Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout90-009REAEViD 90-0,1455 148�� BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DES An Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. PL -20, the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, As Amended, to Change the Designation r :;or'VjJ ZD of Certain Property From Rural Residential to Rural Service Center, Taking an Exception to Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 14, and Declaring an Emergency. ORDINANCE NO. 90-009 WHEREAS, Don and Julie Strasser, Jim Montgomery and Dave Oliver proposed the redesignation of certain property from Rural Residential to Rural Service Center; and WHEREAS such redesignation requires the taking of an exception to Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 14; WHEREAS, notice of hearing was given in accordance with law; and WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners held a hearing on December 13, 1989 concerning the proposed goal exception and redesignation of property on appeal from the Hearing's Officer's approval of the proposal; now therefore, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS as follows: Section 1. That an exception to Statewide Land Use Planning Goal 14 is hereby adopted for the property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, and depicted on the map marked Exhibit "B", attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Section 2. That Ordinance No. PL -20, the Deschutes County Year 2000 Comprehensive Plan, as amended, is further amended to redesignate that certain property described in Exhibit "A", and depicted on the map marked "B", from Rural Residential to Rural Service Center. Section 3. That the reasons for the taking of the exception and the findings and conclusions in support of the plan amendment are set forth in the Findings and Conclusions of the Board of Commissioners, dated February 12, 1990, relating to Plan Amendment Application No. PA -89-6, marked Exhibit "C", attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 90-009 00 v 1489 Section 4. This Ordinance being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this Ordinance takes effect on its passage. DATED this day of 1990. BOARD OF OUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON AT ST: 7z-� -2 6�� Recording Secretary 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 90-009 LOIS ISPOW PRANTE, Commissioner TOM iRO0$, hair // / -Ir� , Commiss IOU -a '1490 EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description Lots 2 - 12, 14 - 21 of Block A of Deschutes River Recreation Homesites, Extension to Unit One, on a Plat recorded with the Deschutes County Clerk, on July 14, 1967, in Cabinet A-149. 3 - ORDINANCE NO. 90-009 EXHIBIT "B" 1.00 m 1491 Su Vop 20 -0 kv RECREATION SOLAR OR.) . ROAD ° t k- _ 4 Rt _ 0 ' o L 11 <! o • r 2� p / i rnZS Z ��S I� j N o m 4 fid I ' I l "n r Z N �• O �.Z%�� I'a� ice! - Ji . •: .- �" _ ICr u - � `§ I o y cn I c " \1 mt1J� °� A ID �• 4 I LR cD N g� 01 fes, = N81I g' am OS++r-y�-•-r S.• _�.5� O,I1II7 ` c�..tl.LL_. \i C 00 X 2 0: u C y�qq C _ q•�:,� �O U• 1�' I d•: � P y1�' � ,iy.�J. __.i `ttil u P � =8. 1 / P'h _ of .✓ � �f E� Y. .'..,� � ,8 `' s 1 x � f' � a� .� �.� A .. 'r.Zi � l��•,- '�' Lo LUNAR IVE�, F A; g, W Oo � � (N � = u � N �� • R i` I t � "4 r U O. p tll A "'� I �•. .7,..,• t • s% ^'` NI' - P v F �. �.. f� I 1..- - t = , :.� / ' N : - Off' �L..t.LJ.. 7 7 ��• �'' � . 4Ij N, .��_(` n t: ..�, ',�' .tom I m I ti`: \`a;� �' ,` s b r` '�.. hl•y„' fCf � � € � � � N N+! �'�"q�o�V; ���' + _ a � a ,`'p I � iz 00 EL so* Moo 20 it t 1.00 - 1492 EXHIBIT "C BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON In the Matter of the Applications of Don and Julie Strasser, David Oliver and Jim Montgomery for a * PA -89-6 Plan Amendment and Zone Change * ZC-89-7 From Rural Residential (RR -10) to * FINDINGS AND DECISION Rural Service Center With a Limited* Use Combining Zone (RSC -LU). Basic Findings A. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Spring River Road and Lunar Drive, further described as 20- 11-7B, Tax lots 100, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, and 120. B. The property is currently zoned RR -10, Rural Residential, with a Landscape Management Combining Zone and Flood Plain. It is located outside any Urban Growth Boundary. C. The applicants seek to change the Comprehensive Plan from Rural Residential to Rural Service Center. The purpose of a Rural Service Center is to allow for uses in rural areas that will meet the needs of rural residents and to provide limited tourist commercial services. Applicants are also requesting a Zone Change from RR -10 to RSC with a Limited Use Combining Zone. D. The uses proposed for the Rural Service Center zone, as restricted by the Limited Use Combining Zone, are as follows: (a) fishing supplies and equipment; (b) snowmobile accessories; (c) marine