HomeMy WebLinkAboutZone Change - NE of McGrath Rd - ReidJTESC
wG 2�
❑ -t
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board Business Meeting of December 31, 2007
Please see directions for completing this document on the next page.
DATE: December 4, 2007
FROM: Will Groves CDD - Planning 388-6518
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
A work session in advance of a de novo hearing on a proposed zone change from Exclusive Farm U,e
Alfalfa (EFU-AL) to Exclusive Farm Use Tumalo/Redmond/Bend (EFU-TRB) for a 40 -acre portio1 of
a 73.58 -acre parcel located northeast of McGrath Road east of Bend.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? No.
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The applicant requests approval of a zone change from EFU-AL to EFU-TRB for a 40 -acre portion )f a
73.58 -acre parcel located northeast of McGrath Road east of Bend.
The applicant's property was split into two different EFU subzones under Ordinance 92-063.
The Hearings Officer concluded that the split zoning of this property was a mistake. Ideally, zone
boundaries should not divide legal lots of record or a single use, in this case an irrigated field, unles
that division represents the boundary where some salient characteristic of the land or land use chant es.
The Hearings Officer concluded that split zoning was assigned to this property because it was
expeditious to use the section line to divide the Alfalfa and Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzones when
detailed information about this property and its use were not included in the record for Ordinance 92-
063.
The Hearings Officer approved the zone change in a decision dated November 14, 2007.
Under 22.28.030(C) zone changes concerning lands designated for farm 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.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None.
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Work session.
ATTENDANCE: BOCC, Legal, Will Groves
DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS:
BOCC, Legal, Will Groves
V Me
FILE NUMBER: ZC-07-5
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or,us/cdd/
STAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE: September 10, 2007 at 6:30 P.M. in the Barnes and Sawyer rooms of the
Deschutes Services Building located at 1300 NW Wall Street in Bend.
LOCATION: The subject property is identified as Tax Lot 12300 on Deschutes
County Assessor's map #16-12-00 and Tax Lot 400 on Deschutes
County Assessor's Map #16-12-26A.
APPLICANT/OWNER: Randall Reid
21598 Morrill Road
Bend, OR 97701
AGENT: Heidi Kennedy, KCS LLC
64180 Old Bend -Redmond Highway
Bend, OR 97701
Liz Fancher
644 NW Broadway Street
Bend, OR 97701
REQUEST: An application for a zone change from Exclusive Farm Use — Alfalfa
subzone to Exclusive Farm Use — Terrebonne/Redmond/Bend subzone.
STAFF CONTACT: Will Groves, Senior Planner
I. APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
A. Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning.
1. Chapter 18.136, Amendments
B. Title 23 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan
1. Chapter 23.88, Agricultural Lands
* Section 23.88.030, Zoning Policies
C. Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660
1. Division 12, Transportation Planning
2. Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
3. Division 33, Agricultural Lands
ZC-07-5 Page 1 of 13
Quality Services Performed with Pride
II. BASIC FINDINGS:
A. LOCATION: The subject property is identified as tax lot 12300 on Deschutes County
Assessor's map #16-12-00 and tax lot 400 on Deschutes County Assessor's Map #16-12-
26A.
B. LOT OF RECORD: The two tax Tots, together, form one legal lot of record as
determined by lot line adjustment approval LL -06-126.
C. ZONING: The subject property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use — Alfalfa subzone (EFU-
AL) on the tax lot 12300 portion of the property and Exclusive Farm Use —
Tumalo/Redmond/Bend (EFU-TRB) on the tax lot 400 portion of the property.
D. PROPOSAL: The applicants are proposing a zone change to change the subzone
designation of tax lot 12300 from Exclusive Farm Use — Alfalfa subzone to Exclusive
Farm Use — Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzone.
The applicant is asking to change the sub -zone designation of Tax Lot 12300 from the
Alfalfa subzone to the Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzone so that the entire legal lot of
record, tax lots 400 and 12300, together, will be located in the same subzone.
E. TAX LOT 12300 SITE DESCRIPTION: The portion of the property involving this application
request is approximately 40 -acres in size and square in shape. The parcel's topography is
relatively flat and the applicant is currently irrigating 13.76 acres in the western portion of the
parcel. The remainder of the parcel is comprised of native vegetation with scattered juniper
trees. There is no structure on the parcel. The applicant has not provided a site description
of the entire farm on both tax lots including uses and total irrigated acres. Staff recommends
that the Hearings Officer request this information.
F. SURROUNDING LAND USES: The land to the north and east of Tax Lot 12300
consists of juniper trees and native vegetation with no irrigated lands visible and no
apparent structures or few structures. There are two large parcels of land directly to the
east and southeast of the subject property that are owned by the Federal Government.
