Tumalo Park Road eBook

State

Coats

State

{HS

t

Gommunlty'Developürênt [lepartmËnt Þlvl¡lon plâñÉìhü þMtfron Êulltllng Saloty Þlvlrlon Ënvlronnrerrl¡l soil¡

{

F

0. Box60A5 1fi tIW

Lafayette Avenue 8end. Oregon 9770&6005

(54 ¡)388-65?5 FAX (541)385-1764 http //rvww. co. desch utes.or.us/ cdd/ :

FINDINGS AND DECISION FILE NUMBERS:

c u-1 3-9/SMA-1 3-5/LM-13-24

APPLICANT/OWNER:

Joyce E. Coats Revocable Trust 63285 Skyline Ranch Road Bend, OR 97701

ATTORNEY:

Tia M. Lewis Schwabe, Williamson & WYatt 360 S.W. Bond Street, Suite 400 Bend, OR 97702

REQUEST:

A conditional use permit for a nonfarm dwelling on a 4Q-acre parcet in an Exclusive Farm Use (EFU-TRB) Zone, along with site plan review for a house in the Surface Mining lmpact Area (SMIA) and Landscape Management (LM) Combining Zones'

STAFF

GONTACT:

I.

APPLICABLE CRITERIA:

Kevin Harrison, Principal Planner

Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zones..

1g.16.d30, Conditional uses permitted - High value and nonhigh value farmland 18.16.050, Standards for dwellings in the EFU zones 1 8. 1 6.055, Land divisions 1 8.1 6.060, Dimensional standards 18.16.070, Yards 1 8.16.080, Stream setbacks 18.1 6.090, Rimrock setback chapter 18.56, Surface Mining lmpact Area (SMIA) Combiningzone 18.56.050, Conditional uses permitted 18.56.070, Setbacks 18.56.080, Use limitations 18.56.090, SPecific use standards 18.56.100, Site plan review and approval criteria 18.56.110, Abbreviated SMIA site plan review

Qwtítt1 Scrvices llerþnned zuith ltrirle

18.56.120, Waiver of Remonstrance 18.56.140, Exemptions Chapter 18.84, Landscape Management (LM) Combining Zone 18.84.040, Uses permitted conditionally 1 8.84.050, Use Iimitations Chapter 18.88, Wildlife Area (WA) Combining Zone 18.88.040, Uses permitted conditionally 1 8.88.060, Siting standards 18.88.070, Fence standards

1I. A.

BASIC FINDINGS

LOCATION: The subject property is at 19210 Tumalo Park Road, Bend, and

is

identified on Deschutes County Assessor's Map No. 17-11-12 as tax lot 900.

B.

LOT OF RECORD: The subject property is a legal lot of record as documented in LR98-6 and LR-07-37.

c.

ZONING: The property is zoned Exclusive Farm Use - TRB subzone (EFU-TRB). lt is designated agriculture on the Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan. The property is also within the Surface MĂ­ning lmpact Area (SMIA), Landscape Management (LM) and Wildlife Area (WA) Combining Zones.

D.

PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to establish a nonfarm dwelling on a 40-acre parcel in the,EFU zone. .The applicant is also.requesting site plan review for a new house in the SMIA and LM combining zones.

E

SITE DESCRIPTION: The subject property has rolling topography, with ridges generally running in an east-west direction. The property has a vegetative cover of mixed juniper and ponderosa pines in the overstory and rabbitbrush, sagebrush, antelope bitterbrush and bunch grasses in the understory. The property is fenced and shows no signs of irrigation or past farm use. Access to the property is via a dirt driveway that extends north from Tumalo Park Road, a paved public road.

F

SURROUNDING LAND USES: The subject property is in an area that can be characterized as scattered rural residential, with small-scale farm use and several surface riining operations. Propedies to the north, east and west are zoned Exclusive Farm Use; properties located to the southwest, across Johnson Road, are zoned Forest.

The property immediately to the south is also zoned Exclusive Farm Use, while properties to the southeast are zoned Surface Mining (Site # 293). Further to the south properties are zoned Rural Residential.

The attributes of the adjoining and nearby EFU properties are summarized in the following table.

c u -1 3-9/S M A-1 3-5 I LM-1 3-24

2

Craig Shannon Rosenberg

EFU Tax Lots

and N

Table

17-11- 11, 1 001 17-11- 11, I 002 17-11- 11, 1 100

4.51O 814

Y

N

19.51?

Y

Y

157C 157G, 155D 157C, B5A

17-11-12,200

78t25

Y

N

157C, B5A, 141C,1018

17-11-12,800

40t40

N

B5A

N

157C,'34C, 364, 688 34C,364,52D,157C,72 157C,155D,34C,364,52

N

West Murphy

East Coats Souf/¡ Daúenport

Parker Pa¡,ker

North.

.

17-11-12,201

201193

17-11-11, 900

20lo

17.11-11,901

17lO

N N

Y

..

SOILS:'.The subject property contains the following soil types:

o

r..,

{

-..