accessories; (d) general store; (e) hardware store; (f) convenience store with gas pumps; (g) full service gas station with automobile repair services; (h) welding shop; (i) fast food restaurant, cafe, or coffee shop; (j) recreational rental equipment store; (k) kennel or animal hospital; (1) motel; and (m) R.V. hookup facility. E. Surrounding land use zones abutting the subject parcel includes to the north, a narrow sliver of RR -10 and across 1 - FINDINGS AND DECISION 1.00 - 1493 Sunriver Development; east, vacant meadow in the floodplain (EFU-80); south and west, Rural Residential lots (RR -10). F. The current (1979) Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances recognize a number of existing rural service centers and notes that such a service center may be warranted in the future in the Spring River area. G. The area for which the rural service center is proposed is included within an exception area in the County's comprehen- sive plan. The plan excepts the area from the necessity of compliance with Statewide Goal 3 or Goal 4. The exception was taken as a committed exception in recognition of the already existing parcelization of lands in the area for residential development. Findinas of Fact 1. The subject parcel of land is composed of 10 acres of land, covering 19 adjoining tax lots. Applicant Strasser owns 5 tax lots (2.5 acres), Applicant Montgomery owns 4 tax lots (2.5 acres) and Applicant Oliver owns 10 tax lots (5 acres). The site constitutes a portion of an old undeveloped sub- division, known as Deschutes River Recreation Homesite Extension to Unit One, platted as a subdivision in 1967. Current approved uses present on the site engaged in by Applicants include a ski shop (located on tax lot 100, owned by Applicant Strasser), a real estate office and a building contractor's office (located on tax lot 107, owned by Appli- cant Montgomery). Applicant Strasser was granted a Condi- tional Use permit for the ski shop in 1986. 2. Across Spring River Road to the north of the site is a small vacant sliver zoned RR -10; across the river to the north of that is open space in the Sunriver Development, which was excepted from the Farm and Forest Goals. A large parcel of U.S. Forest Service land lies across Spring River Road slightly to the west of the proposed rural service center. To the east across Lunar Drive is a common area for the subdivision, zoned EFU-80 in a flood plain zone, then the Deschutes River. Immediately to the south of the subdivisi- on common area, diagonally across Lunar Drive from the subject property, is a storage facility. To the south, across Alpine Place (Azusa), are vacant residential lots zoned RR -10 located below the flood plain. To the west are more residential lots, some vacant and some with improvements located on them, including, a bed and breakfast, a landscaping service and an auto shop. The lot closest to the applicants to the west has an unoccupied home on it that cannot be occupied due to an inadequately installed drainfield. 2 - FINDINGS AND DECISION 00 1494 3. The area is not currently designated open space and has little, if any, scenic value. The area has no significant natural resource values. A good portion of the site is developed with commercial activity, including a paved area of 2500 square feet. An additional 6,000 square feet of paving has been approved for Applicant Montgomery's real estate office, but has not yet been constructed. There was conflicting testimony concerning the degree to which the property has been developed and the natural resource values of the property. The Board accepts the Applicant's descrip- tion of the developed nature of the property as more cred- ible. The Board also accepts applicant's characterization that a substantial portion of the undeveloped portions of the site bordering Spring River Road are in rocky terrain. The Board accepts the Oregon Department of Fish and Wild- life's opinion that the existing development has preempted high wildlife values at the site. 4. The site has a small wetland that is not listed as having significant resource values in the County's wetland inven- tory. The evidence indicates that the wetland has been filled without authorized permits. The site occupies a portion of one lot on the northwest portion of the site. The Division of State Lands is currently conducting an investigation of that situation. 5. Feasibility determinations have been made for various lots in the proposed site demonstrating the feasibility of septic systems, which would service the sewage treatment needs of the proposed rural service center. Water would be provided from groundwater sources; Department of Water Resource records for wells adjacent to the site show that abundant groundwater is available close to the surface. The electricity needs of the area are now served by Mid -State Electric Coop and such service would be available to Appli- cants. Existing law enforcement and fire protection will be utilized. 