HomeMy WebLinkAbout92-034REVIEWED
92-11484
LEGAL COUNSEL 1
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Title 18 of
the Deschutes County Code Regarding * _.
Landscape Management Zones and * t
Declaring an Emergency
0111-0007
ORDINANCE NO. 92-034
WHEREAS, Deschutes County is engaged in periodic review of its
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance pursuant to ORS Chapter 197;
and
WHEREAS, the County has been required by LCDC to review its
landscape management zones as part of periodic review; and
WHEREAS, public hearings have been held in conformance with
state law; now therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18.04. Chapter
19.04 is amended to add the following definition of "Agricultural
Structure:"
"Agricultural Structure. Agricultural structures include
any structure considered to be an agricultural structure
under the building code."
Section 2. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18.84. Chapter
18.84 of Title 18 is amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.
Section 3. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18.116. Section
18.116.160 is amended to read as set forth in Exhibit B, attached
hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.
Section 4. FINDINGS. This ordinance is supported by the
findings set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto and by this
reference incorporated herein.
PAGE 1 - ORDINANCE NO. 92-034 (4/8/91) V/C`
APR F�
�119g�
KtYp CHED
,gg
0111-0008
Section 5. EMERGENCY. 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 S1111 day of April, 1992.
BOARD OFUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DE§2Et ES COUNTY, OREGON
AT S :
Recording Secretary
PAGE 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 92-034 (4/8/91)
IN,
rman
Commipsioner
EXHIBIT A 0111--0009
Chapter 18.84
LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING - LM ZONE
In any LM Combining Zone, the requirements and standards of
this Chapter shall apply in addition to those specified in
this Title for the underlying zone. If a conflict in
regulation or standards occurs, the provision of this chapter
shall govern.
18.84.010 Purpose.
The purposes of the Landscape Management Combining Zone are
to maintain scenic and natural resources of the designated
areas and to maintain and enhance scenic vistas and natural
landscapes as seen from designated roads, rivers or streams.
[important to the local economy.]
18.84.020 Application of Provision.
The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all areas
within one quarter mile of roads identified as landscape
management corridors in the Comprehensive Plan and the County
Zoning Map. The Provisions of this chapter shall also apply
to all areas [designated as] within the boundaries of a State
scenic waterway or Federal wild and scenic river corridor and
all areas within 660 feet of rivers and streams otherwise
identified as landscape management corridors in the
comprehensive plan and the county zoning map. The distance
specified above shall be measured horizontally from the
center line of designated landscape management roadways or
from the nearest ordinary high water mark of a designated
landscape management river or stream. [identified as
landscape management corridors in the Comprehensive Plan or
the county zoning map.] The limitations in this section
shall not unduly restrict accepted agricultural practices.
18.84.030 Uses Permitted Outright.
Uses permitted in the underlying zone with which the LM zone
is combined shall be permitted in the LM zone, subject to the
provisions in this Chapter.
[In a zone with which the LM is combined, the uses permitted
shall be those permitted outright by the underlying zone with
which the LM Zone is combined, subject to Section,18.84.050,
below]
18.84.040 Uses Permitted Conditionally.
Uses permitted conditionally in the underlying zone with
which the LM zone is combined shall be permitted as
conditional uses in the LM zone, subject to the provisions in
this Chapter.
Page 1
0111-0010
[In a zone with which the LM is combined, the uses permitted
shall be those permitted outright by the underlying zone with
which the LM Zone is combined, subject to Section 18.84.050,
below]
18.84.050 Use Limitations.
1. [Nod Any new structure or substantial alteration of a
structure requiring a building permit, or [structure
including] an agricultural structure[s,] within an LM
Combining Zone shall obtain site plan approval in
accordance with this Chapter and Chapter 18.124, Site
Plan Review, prior to construction. As used in this
chapter substantial alteration consists of an alteration
which exceeds 25% in the size or 25% of the assessed
value of the structure. [one-quarter mile (measured at
right angles from centerline of any identified landscape
management roadway or within 200 feet of the ordinary
high water mark of any identified landscape management
corridor along a river) without first obtaining the
approval of the Planning Director or Hearings Body.]