These parcels are zoned Exclusive Farm Use — Alfalfa subzone. These parcels have no
irrigation activity and, as mentioned above, consist of scattered juniper trees. This
Federal land also abuts the southern boundary of Tax Lot 12300. Farther to the south,
the land is zoned MUA-10 and contains an established residential subdivision named
Boonesborough. To the west and northwest, between the subject parcel and the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad line, the parcels are a mixture of irrigated and non-
irrigated lands. All of the lands directly to the west and northwest of Tax Lot 12300 are
zoned Exclusive Farm Use — Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzone.
G. SOILS: There are two distinct types of soil located on the tax lot 12300 portion of the
subject property. The western portion of the property contains soil type 57B — Gosney
stony loam sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes and the eastern portion contains soil type 59C —
Gosney —Rock outcrop-Deskamp complex, dry, 0-15 percent slopes. Details of tax lot
12300 soils are listed below:
57B — Gosney stony loam sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes: This soil covers an estimated
40% of the subject parcel. The soil is comprised of 85% Gosney soil and similar
ZC-07-5 Page 2 of 13
inclusions and 15% contrasting inclusions. The Gosney soils are somewhat excessively
drained, with rapid permeability. Available water capacity is about 1 inch. The major
use for this soil type is livestock grazing. This soil type is rated 7e when irrigated and 4e
when irrigated. Since the portion of the property with soil 57B is irrigated, this soil
constitutes "Agricultural Land" under Goal 3.
59C — Gosney-Rock outcrop-Deskamp complex, dry, 0 to 15 percent slopes: This
soil covers approximately 60% of the subject property. Generally, this soil classification
is comprised of 50% Gosney soil and similar inclusions, 25% rock outcrop, 20%
Deskamp soil and similar inclusions and 5% contrasting inclusions. Both the Deskamp
and Gosney soils are somewhat excessively drained, with rapid permeability. The
Deskamp soils are somewhat excessively drained, with rapid permeability. Available
water capacity is about 3 inches. The major use for this soil type is livestock grazing and
irrigated cropland. Table 1, below, shows the component soil types of the Gosney-Rock
outcrop-Deskamp complex and their respective classes.
Tablet
Soil Type
Unirrigated Class
Irrigated Class
Percent
Gosney
7e
4e
50
Rock Outcrop
8s
na
25
Deskamp
6e
3e
20
Under Goal 3, soils with classifications 6 and lower constitute agricultural lands. Since
the portion of the property with soil 59C is not irrigated, only the Deskamp areas of this
complex constitute "Agricultural Land" under Goal 3. A site-specific soil survey has not
been provided for the property, so Staff is uncertain in what relative proportion these
soils of this complex are represented on the subject property.
G. BACKGROUND: The applicant has stated a desire to perform a non-farm partition and
establish of a non-farm dwelling on tax lot 12300 on Deschutes County Assessor's map
#16-12-00 and tax lot 400 on Deschutes County Assessor's Map #16-12-26A. An
irrigated land division would require that the applicant have either 23 irrigated acres of
EFU-TRB zoned lands or 36 acres of EFU-AL zoned land. Since the applicant's
irrigated acreage is split between two zones, the applicant lacks sufficient irrigated
acreage in either zone to perform such a division. By unifying the irrigated acreage in
one zone, the applicant could potentially perform such a division. Any such division
would require future land use action and is not included in this proposal.
H. AGENCY COMMENTS: The Planning Division sent notice of the proposed height
exception to several public agencies and received the following comments:
1 Deschutes County Assessor: Currently under deferral.
The following received notice, but did not respond or returned no comment responses:
Deschutes County Property Address Coordinator, Deschutes county Environmental
Health, Deschutes County Road Department, Watermaster, and Deschutes County
Transportation Planner.
I. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division sent notice of the proposed farm dwelling
to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property. The applicant has
complied with the posted notice requirements of Section 22.24.030(B) of Title 22. Notice
ZC-07-5 Page 3 of 13
of the proposed zone change was published in the Bend Bulletin. No response to the
notice was received.
III. CONCLUSIONARY FINDINGS:
TITLE 18 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE, ZONING ORDINANCE
A. CHAPTER 18.136, AMENDMENTS.
1. Section 18.16.020, Rezoning Standards.
The applicant for a quasi-judicial rezoning must establish that the
public interest is best served by rezoning the property. Factors to be
demonstrated by the applicant are:
A. That the change conforms to the Comprehensive Plan, and the
change is consistent with the plan's introductory statement and goals.
FINDING: The meaning of zoning ordinance "plan conformance" approval criteria such
as this one has been the subject of considerable discussion in recent LUBA decisions.