6. The proposed development will replace 19 Deschutes River Recreation Homesites lots. The area could be developed with approximately 17 single family residences. 7. The predominant land use of the Spring River/Fall River area is rural residential homesites on small parcels (approxi- mately one-half to one acre). A high percentage of these parcels are part-time or summertime owners and users. 8. The proposed development is bounded by existing paved roads, Lunar Drive to the east, and Spring River Road to the North. The Applicants will be required to obtain access permits from the Deschutes County Department of Public Works to access those roads. 3 - FINDINGS AND DECISION 1..40 - 1495 9. The Sunriver Airport is located immediately to the north of the site. Air traffic from the airport Sunriver Airport is at least 8538 flights per year (actual count), with many more flights unaccounted for due to the airport's limited official operating hours, possibly bringing the total flights up to the neighborhood of 12,000 flights per year. The flight path of aircraft taking off from Runway 36 is directly over Applicant's property. 10. There are approximately 4,000 to 5,000 residential lots within an area of approximately 5 miles of the proposed site outside Sunriver. The nearest commercial establishments outside the Sunriver area are 17 miles away in Bend to the north and Lapine to the south. The only other existing and potential alternative locations for commercial establish- ments to serve the needs of the Spring River rural residen- tial population are the Sunriver development and the Sunriver Business Park. Establishments in these areas are oriented toward tourist needs, such as fancy restaurants. By contrast, the Appli- cants propose to provide services more geared to area resi- dents, such as a convenience store, fast food restaurant, an auto repair shop, and other services oriented to rural residential living. There are no existing fast food estab- lishments outside of Bend or LaPine. Although there is a service station located in Sunriver, Sunriver does not allow automobile repair shops. Commercial land available in the Sunriver development and the Sunriver Business park is expensive, due to its proximity to the successful Sunriver development, and is not generally available to the types of businesses proposed. 11. The proposed development would be located on the major road between the adjacent recreation residential area and the recreation areas to the west, such as the high lakes and Mt. Bachelor. This road gets heavy use from residents from Deschutes River Recreation Homesites and tourists on their way to the high mountain lakes and Mt. Bachelor. 12. The Applicants have submitted petitions signed by 270 indi- viduals who are residents of the Spring River/Fall River area in support of the rural service center. 13. There are no other tracts in the immediate area requiring a goal 14 exception that could provide such services to the rural residents in the Spring River Road area. 14. The number of trips generated per day by commercial uses is less than the number generated by single family residences. 4 - FINDINGS AND DECISION 100 - 1496 15. Traffic surveys show that the traffic in the Spring River Road area has increased substantially since the early 1980s. 16. Many of the residential lots in the area have not yet been built upon. 17. The applicants have received letters from the Federal Emer- gency Management Agency (FEMA) dated November 23, 1988, and January 27, 1982, declaring that the subject property does not lie within the Special Flood Hazard Area as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map for the County. 18. Access to the development will not require use of Alpine Place or Alpine (Azusa) Road to the south. Conclusions of Law 1. Deschutes County comprehensive plan goals concerning rural development are met by findings of fact 1, 2, 31 4, 5, 6, 7, 91 10, and 11. (A) Findings 1 and 3 demonstrate that open space and natural values will not be compromised, due to the physical character of the existing site and the nature of the existing development at the site. The issue of illegal filling of a wetland at the site will be ad- dressed by the Division of State Lands in their inves- tigation of possible illegal filling and by the County in its fill and removal permit process. (B) Findings 5, 6, 7, and 8 demonstrate that there will be no unnecessary expansion of service boundaries and that safety of rural land uses will not be jeopardized. The area is already developed for residential use; hence electrical, fire, police, and road access facilities and services are already present, as are schools to serve the subdivision residents. Applicant will provide its own sewage and water supply facilities, and it is feasible for Applicant to supply such facilities. Development of the proposal will not increase demand for schools and public safety facilities, since the development will displace residential uses that other- wise could have occurred. (C) Findings 1, 31 7, 9, and 11 demonstrate that the area surrounding the site already supports uses that are not rural in c;aractar, ilac luring existing commercial activities, small -lot residential parcelization, and a airport. In addition, Spring River Road, bounding the property on the north, is heavily travelled. 