2. Structures which are not visible from the designated
roadway, river or stream and which are assured of
remaining not visible because of vegetation,
topography, or existing development are exempt from the
provisions of Section 18.84.080 (Design Review
Standards) and Section 18.84.090 (Setback Standards).
An applicant for site plan review in the LM zone shall
conform with the provisions of this Chapter, or may
submit evidence that the proposed structure will not be
visible from the designated roads river or stream.
Structures not visible from the designated road, river
or stream must meet setback standards of the underlying
zone.
18.84.060 Dimensional Standards.
In an LM Zone, the [following dimensional standards shall
apply:
A. M]minimum lot size shall be as established in the
underlying zone with which the LM Zone is combined.
[B. Setbacks shall be those established in the
underlying zone with which the LM Zone is combined.
If upon written recommendations from the Planning
Director, the Planning Director or Hearings Body
finds the established setbacks are inappropriate to
carry out the purpose of the LM zone, he may
require more or less restrictive dimensions.]
[18.84.070 Zoning Permits.
All buildings or structures covered by this section not
Page 2
requiring a building permit shall be required to obtain a
zoning permit before beginning construction.]
18.84.07[8]0 Application [Design Review].
0111-0011
[In reviewing an application, the Planning Director or
Hearings Body shall consider the following:
A. Height, width, color, bulk and texture of the building
or structure to assure that the building or structure is
visually compatible with the surrounding natural
landscape and does not unduly generate glare or other
distracting conditions.
B. Retention of existing plant material and natural
features to retain as much as possible the natural
character of the area.]
[C.] (Moved to Section 18.84.080(9))
[D. Nothing in the section shall be construed to prevent the
use of accepted agricultural practices, crops or
equipment or restrict the construction of innovative
residences, i.e. "dome" houses, except where their
design or siting unduly diminishes the aesthetic
qualities of the area.]
[E.] (Moved to Section 18.84.090(3))
An application for site plan approval for development in the
Landscape Management zone shall be submitted to the Planning
Division. The site plan application shall include the
following•
1. A plot plan, drawn to scale, showing:
a. Location and dimensions of existing and proposed
structures.
b. Setbacks from lot lines (and river and rimrock, if
present).
C. Existing and proposed access.
d. Existing and proposed exterior lighting.
2. A drawing of the proposed structure elevations showing:
a. Exterior appearance.
b. Height, dimensions.
C. Siding and roofing material and color.
d. Location and size of windows including skylights.
Page 3
0111=0012
1. A landscape plan drawn to scale, showing:
a. Location, size and species of existing trees six
inches in diameter or greater, or existing shrub
vegetation higher than 4 feet, between the proposed
development and the designated landscape management
road, river or stream. Where a significant amount
of vegetation exists a landscape plan may be
accepted which generalizes and explains how the
existing trees and shrubs provide screening.
b. Proposed location and species of introduced
vegetation which will screen the proposed
development from the designated landscape
management road, river or stream.
18.84.080 Design Review Standards.
The following standards will be used to evaluate the proposed
site plan:
1. Except as necessary for construction of access roads,
building pads, septic drain fields, public utility
easements, parking areas, etc., the existing tree and
shrub cover screening the development from the
designated road, river, or stream shall be retained.
This provision does not prohibit maintenance of existing
lawns removal of dead diseased or hazardous
vegetation; the commercial harvest of forest products in
accordance with the Oregon Forest Practices Act, or
agricultural use of the land.
2. It is recommended that new structures and additions to
existing structures be finished in muted earth tones
that blend with and reduce contrast with the surrounding
vegetation and landscape of the building site.
3. No large areas, including roofs, shall be finished with
white, bright or reflective materials. Metal roofing
material is permitted if it is non -reflective and of a
color which blends with the surrounding vegetation and
landscape.