Comprehensive plan statements, goals and policies typically are not intended to, and do
not, constitute mandatory approval criteria for quasi-judicial land use permit applications.
Save Our Skyline v. City of Bend, 48 Or LUBA 192 (2004). There, LUBA held:
"As intervener correctly points out, local and statutory requirements that
land use decisions be consistent with the comprehensive plan do not
mean that all parts of the comprehensive plan necessarily are approval
standards. [Citations omitted.] Local governments and this Board have
frequently considered the text and context of cited parts of the
comprehensive plan and concluded that the alleged comprehensive plan
standard was not an applicable approval standard. [Citations omitted.]
Even if the comprehensive plan includes provisions that can operate as
approval standards, those standards are not necessarily relevant to all
quasi-judicial land use permit applications. [Citation omitted.] Moreover,
even if a plan provision is a relevant standard that must be considered,
the plan provision might not constitute a separate mandatory approval
criterion, in the sense that it must be separately satisfied, along with any
other mandatory approval criteria, before the application can be
approved. Instead, that plan provision, even if it constitutes a relevant
standard, may represent a required consideration that must be balanced
with other relevant considerations. [Citations omitted.]"
LUBA went on to hold in Save Our Skyline that it is appropriate to "consider first whether the
comprehensive plan itself expressly assigns a particular role to some or all of the plan's
goals and policies." Section 23.08.020 of the county's comprehensive plan provides as
follows:
The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan for Deschutes County is
not to provide a site-specific identification of the appropriate land uses
which may take place on a particular piece of land but rather it is to
consider the significant factors which affect or are affected by development
ZC-07-5 Page 4 of 13
in the County and provide a general guide to the various decisions which
must be made to promote the greatest efficiency and equity possible, while
managing the continuing growth and change of the area. Part of that
process is identification of an appropriate land use plan, which is then
interpreted to make decisions about specific sites (most often in zoning
and subdivision administration) but the plan must also consider the
sociological, economic and environmental consequences of various
actions and provide guidelines and policies for activities which may have
effects beyond physical changes of the land. (Emphasis added.)
The above -underscored language strongly suggests the County's plan statements, goals
and policies are not intended to establish approval standards for quasi-judicial land use
permit applications.
In Bothman v. City of Eugene, 51 Or LUBA 426 (2006), LUBA found it appropriate also
to review the language of specific plan policies to determine whether and to what extent
they may in fact establish decisional standards. The policies at issue in that case
included those ranging from aspirational statements to planning directives to the city to
policies with language providing "guidance for decision-making" with respect to specific
rezoning proposals. In Bothman LUBA concluded the planning commission erred in not
considering in a zone change proceeding a plan policy requiring the city to "[r]ecognize
the existing general office and commercial uses located * * * [in the geographic area
including the subject property] and discourage future rezonings of these properties."
LUBA held that:
"* * * even where a plan provision might not constitute an
independently applicable mandatory approval criterion, it may
nonetheless represent a relevant and necessary consideration that must
be reviewed and balanced with other relevant considerations, pursuant to
ordinance provisions that require * * * consistency with applicable plan
provisions."(Emphasis added.)
The County's comprehensive plan includes a large number of goals and policies. The
applicant's burden of proof addresses applicable goals for Citizen Involvement; Land Use
Planning; Agricultural Lands; Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality; and Transportation.
These goals are aspirational in nature and therefore are not intended to create decision
standards for the proposed zone change.
The goal of the Agricultural Lands section of the Deschutes County Comprehensive plan
is as follows:
23.88.020. Goal.
To preserve and maintain agricultural land.
The applicant is proposing to maintain the Exclusive Farm Use zoning designation on
the subject parcel. Most of the subject property contains nonagricultural soils. The
same amount of agricultural soil on the property will be preserved and maintained by the
continued application of an exclusive farm use zone to the property.
The introductory statement of the Agricultural Lands chapter of the Comprehensive Plan
highlights the unique conditions that face agricultural production in Central Oregon and
ZC-07-5 Page 5 of 13
the need to preserve agricultural lands as "an important economic element of the
County'. Specifically, the statement notes the seven subzones that define lands zoned
as Exclusive Farm Use by the County.
The introductory statements of DCC 23.88.010 describes the process by which the
seven subzones of Exclusive Farm Use zoning were developed:
Having a definition was only the first step, as it was then necessary
to differentiate between the various types of agriculture to be found locally
and to identify the various areas they characterized. Members of the
Planning Staff, the Agricultural CAC and the Overall CAC identified seven
types of agriculture and areas characterized by such agriculture. These
types included ... Irrigated Marginally Commercial Land, located in the
Alfalfa, Cloverdale and Terrebonne areas and characterized by pasture and
forage; ... Marginal Farm Land - Undeveloped, located east of Bend and
near Redmond, Tumalo and Sisters and characterized by pasture and
forage; and Marginal Farm Land - Developed, located in the Bend,
Plainview and Tumalo areas and characterized by pasture and forage.