5 - FINDINGS AND DECISION 1.00 - 1497 (D) Findings 7, 10, 11 and 12 demonstrate that a current need exists for the rural service designation. There are a substantial number of homesites in the area, and the only nearby commercial area caters more to tourists than to area residents. The proposed development is well placed on a major road to serve the needs of the residents. Land available in the Sunriver Business Park is too expensive to allow location there of the more rural -oriented services, such as welding and excavation services, that Applicants intend to develop. 2. Deschutes County comprehensive plan goals and policies concerning transportation are satisfied in that it will be necessary for Applicants to obtain access permits from Public Works for any new access to Spring River Road and Lunar Drive. In addition, it follows from finding 10 that location of commercial services closer to the rural residen- tial population than are now available will cut down on the amount of travel necessary. 3. Deschutes County comprehensive plan goal and policies con- cerning public facilities and services are met by findings 51 6, and 8, which demonstrate that the proposal will not require any new development of public facilities. Fire, police, and electric service are already in place. Sewer and water will be developed by the Applicants themselves. Applicants have demonstrated that it is feasible to develop such facilities. Utilization of this parcel for a rural service center will decrease the demand for such services as schools and water and sewer, since such use would displace as many as 17 homesites. 4. Statewide goal 3 is met by an exception, based upon findings G, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, and 10. The area was excepted from the farm and forest zones upon acknowledgement of the County's comprehensive plan in 1979 as already committed to residen- tial development. Since that time, the area has become even more committed to non -resource uses. The subject 10 -acre parcel now has 3 commercial uses on it. It is bounded by two paved roads, one of which has a shown a substantial traffic flow increase in recent years. There is no adjacent resource land bounding the property that could be adversely affected by the proposal. 5. Statewide goal 11 (public facilities) is met by findings 5, 6, and 8. The present level of public services serving the area will be sufficient. Sewer and water needs will be taken care of by wells and individual septic systems and will not be developed to serve needs other than the proposed development. See also discussion under Conclusion 3 above. 6 - FINDINGS AND DECISION 1.00 - 1498 6. Statewide goal 12 is met by findings 8 and 10, and 11 and conclusion of law 9. Access permits will need to be obtained from Public Works. Travel needs for the rural residences will be lessened due to the availability of commercial services closer to home. The services in the proposed service center have been limited to those that will serve the rural residents and will therefore not draw addi- tional traffic from outside the area. 7. This proposal meets the requirements of a Goal 2 exception to Goal 14 under OAR 660-04-020(2) and OAR 660-04-022 as follows: (A) OAR 660-04-020(2)(a) is satisfied by findings 7, 10, and 12, and conclusion of law 9 which explain that the Spring River Road area has been subdivided into recog- nized small parcels predating the comprehensive plan and that the purpose of this rural service center proposal is to serve the rural residents of the area. A Limited Use Combining Zone has been established to ensure that uses not oriented to rural residential uses, such as motels and R.V. parks, will not be estab- lished. By serving only the needs of the residents in the area, the proposal will be consistent with the rural nature of the area. (B) OAR 660-04-020(2)(b) is satisfied by findings C, 21 91 and 12. The services to be provided the area residents are not available in nearby alternative commercial zones for which an exception need not be taken - Sunriver and the Sunriver Business Park - due to the expense of land within those areas and the more upscale and transient clientele served by those centers. Such economic considerations are consistent with OAR 660-04- 020(2)(b)(B), which allows economic factors to be considered in determining whether a proposed use could be accommodated in an