4. Subject to applicable rimrock setback requirements or
rimrock setback exception standards in section
18.084.090 all structures shall be sited to take
advantage of existing vegetation, trees and topographic
features in order to reduce visual impact as seen from
the designated road, river, or stream. When more than
one non-agricultural structure is to exist and no
vegetation, trees or tORographic features exist which
can reduce visual impact of the subject structure, such
structure shall be clustered in a manner which reduces
their visual impact as seen from the designated road,
river, or stream.
Page
0111=0013
5. Structures shall not exceed 30 feet in height measured
from the natural grade on the side(s) facing the road,
river or stream. Within the LM zone along a State
scenic waterway or Federal wild and scenic river, the
height of a structure shall include chimneys, antennas,
flag poles or other projections from the roof of the
structure. This section shall not apply to agricultural
structures located at least 50 feet from a rimrock.
6. New residential or commercial driveway access to
designated landscape management roads shall be
consolidated wherever possible.
7. New residential exterior lighting, including security
lighting, shall be sited and shielded so that it is
directed downward and is not directly visible from the
designated road, river, or stream.
8. The Planning Director or Hearings Body may require the
establishment of introduced landscape material to screen
the development, assure compatibility with existing
vegetation, reduce glare, direct automobile and
pedestrian circulation [and] or enhance the overall
appearance of the development while not interfering with
the views of oncoming traffic at access points or views
of mountains, forests and other open and scenic area as
seen [from the proposed site] from the designated
landscape management road, river or stream. Use of
native species shall be encouraged. (Formerly Section
18.84.080(c))
9. No signs or other forms of outdoor advertising that are
visible from a designated landscape management river or
stream shall be permitted. Property protection signs
(No Trespassing, No Hunting, etc.) are permitted.
10. A conservation easement as defined in Section 18.04.030
"Conservation Easement" and specified in Section
18.116.2[1]20 shall be required as a condition of
approval for all landscape management site plans
involving property adjacent to the Deschutes River,
Crooked River, Fall River, Little Deschutes River,
Spring River, Squaw Creek and Tumalo Creek.
Conservation easements required as a condition of
landscape management site plans shall not require public
access.
18.84.085 Imposition of Conditions.
The standards of this chapter may be met by the imposition of
conditions drawn to ensure that the standards will be met.
Page
0111-0014
18.84.090 Setbacks.
1. Except as provided in this Section, minimum setbacks
shall be those established in the underlying zone with
which the LM Zone is combined.
2. Road Setbacks. All new structures or additions to
existing structures on lots fronting a designated
landscape management road shall be set back at least 100
feet from the edge of the designated road unless the
Planning Director or Hearings Body finds that:
a. A location closer to the designated road would more
effectively screen the building from the road; or
protect a distant vista; or
b. The depth of the lot makes a 100 foot setback not
feasible; or
C. Buildings on both lots abutting the subject lot
have front yard setbacks of less than 100 feet and
the adjacent buildings are within 100 feet of the
lot line of the subject property; and the depth of
the front yard is not less than the average depth
of the front yards of the abutting lots.
If the above findings are made, the Planning Director or
Hearings Body may approve a less restrictive front yard
setback which will be appropriate to carry out the
purpose of the zone.
3. River and Stream Setbacks. All new structures or
additions to existing structures shall be set back 100
feet from the ordinary high watermark of designated
streams and rivers or obtain a setback exception in
accordance with section 18.120.030. For the purpose of
this section, decks are considered part of a structure
and must conform with the setback requirement.
The placement of on-site sewage disposal systems shall
be subject to joint review by the Planning Director or
Hearings Body and Deschutes County Environmental Health
Division. The placement of such systems shall minimize
the impact on the vegetation along the river and shall
allow a dwelling to be constructed on the site as far
from the stream or lake as possible. Sand filter
systems may be required as replacement systems when this
will allow a dwelling to be located further from the
stream or to meet the 100 -foot setback requirement.