As part of periodic review in 1992, the County conducted a study of
commercial agriculture in Deschutes County. The purpose of the study was
to ensure that EFU zone boundaries and standards for farm divisions and
dwellings were consistent with Goal 3 and relevant administrative rules.
The results of the study are detailed in the completion report dated June
1992, and are incorporated into the Resource Element of the
Comprehensive Plan. The study identified 7 agricultural subzones: Lower
Bridge, Sisters/Cloverdale, Tumalo/Redmond/Bend, Terrebonne, Alfalfa, La
Pine and Horse Ridge East. For each subzone, standards were determined
for minimum parcel sizes for farm divisions.
Staff has submitted to the record Ordinance 92-063 and its Exhibit A - Agricultural Profile
sheets, which include profiles for Tumalo/Redmond/Bend and Alfalfa subzones. Staff
believes that the subject property contains aspects of each of these subzones, as
described in the profile sheet, and that either subzone would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan's introductory statement and goals. Staff also notes that Policy #9
of 23.88.030 allows for the zoning of some lands contrary to the Agricultural Profile
Characterization.
B. That the change in classification for the subject property is
consistent with the purpose and intent of the proposed zone classification.
FINDING: The term "classification" in this paragraph refers to the new zone proposed
by the applicant, i.e., the EFU Zone, Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzone. Section
18.16.010 provides:
A. The purpose of the Exclusive Farm Use zones is to preserve
and maintain agricultural lands and to serve as a sanctuary for farm uses.
Since the Tumalo/Redmond/Bend and Alfalfa subzones share the same purpose, Staff
believes that the proposed change in classification is consistent with the purpose of the
proposed zone classification.
ZC-07-5 Page 6 of 13
C. That changing the zoning will presently serve the public
health, safety and welfare considering the following factors:
1. The availability and efficiency of providing necessary public
services and facilities.
FINDING: Changing the subzone designation on a portion of the subject property will have
no effect on the availability and efficiency of providing necessary public services and
facilities. Currently the portion of the subject property requested for a zone change is a
vacant and irrigated land and contains no structures. By changing the subzone designation
from Alfalfa to Tumalo/Redmond/Bend, the current agricultural use of the parcel will not be
changed. Irrigation equipment is already in place and the property is in pasture and this use
will not change with a re -designation of the subzone on the property.
Although the applicant has stated that the purpose of this proposed zone change is to
make possible the future partition of the property and development of a non-farm
dwelling, neither of these uses are included in the proposed zone change. Arty impacts
to the availability and efficiency of providing necessary public services and facilities from
a partition of the property and development of a non-farm dwelling would be evaluated
under future land use applications.
2. The impacts on surrounding land use will be consistent with
the specific goals and policies contained within the Comprehensive Plan.
FINDING: As noted above, the current agricultural activities taking place on a portion of
the subject parcel will not be altered by a change in Exclusive Farm Use subzone from
Alfalfa to Tumalo/Redmond/Bend. The subject parcel currently is partially irrigated and
experiences the types of activities normally associated with agricultural practices. No
changes to the impacts on surrounding land use are anticipated to result from the
proposed zone change.
Although the applicant has stated that the purpose of this proposed zone change is to
make possible the future partition of the property and development of a non-farm dwelling,
neither of these uses are included in the proposed zone change. Any new impacts on
surrounding land use from a partition of the property and development of a non-farm
dwelling would be evaluated under future land use applications.
D. That there has been a change in circumstances since the
property was last zoned, or a mistake was made in the zoning of the property
in question.
FINDING: The applicant has not identified any change in circumstances since the
property was last zoned.
It is the applicant's belief that the Alfalfa subzone given to the subject parcel was done
not with soil classification types in mind but simply by designating properties based on
whether they were on the eastern or western side of the section line that divides the
property. The applicant believes that a mistake was made in the zoning based on legal
lot status, ownership and soils classifications and that this mistake should be corrected.
As noted above, these two tax lots are both owned by the applicant and constitute only
one legal lot.
ZC-07-5 Page 7 of 13
Staff believes that the split zoning of this property was a mistake'. Ideally, zone
boundaries should not divide legal Tots of record or a single use, in this case an irrigated
field, unless that division represents the boundary where some salient characteristic of
the land or land use changes. Staff believes that split zoning was assigned to this
property because it was expeditious to use the section line to divide the Alfalfa and
Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzones when detailed information about this property and its
use were not included in the record for Ordinance 92-063.