alternative site. The alternative of providing such services as those proposed in existing urban growth boundaries - 17 miles away in Bend - would defeat the purpose of the rural service center designation, which is to provide services to the rural residents on site in rural areas. The proposed rural service center will be sited on land that is already committed to a non -rural uses. Large portions of the 10 -acre site have already been committed to commercial uses by the location of commercial establishments, such as the broker and builder's office and the ski rental shop. (C) OAR 660-04-020(2)(c) is met by findings 2, 8, 9, 11, and 13. There are few other properties located as 7 - FINDINGS AND DECISION 100 - 1499 close to the end of Sunriver Runway 36 as this site is. The major road serving the residential area bounds the property to the north. Use of this road has increased substantially in the past several years. With a common area located to the east, an unbuildable flood plain area located to the south, and the Sunriver development to the north, there are few other sites as isolated from conflicting neighboring uses as is this site. The site is located on the exterior edge of the rural residential area it would serve. The proposed rural service center would take the place of as many as 17 homesites, which would generate more traffic than a commercial use such as this one. Under conclusion of law 9, the proposed service center would be limited to those uses that serve the rural residents of the area. In addition, under the proposed Limited Use zoning, the Applicants would be required to submit a site plan prior to further developing the site. (D) OAR 660-04-020(2)(d) is satisfied by findings D, 6, and 8, and 14. Lands adjoining the site to the south and west have already been excepted as non -resource lands for residential development. Some of the lots to the west already have commercial uses on them, and the closest homesite to the west cannot be occupied due to drainfield inadequacies. The floodplain designation of adjoining residential land to the south restricts the uses that could be in conflict with uses at the pro- posed rural service center. The common area to the east restricts development and the property to the north is largely open space in the Sunriver Planned Community except for a small sliver of vacant RR -10 land directly across Spring River Road. The rural service center use will have no more impact on such adjoining lands than the residential uses already approved for the site. The allowed uses have been restricted by the Limited Use Combining zone to pro- hibit uses, such as kennels and motels, that might impact the surrounding residential areas. In addition, the Limited Use Combining Zone requires that site plans be submitted to assure the compatibility with surround- ing uses. Applicant will not be using Azusa Road for access, so the concerns of Azusa Road residents about possible traffic increases on their road should not be realized. OAR 660-04-022 is met by findings F, 9, 13, and 14. The Comprehensive Plan provides for Rural Service Centers and specifically speaks to the fact that such a use may be warranted in the Spring River area in the future, depending 8 - FINDINGS AND DECISION I Q 1) 1500 upon the needs of the area residents. Applicant has demon- strated that such a need exists now. By its very nature, a rural service center needs to be located near the population it is to serve; therefore, as mentioned above, location of the use within an existing urban growth boundary is not an option. The services within the LaPine Rural Service Center are likewise too far to be of service to the rural population. Services such as exca- vating services and fast food services need to be located where the population to be served is located. The Sunriver establishments are not oriented to the particular needs of the residents of the Spring River area., The uses within the proposed zone have been tailored by the LU designation to fit the needs of the neighboring residents. This particular site lends itself to use as a rural service center. The existing commercial development at the site, its lack of natural resource values, its proximity to the Sunriver Airport, its proximity to major roadways in the area, and the fact that the adjoining flood plain designa- tion limits adjoining conflicting uses all point to this site as the best site for locating a rural service center in the Spring River area. The proposed exception area would be composed of the entire area for which the plan amendment and rezoning is proposed. 