(Formerly Section 18.84.08(E)
4. Rimrock Setback. New structures (including decks or
additions to existing structures) shall be set back 50
feet from the rimrock in an LM zone. An exception to
this setback may be granted to as close x'20 feet of
Page 6 asa�
�J
0111-0015
the rimrock pursuant to the provisions of subsection 5
of this section.
5. Rimrock Setback Exceptions. An exception to the 50 -foot
rimrock setback may be granted by the Planning Director
or Hearings Body, subject to the following standards and
criteria•
a. An exception shall be aranted when the Plannina
Director or Hearings Body finds that: (In all cases
the structure shall meet all standards and criteria
established in this chapter and Section 18.116.160
of this Title.1
i
0111=0016
the rimrock unless the planning director or
hearings body finds that the lesser setback
will make the structure less visible or the
structure is completely screened from the
river or stream.
(5) Where multiple non-agricultural structures are
proposed on a lot or parcel, the structures
shall be grouped or clustered so as to
maintain a general appearance of open
landscape for the affected area. This shall
require a maintenance of at least 65% open
space along rimrocks within subject lots or
parcels.
6. Scenic Waterways. Approval of all structures in a State
Scenic Waterway shall be conditioned upon receipt of
approval of the State Parks Department.
18.84.100[090] Septic Permits.
Prior to the issuance of a permit for any on-site sewage
disposal system [permit] that is to be located within 200
feet of a river or stream in a landscape management corridor
a Landscape Management Site Plan shall be approved in
accordance with this Chapter. (Ord.90-020 § 1, 1990).
Page 8
EXHIBIT B 0111-0017
Chapter 18.116
Supplementary Provisions
18.116.160 Rimrock Setbacks outside of LM Combining Zone.
All structures, including decks, within 50 feet from the edge
of a rimrock, as defined in Section 18.04.[040]030 of this
Title, shall be subject to site review if visible from the
river or stream. Prior to approval of any structure within
50 feet of a rimrock the Planning Director or Hearings Body
shall make the following findings:
A. All structures, including decks, shall be set back a
minimum of 20 feet from the edge of the rimrock. [as
defined in Section 18.04.030. "Rimrock".]
B. The height of the structure shall not exceed the setback
from the edge of the rimrock. [The 20 -foot rimrock
setback shall not apply to decks so long as the railing
or other man-made border around the deck does not exceed
four feet in height and is not of solid construction.
However, no deck shall be set back less than three feet
from any rimrock.]
[C. If there is more than one rimrock ledge or outcrop
within the river or stream canyon, the 20 -foot setback
requirement shall be measured from the rimrock which is
furthest from the river or stream.]
D. Existina trees and shrubs which reduce the visibility of
the proposed structure shall be retained. [If the
20 -foot rimrock setback is within 100 feet of the
ordinary high water line of the river or stream, the
structure may be granted an exception to the 100 -foot
river or stream setback as provided under Section
18.120.030 for structures meeting the criteria of
Section 18. 120.030(E)(b)(2). However, under no
circumstances shall the structure be set back less than
20 feet from the rimrock.]
E. Where multiple structures are proposed on a parcel of
land the structures shall be grouped or clustered so as
to maintain a general appearance of open landscape for
the effected area. This shall require a maintenance of
at least 65% open space along all rimrocks.
(Ord. 91-020 § 1, 1991; Ord. 86-053 § 21, 1986; Ord.
82-013 § 2, 1982)
(Section 5.250, Lands Adjoining SM or SMR Zones,
repealed by Ord. 88-004 § 1, 1988; Ord. 85-016 § 2,
1985; Ord. 81-015 § 1, 1981)
Page 9
EXHIBIT "C" 0111-0018
OPEN SPACE AREAS OF SPECIAL CONCERN AND ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY FINDINGS FOR
LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONES
The County Comprehensive Plan section on open spaces, areas
of special concern, and environmental quality is the guiding
policy document for the Landscape Management Combining Zone
(LMCZ) and rimrock setback provisions. Areas included in the
LM zone consist of numerous roads and highways, identified in
the comprehensive plan, and all area within 200 feet of
either side of designated rivers and streams.
In 1986, to implement the findings of the City of Bend .and
Deschutes County River Study, the Board of County
Commissioners adopted Ordinance 86-019 which amended
comprehensive plan policies relating to landscape management
areas along certain rivers and streams. Ordinance 86-006, by
operation, deleted the Deschutes River Combining Zone from
the County Zoning Ordinance.
The Department of Land Conservation and Development review of
the Deschutes County proposed periodic review order, dated
August 27, 1990 reviewed and made comments and
recommendations on the proposed periodic review order. The
County segmented the comments into related areas in order
more reasonably to deal with the large amount of work
involved. Factors relating to Goal 5 open space issues were
separated into two parts. Part 1 involved the landscape
management combining zone (LMCZ) resources and State and
Federal Scenic Waterways. Part 2 includes adoption of the
changes proposed in the periodic review order as well as
several more minor changes recommended in DLCD's review.
This package deals with part 1, LMCZ's.
A. DLCD recommendations for periodic review requiring
changes in the LMCZ:
1. "The County did not include an analysis of the
cumulative effects of a development decisions on the
protection of Goal 5 resources. At a minimum the County
must assess the cumulative effects of implementing
actions on Goal 5 resource which are currently being
protected under the (1) Landscape Management Combining
Zone; (2) Wildlife Area Combining Zone; (3) Deschutes
River Combining Zone; and (4) Floodplain Zone. The
County developed these zones to protect several
significant Goal 5 resources. A finding that individual
decisions have been made consist with acknowledged Goal
5 standards is not adequate. The County must assess
(cumulative effects) of development decisions since
LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONES
April 8, 1992
Page 1
0111-0019
acknowledgement. The purpose of this analysis is to
test whether the original assumption upon, which the
1980 plan was based, continue to comply with Goal 5.
Discretionary review criteria can also be tested. If
the County finds that cumulative effects of
implementation actions have resulted in a significant
lose of habitat areas or resource values, amendments to
these regulations will be necessary to satisfy periodic
review (OAR 660-19-055(1))."
2. Potential and Approved Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers
and State Scenic Waterways
"The proposed order identified, as a Goal 5 resource,
"the Upper Deschutes River within Deschutes County and
all land within 1/4 mile of each bank, beginning at
Wickiup Dam and extending downstream to Lake Billy
Chinook, excluding approximately 12 miles within the
Bend Urban Growth Boundary." Conflicting uses and the
ESEE consequences analysis is discussed in the Deschutes
County/ City of Bend River Study, April 1986.
Implementing measures which carry out the proposed 113C"
designation is set forth in the Deschutes River
Combining Zone (Zoning Ordinance, section 4.195) (See
below, Implementing Measures, for discussion of the
Deschutes River Combining Zone).
The proposed order does not discuss the Deschutes River
from Little Lava Lake downstream to Crane Prairie
Reservoir as a designated state scenic waterway under
Ballot Measure No. 7. The proposed order does not
discuss other portions of the Deschutes Rive designated
as a federal Wild and Scenic River and their
classification under the Omnibus Oregon Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act of 1988 are also not discussed. The federal
Wild and Scenic River section of Squaw Creek is also not
discussed. To comply with Goal 5, the county needs to
address these resources under Goal 5 and explain how
its resource protection program under Goal 5 coordinates
with state and federal agencies responsible for managing
these river segments".
3. Goal 5 Implementing Measures
"The county's proposed periodic review order contain
ESEE consequences analyses for several Goal 5 resources.
The Deschutes County/City of Bend River Study, April
1986 is a major component of the county's plan and
provides most of the analyses required under Goal 5. No
amendments to the county's Goal 5 implementing measures
are proposed under periodic review.
The following standards do not comply with the
requirements for clear and objective standards and
LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONES
April 8, 1992
Page 2
0111=0020
conditions under OAR 660-16-010(3) because they provide
too much discretion and not enough certainty:
Landscape Management Combining Zone
1. Subsection (6)(B). "If upon ... the Hearings Officer
finds the established setbacks inappropriate to
carry out the purpose of the LM zone, he may
require more or less restrictive dimensions."
2. Subsection (8)(A): "visually compatible" and
"unduly generate glare"; and (8)(D): "unduly
diminishes the aesthetic qualities...".
B. COMULATIW IMPACTS:
In conducting a cumulative effects analysis of development
decisions in LM zones the County encountered a great deal of
difficulty. It is extremely difficult to quantify impacts on
aesthetic resources. It was found to be impractical to
assess and quantify the impacts of hundreds of land use and
building permits issued in a Landscape Management Combining
Zones. For this reason the County chose to have an
evaluation conducted by the County Planning Commission. The
Planning Commission serves as the county's citizen
involvement program. The Planning Commission, assisted by
the planning staff analyzed impacts in the landscape
management corridors of the county by individually
considering the impacts structures which effected view
corridors. The Planning Commission evaluated impacts in a
subjective manner considering the relevant zoning ordinance
standards and criteria and the comprehensive plan policies.
The findings were discussed by the Planning Commission at
regular Planning Commission meetings. Several staff reports
were prepared to discuss the various issues. The problem
issues identified and agreed to by the Planning Commission
were as follows:
1. The design review standards in the Landscape Management
Zone were not clear and objective.
2. Properties which were not visible from the river or road
were subject to requirements of the zoning ordinance to
file site plans and pay related fees for review.
3. The ordinance did not specify that vistas to be
protected are those as seen from the river or road.
4. The Landscape Management Combining Zone width of 200
feet was not adequate to protect the visual corridors
along rivers and streams.
5. The standards of the LM zone were inconsistent with the
State Scenic Waterway standards in some respects.
LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONES
April 8, 1992
Page 3
0111-0021
6. The State Scenic Waterway includes review of
development within 1/4 mile on either side of designated
sections of a river compared to 200 feet by the County.
7. The 20 feet rimrock setback standard was not adequate to
comply with the purpose of the zone to maintain scenic
and natural resources of the zone. The rimrock setback
does not accomplish the comprehensive plan policy to
minimize the visual impact of structures as viewed from
the river.
The Planning Commission held work sessions on March 27th,
July 10th and August 14th 1991. Public Hearings were held by
the Planning Commission on September 4th and October 23rd and
additional work sessions were held October 9th and November
13th with a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners held a
public hearing on January 15, 1991. The Board concurs with
the findings of the Planning Commission that the cumulative
effects of implementation actions have resulted in
development which did not carry out the intent of the
comprehensive plan. The Board finds that amendments are
necessary to satisfy the requirements for periodic review
established by OAR 660-19-055(1).
C. SUNKARY Of AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 18.84 Of THE COUNTY CODE:
1. Section 18.84.010 is amended to specify that the vistas
and natural landscapes to be protected are those as seen
from the stream, river or road.
2. Section 18.84.020 is amended to expand the landscape
management corridors to include all areas within the
boundaries of a State Scenic Waterway of Federal Wild
and Scenic River Corridor and all area within 660 feet
of rivers and streams identified as landscape management
corridors in the comprehensive plan. The inclusion of
the State and Federal Scenic Waterway's will require
that all structures will be subject to a land use permit
involving public notice. This will improve coordination
with other governmental agencies by insuring adequate
time and notice to address issues of mutual concern.
The expansion of other landscape management corridors
along rivers and streams to 660 feet will improve visual
resource management along streams and rivers. This will
satisfy the deficiency identified in the cumulative
impact analysis of the Planning Commission. This also
is consistent with the current comprehensive plan,
Deschutes River Corridor Open Space, policy #1. This
policy requires inclusion of the "areas" along certain
rivers and streams, in the LMCZ. This distance is not
LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONES
April 8, 1992
Page 4
0111-0022
defined but may include all riparian areas, wetlands and
canyons.
3. Section 18.84.050 requires site plan review for
structures within the LM zone, clarifies the amount of
alteration allowed without site plan review and exempts
structures which will not be and will remain invisible
from a designated roadway, river or stream from the
provisions of site plan review.
4. Section 18.84.070 establishes more clearly the type of
site plan needed to apply for a structure in the LM
Combining Zone.
5. Section 18.84.080 establishes design review standards
which are more clear and objective than previous
standards. It is very difficult to develop clear and
objective standards for aesthetic purposes. Clear and
objective standards reduce flexibility and do not allow
consideration of site specific features and
characteristics. For this reason site plan review
requires some discretionary standards which will be
subject to land use permits involving public notice.
The Board has chosen not to mandate specific colors but
to make them a recommendation. This was a particularly
controversial issue in the public hearings and the Board
finds that requirements for colors which blend into the
surrounding landscape are subjective and not clear and
objective. Further, the Board finds that the
recommendation of the Planning Commission to allow
traditional red barns and white farmhouses, though clear
and objective, creates certain inequities since these
colors would not blend with the surrounding landscape.
There was much controversy over the county's
requirements for conservation easements as a condition
of approval of a landscape management site plan. The
Board finds that there is not a reasonable nexus between
a LM review for a permitted use and public access to
streams. For this reason public access will not be
required as a condition of approval of a landscape
management site plan. The Board finds that conservation
easements do promote the purposes of the LM zone and
should be required, as they are for all other land use
permits.
6. Section 18.84.090 establishes setback standards in
Landscape Management Combining Zones. These are clear
and objective standards which did not previously exist
in the Landscape Management Combining Zone. The 100
foot setback is consistent with requirements for
structures which currently exist from all streams and
river in the county. This section expands this setback
LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONES
April 8, 1992
Page 5
0111-0023
to include areas along roadways in the LM Combining
Zone. This section allows exceptions to setback
standards for situations that would be severely
restricted by the new setbacks.
By far the most controversial issue in the Landscape
Management Combining Zone review is the rimrock setback
standards. The county comprehensive plan goals and
policies on open space, amended by Ordinance 86-019,
adopting the requirements of the Deschutes River Study,
states "Deschutes County shall modify its existing
rimrock setback ordinance to assure that visual impacts
of structures viewed from rivers or streams are
minimized". The cumulative impact analysis indicates
that the current 20 foot rimrock setback is not
adequate, in all cases, to protect the visual resource
values along rivers and streams.
The Board finds that increasing the setback to 50 feet
will satisfy the comprehensive plan policy to minimize
impacts along rivers. However considerable testimony,
in the record indicates that the 50 foot setback creates
a significant burden on some existing parcels.
Testimony in the record indicates that significant loss
of property value can occur with the increase in setback
from 20 to 50 feet. For this reason a structures within
50 feet of a rimrock will be allowed on existing lots
when certain criteria are met. These criteria allow
dwellings when compliance with the setback standards
would be completely screened from the river, houses on
both abutting lots are located closer than 50 feet or
adherence to the 50 foot setback would prevent a
structure from being located on the lot. Additionally,
structures located closer than 50 feet of a rimrock are
allowed if they satisfy certain site plan criteria to
minimize visual impact when viewed from the river or
stream. Trees and shrubs are retained to screen the
structure, the height of the structure can not exceed
the setback from the edge of the rim, and no visible
portion of the structure is located within 20 feet of
the rimrock. The Board finds that these provisions
minimize the impacts of structures on the scenic values
of the area while recognizing setback expectations of
property owners and the value of rimrock views. This
balancing is consistent with the treatment of other
conflicting values in the county's Goal 5 element of the
comprehensive plan. This represents a 113C" decision as
identified in the "Goal 5 Rule".
The Board finds that the acknowledged ESEE analysis and
findings relating to open space and recreation
consequences contained in the Deschutes River Study and
incorporated into the comprehensive plan are adequate to
support this decision.
LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONES
April 8, 1992
Page 6
0111-0024
7. Section 18.84.090(6) State and Federal Scenic Waterways.
The goals and policies of the comprehensive plan enacted
by the Deschutes River Study in 1986 encourage the
designation of appropriate segments of the Deschutes
River, Fall River, Little Deschutes River and Crooked
River under the Federal Wild and Scenic River program
and the State Scenic Waterways program. Since that time
certain areas have been so designated. DLCD required
the County to address these resources and explain how
its resource protection program under Goal 5 coordinates
with State and Federal agencies responsible for managing
these river segments.
All State Scenic and Federal Wild and Scenic Waterway
designations are included in the comprehensive plan in
order to satisfy included the periodic review
requirements, under Factor 2, new or amended goals or
rule adopted since the date of acknowledgement. The
LMCZ requires that structures in the State Scenic
Waterway meet all standards of the State. For this
reason no building permit would be issued until the
applicant obtains approval from the State of Oregon to
build in the State Scenic Waterway. The County has
attempted to make its standards as consistent as
possible with the State Scenic Waterway standards. It
should be noted that the rule making process in adopting
specific land management standards for the State Scenic
Waterways in Deschutes County took into consideration
local ordinances. The State adopted many of the county
land use development standards in an effort to balance
the protection of the rivers special attributes with the
local planning regulations. State parks has submitted a
letter in the record which indicates that it supports
the proposed changes. This letter also indicates that
the State will make every effort to revise the
administrative rule to be consistent with the new county
standards.
The Federal Wild and Scenic Waterway standards are
currently being developed. The letter in the record
from the Deschutes National Forest states that the
proposed changes are consistent with the Wild and Scenic
River requirements. The County is currently working to
coordinate planning efforts with the Bureau of Land
Management and Forest Service for the standards being
developed within the Wild and Scenic River designations.
8. Section 18.116.160 of the County Code is being amended
to regulate development along rimrocks outside of a LM
Combining Zone. Rimrock setback outside of a LM zone
have been regulated since the county's comprehensive
plan was adopted in November of 1979. The subject
changes would require site plan review for all
LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONES
April 8, 1992
Page 7
0111-0025
structures within 50 foot of a rimrock. The changes
would require that all structures visible from the
protected view corridor of a designated river would be
required to be setback a minimum of 20 feet from the
edge of the rimrock. The height of a structure shall
not exceed the setback from the edge of a rimrock.
Existing trees and shrubs which reduce visibility of the
proposed structure would be required to be retained.
These changes are made to maintain consistency with the
rimrock standards in LM zone.
D. SUMMARY OF AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
1. The Board finds that the with few exceptions subject
Landscape Management Combining Zone requirements are
consistent with all existing comprehensive plan goals
and policies.
Changes to the comprehensive plan include:
a. Recognition of appropriate segments of the
Deschutes River and Squaw Creek as Federal Wild,
Scenic or Recreational River and State Scenic
Waterways and expansion of the LMCZ to include
these areas.
b. Expansion of LM corridors along certain rivers and
streams from 200 feet to 660 feet to include them
in the LMCZ.
C. Listing of Landscape Management Corridors along
highways and roads currently designated only on
zoning and comprehensive plan maps.
d. Housekeeping clarifications to improve plan
readability and increase plan consistency with the
LMCZ.
All of these changes are consistent with and supported
by the acknowledged ESEE analysis, findings, and
supporting documentation adopted by the Board in the
Deschutes River Study or currently existing in the
acknowledged county comprehensive plan.
2. Other comprehensive plan amendments specified in the
proposed periodic review order and necessitated by the
DLCD review of the proposed periodic review order of
August 27, 1990 will be adopted as part of the final
periodic review order.
/mjz
LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONES
April 8, 1992
Page 8