The question then remains, which of these subzones should be assigned to this
property? A review of the Agricultural Profile sheets for the Alfalfa and
Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzones shows that the primary difference between these
subzones is that the Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzone is characterized by, "Small scale,
part-time, subsidized non-commercial agriculture; some commercial llamas and horse
breeding on small tracts" and the Alfalfa subzone is characterized by, "Medium scale
market agriculture."
The applicant has not provided sufficient information in the burden of proof to determine
if the property is in small scale, part-time, subsidized non-commercial agriculture or
medium scale market agriculture. Staff recommends the Hearings Officer request
sufficient information from the applicant to determine if the proposed zone change is
consistent with the Agricultural Profile sheets.
Staff notes that Zoning Policy #4 under 23.88.030 expressly allows for up to 25% of lands
within in a subzone to be zoned contrary to the Agricultural Profile sheet. Thus, staff
believes that zoning contrary to the Agricultural Profile sheet does not, in itself, constitute
a mistake under this section.
Given that all irrigated agricultural land in the vicinity of the subject property is zoned EFU-
TRB, Staff believes that, as a practical matter, the proposed zone change to EFU-TRB is
appropriate if the Hearings Officer finds that the Agricultural Profile sheets do not provide
unambiguous direction.
B. Title 23 of the Deschutes County Code, the Deschutes County Comprehensive
Plan
1. Chapter 23.88, Agricultural Lands
Section 23.88.030, Zoning Policies.
4. No more than 25 percent of a given agricultural subzone shall
be composed of lands not of the same agricultural type. Any agricultural
lands not zoned EFU agriculture shall be identified in the County Exception
Statement. Zoning districts shall be at least 40 acres in size.
FINDING: The Agricultural Profile sheets for the Alfalfa and Tumalo/Redmond/Bend
subzones show that the primary difference between these subzones is that the
Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzone is characterized by, "Small scale, part-time, subsidized
1 1 : a wrong judgment : MISUNDERSTANDING; 2 : a wrong action or statement proceeding from faulty
judgment, inadequate knowledge, or inattention. Merriam -Webster's Online Dictionary.
ZC-07-5 Page 8 of 13
non-commercial agriculture; some commercial llamas and horse breeding on small
tracts" and the Alfalfa subzone is characterized by, "Medium scale market agriculture."
The applicant has not provided sufficient information in the burden of proof to determine
if the property is in small scale, part-time, subsidized non-commercial agriculture or
medium scale market agriculture. Staff recommends the Hearings Officer request
sufficient information from the applicant to determine if the proposed zone change is
consistent with the Agricultural Profile sheets.
Staff reads this criterion to require that if the property were to be zoned contrary to the
Agricultural Profile Characterization, the applicant would need to provide an analysis
showing that the proposed zone change area, cumulatively with all other
Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzoned lands, contain no more than 25 percent of lands that
are as described in the Agricultural Profile Sheet.
5. Zones and minimum parcel sizes shall be established to
assure the preservation of the existing commercial agricultural enterprise of
the area.
FINDING: Staff believes that both the existing subzone (EFU-AL) and proposed subzone
(EFU-TRB) for this property provide sufficient measures to assure the preservation of the
existing commercial agricultural enterprise of the area. Furthermore, Staff does not
anticipate the proposed zone change would have adverse impacts to any existing
commercial agricultural enterprise of the area.
6. For purposes of profiling the existing commercial agricultural
enterprises of the County, the County shall consider as one land unit all
tracts in contiguous ownership (including those parcels separated only by a
road) zoned EFU.
FINDING: Staff interprets this policy as requiring that the all applicant's contiguous
ownership be considered when evaluating this property under the profiles provided in the
Agricultural Profile sheets.
9. Following from the June 1992 OSU Extension Service
completion report detailed in the resource element, the County has identified
7 subzones representing distinct groupings of agricultural types. The
County's EFU zoning shall reflect those identified subzones, generally
described as follows and as more particularly detailed in the resource
element of the comprehensive plan:
Subzone
Profile
Lower Bridge
Irrigated field crops, hay and pasture
Sisters/Cloverdale
Irrigated alfalfa, hay and pasture, wooded grazing and
some field crops
Terrebonne
Irrigated hay and pasture
Tumalo/Redmond/Be
nd
Irrigated pasture and some hay
Alfalfa
Irrigated hay and pasture
La Pine
Riparian meadows, grazing and meadow hay
Horse Ridge East
Rangeland grazing
ZC-07-5 Page 9 of 13
FINDING: The applicant is requesting a change in designation of the subzone on a portion
of the subject property from Exclusive Farm Use — Alfalfa to Exclusive Farm Use
Tumalo/Redmond/Bend. As noted on the chart above, the profile of uses in the Alfalfa and
Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzones are virtually the same, with both zones producing
Irrigated pasture and hay. The applicant currently irrigates 13.76 acres of tax lot 12300
portion of the property which is used for pasture. The applicant believes that his request for
a subzone change from Alfalfa to Tumalo/Redmond/Bend designation will have no effect on
the amount or quality of pasture that the subject parcel currently produces. This opinion is
reinforced by the fact that the same soil classification, 57B, is found on both the tax lots
which encompass the subject property and this area is operated as one farm field.
C. Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 660
1. Division 12, Transportation Planning
• OAR 660-12-060, 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 that
allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and
performance standards (e.g. level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.)
of the facility. 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);
FINDING: The proposed zone change, in itself, would not result in any change to the
functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility. Any
transportation impacts from future land use applications, such as partitions or conditional
use applications for a non-farm dwelling will be evaluated as part of those applications.
(b) Change standards implementing a functional classification
system; or
FINDING: The applicant is not seeking to change standards that implement a functional
classification system.
(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;
FINDING: The proposed zone change, in itself, would not result in any change to the
functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility. Any
ZC-07-5 Page 10 of 13
transportation impacts from future land use applications, such as partitions or conditional
use applications for a non-farm dwelling will be evaluated as part of that application.
(8) Reduce the performance of an existing or planned transportation
facility below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in
the TSP or comprehensive plan; or
FINDING: The proposed zone change, in itself, would not result in any change to the
functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility. Any
transportation impacts from future land use applications, such as partitions or conditional
use applications for a non-farm dwelling will be evaluated as part of that application.
(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: The proposed zone change, in itself, would not result in any change to the
functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility. Any
transportation impacts from future land use applications, such as partitions or conditional
use applications for a non-farm dwelling will be evaluated as part of that application.
2. Division 15, Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines
Goal 1, Citizen Involvement.
FINDING: The Deschutes County Planning Department will provide notice of the
proposed subzone re-classification application to the public through individual notices to
affected property owners. Applicant will post the subject property with a notice of
proposed land use action sign provided by the Planning Division.
Goal 2, Land Use Planning;
FINDING: The applicant has complied with the goals, processes and policies of the
Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code and OAR
660-015. Evidence of compliance was provided in previous sections of this application.
Goal 3, Agricultural Lands;
FINDING: The portion of the subject parcel is currently zoned Exclusive Farm Use —
Alfalfa subzone. 13.76 acres of the parcel are irrigated with water rights and used to
maintain a pasture. The applicant is not seeking a change in the properties zoning with
this proposal. The applicant is requesting a change in the subzone designation of the
subject parcel from Exclusive Farm Use — Alfalfa to Exclusive Farm Use —
Tumalo/Redmond/Bend. If this proposal is approved the current use of the subject
parcel as agricultural land will continue and therefore remain consistent with the goal of
agricultural lands.
Goal 4, Forest Lands;
FINDING: The subject property does not contain nor is contiguous to any land zoned for
forest use.
ZC-07-5 Page 11 of 13
Goal 5, Natural Resources, Scenic and Historic Areas and Open Spaces;
FINDING: The applicants' proposal does not affect any issues regarding natural
resources, scenic or historical areas or open spaces.
Goal 6, Air, Water, and Land Resources Quality;
FINDING: The subject property is currently irrigated with 13.76 acres of water rights
assigned to the property. These water rights and irrigation practices will stay in place if
the request for a change in subzone designation is approved. The approval of the zone
change will not affect air, water or land resource quality.
Goal 7, Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards;
FINDING: The subject property is not located in an area that is inventoried by the
comprehensive plan for development or zoning limitations based on potential natural
disasters or hazards.
Goal 8, Recreational Needs;
FINDING: The subject property is not designated by Deschutes County to meet
recreational needs. Instead, the land is identified for protection under Goal 3. The
property is currently in agricultural use and will continue with this use if the change in
subzone designation is approved. The subject parcel is privately owned.
Goal 9, Economy of the State;
FINDING: Goal 9 does not apply to the review of this zone change application as it
contains policies that apply to lands located within urban areas only.
Goal 10 , Housing;
FINDING: Goal 10 does not apply to the review of this application. It applies within
urban and urbanizable land only, not to rural lands like the subject property.
Goal 11, Public Facilities and Services;
FINDING: The use of the subject parcel will not change if this application is approved.
The parcel is currently in agricultural use and is privately owned.
Goal 12, Transportation;
FINDING: The proposed zone change, in itself, would not result in any change to the
functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility. Any
transportation impacts from future land use applications, such as partitions or conditional
use applications for a non-farm dwelling will be evaluated as part of those applications.
ZC-07-5 Page 12 of 13
Goal 13, Energy Conservation;
FINDING: The application is not proposing any change in use for the subject parcel so
the goal of energy conservation is not applicable to this proposal.
Goal 14, Urbanization.
FINDING: The subject parcel is located in a rural setting and presently in agricultural
use. It is not located in an area that is identified as urbanizable. The urbanization goal is
not applicable to this proposal.
Goal 15, Willamette Greenway
FINDING: Staff believes that this goal is not applicable to this proposal.
Goal 16, Estuarine Resources
FINDING: Staff believes that this goal is not applicable to this proposal
Goal 17, Coastal Shorelands
FINDING: Staff believes that this goal is not applicable to this proposal
Goal 18, Beaches and Dunes
FINDING: Staff believes that this goal is not applicable to this proposal
Goal 19, Ocean Resources
FINDING: Staff believes that this goal is not applicable to this proposal
3. Division 33, Agricultural Lands
FINDING: The proposed change will not cause the County's zoning ordinance or map to
violate any provision of Division 33.
IV. RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant has not provided sufficient information in the burden of proof to determine
if the property is in small scale, part-time, subsidized non-commercial agriculture or
medium scale market agriculture. Staff recommends the Hearings Officer request
sufficient information from the applicant to determine if the proposed zone change is
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Resource Element Agricultural Profile sheets.
Without such information, Staff recommends denial of this application.
Staff anticipates that the applicant will submit the requested information and would
recornmend approval upon receipt of relevant farm information.
Dated this day of August, 2007
Mailed this day of August, 2007
ZC-07-5 Page 13 of 13
December 3, 2007
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)335-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
MEMORANDUM
To: Deschutes Board of County Commissioners
From: Will Groves, Associate Planner
Subject: ZC-07-5 — De novo hearing and work session.
BACKGROUND
The applicant requests approval of a zone change from EFU-AL to EFU-TRB for a 40 -acre
portion of a 73.58 -acre parcel located northeast of McGrath Road east of Bend.
The applicant's property was split into two different EFU subzones, EFU-AL and EFU-TRB,
under Ordinance 92-063.
The Hearings Officer concluded that the split zoning of this property was a mistake. Ideally,
zone boundaries should not divide legal lots of record or a single use, in this case an
irrigated field, unless that division represents the boundary where some salient
characteristic of the land or land use changes. The Hearings Officer concluded that split
zoning was assigned to this property because it was expeditious to use the section line to
divide the Alfalfa and Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzones when detailed information about
this property and its use were not included in the record for Ordinance 92-063.
The Hearings Officer approved the zone change in a decision dated November 14, 2007.
Under 22.28.030(C) zone changes concerning lands designated for farm 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.
STAFF DISCUSSION
Quality Services Performed with Pride
Staff recommends Board approval of this zone change.
DOCUMENTATION
This application was submitted on June 28, 2007 and was accepted by the county as
complete on July 30, 2007. Therefore, the 150 -day period for issuance of a final local
land use decision under ORS 215.477 expires on December 27, 2007.
The applicant has extended the 150 -day clock to January 30, 2008.
Copies of the staff report and Hearings Officer's decision are attached for your review.
SCHEDULE
This item is scheduled for a work session at the Board's regular meeting on December
31, 2007 and a de novo hearing on January 7, 2008. Please feel free to contact me with
any questions or concerns.
ORDINANCE ADOPTION BY EMERGENCY
Staff anticipates the Board may decide to approve this zone change at the January 7
hearing. If the Board wishes, they may also adopt the ordinance implementing this zone
change at the January 7 hearing, following the land use approval.
Staff has prepared and included an adopting ordinance, in the event the Board wishes to
take this option. The applicant has requested that this ordinance be adopted by
emergency.
The applicant is seeking approval of zone change in order to then apply for a partition so
he can ultimately build a new home for his family. The applicant has stated that he
would like to be able to move forward to make their new home a reality. He has a
potentially lengthy land division and conditional use approval process ahead so would
appreciate being allowed to apply for those applications as soon as the Board of
Commissioners adopts the zone change ordinance, rather than being required to wait an
additional 90 days before filing their application.
Staff also notes that, due to a busy Hearings season this fall and the timing of the winter
holidays, this zone change has taken longer to process than average.
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
December 3, 2007
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or,us/cdd/
MEMORANDUM
To: Deschutes Board of County Commissioners
From: Will Groves, Associate Planner
Subject: ZC-07-5 — De novo hearing and work session.
BACKGROUND
The applicant requests approval of a zone change from EFU-AL to EFU-TRB for a 40 -acre
portion of a 73.58 -acre parcel located northeast of McGrath Road east of Bend.
The applicant's property was split into two different EFU subzones, EFU-AL and EFU-TRB,
under Ordinance 92-063.
The Hearings Officer concluded that the split zoning of this property was a mistake. Ideally,
zone boundaries should not divide legal lots of record or a single use, in this case an
irrigated field, unless that division represents the boundary where some salient
characteristic of the land or land use changes. The Hearings Officer concluded that split
zoning was assigned to this property because it was expeditious to use the section line to
divide the Alfalfa and Tumalo/Redmond/Bend subzones when detailed information about
this property and its use were not included in the record for Ordinance 92-063.
The Hearings Officer approved the zone change in a decision dated November 14, 2007.
Under 22.28.030(C) zone changes concerning lands designated for farm 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.
STAFF DISCUSSION
Quality Services Performed with Pride
Staff recommends Board approval of this zone change.
DOCUMENTATION
This application was submitted on June 28, 2007 and was accepted by the county as
complete on July 30, 2007. Therefore, the 150 -day period for issuance of a final local
land use decision under ORS 215.477 expires on December 27, 2007.
The applicant has extended the 150 -day clock to January 30, 2008.
Copies of the staff report and Hearings Officer's decision are attached for your review.
SCHEDULE
This item is scheduled for a work session at the Board's regular meeting on December
31, 2007 and a de novo hearing on January 7, 2008. Please feel free to contact me with
any questions or concerns.
ORDINANCE ADOPTION BY EMERGENCY
Staff anticipates the Board may decide to approve this zone change at the January 7
hearing. If the Board wishes, they may also adopt the ordinance implementing this zone
change at the January 7 hearing, following the land use approval.
Staff has prepared and included an adopting ordinance, in the event the Board wishes to
take this option. The applicant has requested that this ordinance be adopted by
emergency.
The applicant is seeking approval of zone change in order to then apply for a partition so
he can ultimately build a new home for his family. The applicant has stated that he
would like to be able to move forward to make their new home a reality. He has a
potentially lengthy land division and conditional use approval process ahead so would
appreciate being allowed to apply for those applications as soon as the Board of
Commissioners adopts the zone change ordinance, rather than being required to wait an
additional 90 days before filing their application.
Staff also notes that, due to a busy Hearings season this fall and the timing of the winter
holidays, this zone change has taken longer to process than average.
L(Z, �ANCf-I �T2, ATTOR NE (
Liz Fancher
Kristen G. Williams, Associate
Sue Stinson, Paralegal
November 30, 2007
WILLIAM GROVES
DESCHUTES COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
117 NW LAFAYETTE AVENUE
BEND, OR 97701
Re: ZC-07-5, Zone Change from EFU-AL to EFU-TRB
Applicant: Randall Reid
Dear Mr. Groves:
You have asked that my client, Randall Reid, agree that the 150 -day clock that applies to
the County's review of his zone change application not expire until January 30, 2008. My
client is willing to agree to this request as we understand that you will be away from the
office over the holidays.
We would like to request that the Board of Commissioners adopt the zone change
ordinance with an emergency clause so that my client can move forward to seek approval
of a partition for his property. The Reid property exceeds the minimum irrigated lot size
needed to partition the property in either the AL subzone (36 acres) or the TRB subzone
(23 acres). Yet, because the County included a part of the property in each subzone, the
County has taken the legal position that the Reid property must have at least 59 irrigated
acres of water rights, the combined total required by the AL and TRB subzones. This
position has prevented my client from obtaining approval of a partition for a good part of a
year.
My client is seeking approval of this partition so he can build a new home for his family.
They would like to be able to move forward to make their new home a reality. They have
a potentially lengthy land division and conditional use approval process ahead so would
appreciate being allowed to apply for those applications as soon as the Board of
Commissioners adopts the zone change ordinance, rather than being required to wait an
additional 90 days before filing their application.
The approval of the application by emergency ordinance will not cause any harm to other
County residents as the application has been unopposed and will only affect the Reid
644 NW BROADWAY STREET • BEND, OREGON • 97701
PHONE: 541-385-3067 • FAX: 541-385-3076
— 2 — December 4, 2007
property. This application is a correction of an error made in the mapping of the property
which failed to recognize the fact that the two Reid tax lots are just one legal lot of record.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. Would you please forward this letter to
the Board of Commissioners when they hear the zone change application?
Sincerely,
Liz Fancher
Cc: client
H. Kennedy