9. The following uses proposed under the Limited Use Combining Zone are appropriate for this proposed Rural Service Center: (a) fishing supplies and equipment; (b) snowmobiling accessories; (c) marine accessories; (d) general store; (e) hardware store; (f) convenience store with gas pumps; (g) full service gas station with automobile repair services; (h) welding shop; (i) fast food restaurant, cafe, or coffee shop; (j) recreational rental equipment store; (h) excavation business. These uses are appropriate to serve the needs of the rural Spring River area residents. Commercial establishments dealing in fishing supplies, snowmobile accessories, and marine accessories would serve the recreational needs of the local residents. That uses serving recreational needs is desired is indicated by the present existence of the ski rental shop. It is assumed that many of the part-time residents use their homes in the area primarily for recrea- 9 - FINDINGS AND DECISION 100---* 1501 tional purposes. These uses would support the recreational needs of those residents. A convenience store use will allow rural residents to purchase necessities that might not be available to them in the nearby shops in Sunriver and the Sunriver Business Park. Presumably, the general store use would be of this nature also. Uses such as an auto repair and gas station use would have obvious utility for rural residents, all of whom rely heavily on their automobiles for transportation. Siting of automobile repair shops is restricted in the Sunriver development. Uses such as a hardware store, welding, and excavating services reflect the fact that many of the residential lots in the area have not yet been built upon. These services would support the needs of residents who are building upon their property and also those who may be remodeling or land- scaping. The requested motel, R.V. hookup, and kennel uses are not allowed. The motel and R.V. hookup uses cannot be said to serve primarily the needs of the rural residents. While there may be some residents who in the process of building their homes might make uses of such facilities, the appli- cants have not demonstrated that such residents would be the primary users of such facilities. The kennel use is denied as being incompatible with the surrounding residential area. Adoption of these uses satisfies the requirements of Section 4.250 of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance. All the enumerated uses are uses allowed in the RSC zone. A review of PL -15 shows that there is no other applicable zone that would adequately limit the uses to those appropriate for the needs of the residents of the Spring River area. The LU zone complies with Comprehensive Plan policies of the County in that the approved uses are limited to those that would serve the needs of the area residents. 10. The zone change meets the requirements of Article 10 of the Deschutes County Zoning Ordinance by virtue of findings 5, 61 8, 10, 11, and 14 and conclusions of law 1, 2, 3, and 9 as further described below. The public health, welfare, and safety are served by the fact that no new services or facilities will be required and by the fact that by displacing as many as 17 homesites, demands for certain public services, such as schools, fire, and law enforcement will actually be less than if the home - sites were developed. Furthermore, impacts of the proposed 10 - FINDINGS AND DECISION 1.00--� 1502 service center on surrounding lands will be consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The comprehensive plan recognizes rural service centers as serving valid needs in the County's rural areas. The com- prehensive plan excepted the Spring River area from resource goals because of the then existing rural residential devel- opment and recognized that the area might warrant a rural service center in the future. Applicant has demonstrated that there is a need for the type of services to be offered to the rural residents of the area. Applicants have demons- trated that the uses allowed by this decision are limited to those uses serving the local residents. Finally, the Board recognizes that there has been a change in circumstances in the area. The facts show that traffic in the area has increased considerably from the time that the Comprehensive Plan and current zoning were adopted. In addition, Applicant Strasser has been granted a conditional use permit for a ski shop on the property. 11. Zoning restrictions relating to developments located in flood plains do not apply, since federal authorities have established that the subject land is not within the flood plain. The subject property has been removed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency from the flood hazard area on the Flood Insurance Rate Map for the County. 12. The current Landscape Management zoning of the property remains unchanged. Conclusion Applicants are granted a plan amendment from Rural Residential to Rural Service Center, and a zone change from RR -10 to RSC -LU, with uses limited to those listed in Conclusion 9 above. DATED this 'jJ day of AT r Recording Secretary 11 - FINDINGS AND DECISION 19 9 0. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON