Hearings Officer has found no exception to Goal 4 is required in order to
include the subject site in the Sisters UGB. Therefore, I find the applicant's proposal is
consistent with this goal.
5. Goal 5, Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Area and Natural Resources
FINDINGS: This goal requires the county to inventory and protect significant scenic, historic
and natural resources. The record indicates the subject property does not have any inventoried
Goal 5 resources. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the proposal is consistent with this goal.
6. Goal 6, Air, Water and Land Resources Quality
FINDINGS: Goal 6 requires the county and city to protect air and water quality. The Hearings
Officer finds the applicant's proposal is consistent with this goal because the plan amendment
and zone change will have no effect on water or land resources quality, and any impact on air or
water quality from the proposed fire training facility ultimately developed on the subject site will
be addressed through future zone change and land use permit proceedings conducted by the city.
7. Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards
FINDINGS: The record indicates there are no identified natural disasters or hazards on the site.
Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds this goal is not applicable.
8. Goal 8, Recreational Needs
FINDINGS: The applicants do not propose to use the subject property for a destination resort or
other recreational uses. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal is
consistent with this goal.
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 31 of 33
9. Goal 9, Economic Development
FINDINGS: This goal requires the county and city to provide adequate opportunities for a
variety of economic activities. As discussed in the findings above, the proposed fire training
facility would allow fire district staff to train in an adequate and appropriate facility in order to
meet the increasing need in Sisters and surrounding areas for fire prevention and protection
services. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal will serve urban - density
development within the Sisters city limits and UGB, which includes a variety of commercial and
industrial uses. Therefore, I find the applicant's proposal is consistent with this goal.
10. Goal 10, Housing
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds this goal is not applicable because the applicant's
proposal would neither create housing opportunities nor remove land from the city's inventory of
building residential land.
11. Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services
FINDINGS: This goal requires the city and county to plan and develop an orderly arrangement
of public facilities and services for urban and rural development. Inclusion of the 4 -acre site
within the Sisters UGB will facilitate the construction of a fire training facility for the fire district
that will increase and improve fire prevention and protection services for the city and
surrounding land within the district's boundaries. Therefore, the Hearings Officer finds the
applicant's proposal is consistent with this goal.
12. Goal 12, Transportation
FINDINGS: This goal is implemented through the TPR, discussed in detail in the findings
above. For the reasons set forth in those findings, incorporated by reference herein, the Hearings
Officer finds the applicant's proposal is consistent with the rule and therefore satisfies Goal 12.
13. Goal 13, Energy Conservation
FINDINGS: This goal requires the city and county to give priority in land use planning to the
efficient utilization of energy. The Hearings Officer finds the applicant's proposal is consistent
with this goal because it would allow the subject site to be developed with a fire training facility
within the Sisters UGB and ultimately within the city limits, facilitating energy conservation by
locating this facility close to the existing Sisters fire station and the population it serves.
14. Goal 14, Urbanization
FINDINGS: This goal requires the city and county to assure their land use planning will provide
for the orderly and efficient transition from rural to urban land uses. This goal is applicable
because the applicant's proposal would result in bringing rural resource land into the Sisters
UGB for urban development. As discussed in detail in the findings above, the Hearings Officer
has found the applicant has demonstrated a need for a new fire training facility in order to
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 32 of 33
provide increased and improved training for firefighters serving the city and the surrounding area
located within the fire district's boundaries. I have found the applicant has demonstrated the
proposed site is suitable and appropriate for conversion from impacted forest land — currently
identified for use as an effluent dispersal area for the city's wastewater treatment facility — to a
site for fire training. For the reasons set forth in the findings above concerning Goal 14's
guidelines and implementing administrative rules, incorporated by reference herein, I find the
applicant's proposal satisfies Goal 14.
15. Goals 15 through 19
FINDINGS: The Hearings Officer finds these goals are not applicable to this proposal because
they address river, ocean, and marine resources not located on or near the subject property.
IV. DECISION:
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearings Officer hereby
APPROVES the applicant's proposal to expand the Sisters UGB to include the subject site, to
change the subject site's plan designation from Forest to Urban Reserve, and to change the
subject site's zone from F -1 to UAR -10, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL SET FORTH BELOW.
1. This approval is conditioned on adoption by the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners of a resolution of intent to rezone the subject site from F -1 to UAR -10.
The resolution would make rezoning the subject site contingent on the city submitting to
the county documentation of annexation of the subject site, and the city's execution of an
intergovernmental agreement with the county whereby the city agrees to rezone the site
to PF following annexation and to limit uses permitted on the site to the fire training
facility.
2. The city shall submit to the Planning Division a metes - and - bounds description of the
subject site.
Dated this day of December, 2008.
Mailed this day of December, 2008.
Karen H. Green, Hearings Officer
Under Section 22.28.030(A) of the county's land use procedures ordinance, because this decision
involves a proposed plan amendment and zone change this application also must be approved by
the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners.
Sisters UGB
PA- 08- 2/ZC.08- 2/MA -08 -8
Page 33 of 33