H

B5A, Lundgren sandy loam (O-3% slopes). The Lundgren series consists of welldrained so¡ls formeO in volcanic ash over glacial outwash. Native plants are ,,ponderosa:'p¡ne,.antelope . bitterbrush and,ldaho fescue.. .Available water capacity is n about 4 inches and maþr uses are irrigated cropland and livestock grazing. The soil capability class is 6s fór non-irrigated land; it ís not rated for irrigated land. lt is not grazing. niçjh-valúe farmland. This soil is typically used for forest land and livestock o 157C, Wanoga-Fremkle-Rock outcrop complex (o-15% slopes). This complex consists of 35% Wanoga and similar soils, 30% Fremkle and similar soils and 20% Rock outcrop. Theselsoils are typically found on hillslopes and are formed from volcanic ash over tuff or basalt. Native plants are ponderosa pine, antelope , b'ttte;Ùrush and ldaho fescue. The Wanoga soils are well-drained, with an available water capacity of abo,ut 5 inches. The soil capability class is 4e when irrigated, and 6e,when not-irrigated. The Fre-mkle soils are also well-drained, with an available water capacity olabout 3 inches. The soil capability class is 4e when irrigated, and 6e when not irrigated. The Rock outcrop is capability class L This complex is not high-value farmiánd. This complex is typically used for forest land and livestock grãzing. Thq proposed building envelope submitted by the applícant spans both soils types. public PUBLIG,AGENGY GOMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice to several agencies and received the following comments:

Deschutes CountY Road Department: The following comments were submitted:

Access to parcel witt be off of Tumalo Park Road versus Johnson Road' Meets access requirements of County Code. c u - 1 3-9/S M A-1 3-5 I LM-1 3-24

3

2.

County Transportation Planner: The following comments were submitted

I have reviewed the transmittal materials for CU-13-9/LM-12-34/SMA-13-5

to establish a non-farm Dwelling near the northeast corner of the intersectíon of Johnson Market RoadlTumalo Park Road at 19210 Tumalo Park Road, Bend, aka 17-11-12, Tax Lot 900. No traffic study is required, but the applicant will need to pay a transportation system development charge (SDC).

The most recent edition of the lnstitute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook indicates a single-family residence (Land Use 210) generates an average of 10 daily weekday trips and one p.m. peak hour trip. Deschutes County Code (DCC) at 17.16.115(C)(4)(a) states no traffic analysis is required for any use that will generafe /ess than 50 new weekday trips.

BOCC Ordinance 2008-059 as amended sefs an SDC rate of $3,673 per peak hour trip. Given the ITE rate printed above, the proposed land use will generate a síngle p.m. peak hourtrip so fhe applicable SDC,s $3,673. The applicant does need to'know the County is in the midst of updating rT SDG rates and the Board is scheduled to hold a public hearing on June 5, 2013, on Resolution 2013-020.

Under that resolution, the updated SDC rate for a single-family honie is proposed to drop to $3,044. The resolution also contains proposed language that for applicants that may start the process under the rate set'by Resolution 2008-059 and end the process under Resolution 2013-020, the County will use the lower of the two SDC rafes.

3

Deschutes Gounty Building Safety Division: No comments submitted

4

County Assessor: No comments submitted

5

Property Address Goordinator: No comments.

6

Bend Fire Department The following comments were submitted.

An approved water supply eapable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be 'provided to premises upon which facilities; buildings or poftions of buildings are hereafter constructed or moved into or within the

jurisdiction

or addresses sha// be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be ptainty visible and tegible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast with their bac4ground and be visible at night. Dwellings that are located off of street frontage shall post a visible approved reflective address sign at the entrance to their driveway.

Approved numbers

Fire apparaúus access roads shall be placed within 150 feet of all exterior walls of the first floor of all buildings. Fire apparafus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet designed with a uniform all-weather driving surface to support the imposed GMV of 75,000 lbs. and a vertical clearance of nof,/êss than 13 feet 6 inches. Turning radius shall be nat less than 45 feet and gradient shall not exceed 12 percent unless the authorities having c u - 1 3-9/S M

A-1

3-5 I LM-1 3-24

4

jurÌsdiction approve a variance. Dead-end access roads rn excess of 150 feet in shall'bìe provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apþaratus. A cul-de-sac, hammerhead or other means for the turning around of fire apparatus maY be aPProved.

'tength

7.

8.

9.

Tumalo lrrigation District: No comments submitted.

Deschutes County Enúironmental Soils: No comments submitted' Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife: No comments submitted.

PUBLIC COMMENTS: The Planning Division mailed notice of the application to all property owners within 750 feet of the subject property. No comments were received.

J

REVIEW PERTOD: This application was submitted on April 16, 2013. lt was accepted as complete on May 13,2013. Staff conducted a site visit on May 10, 2013 and did not observé a notice of-land use sign. l-lowever, the appiicant submitteO -" Lll9 Use Action Sign Affidavit for the application showing that the sign was posted on April 25,2013'

K.

LAND USE'HISTORY: The property has been the subject of the following land use applications:

o t¡r

LR-SB-6 and LR-07-37. The subject property has been found to be a legal lot of record under two sepârate applications.

CONCLUSIO

RY FINDINGS

TtrLE l8 OF THE DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE, COUNTY ZONING

A.

CHAPTER 18.16, EXCLUSIVE FARM USE ZONES.

1.

Section farmland.

Co

a

The fotlowing ¿rses may be allowed in the Exclusíve Farm lJse zones on either hígh vátue falmtãnd or non-hig.h value farmland.subiect to applicable prouisions of the Comprehensive PIan, DCC 18.16.040 and 18.16.050, and other applicable secfíons of Title 18.

A. Nonfarm dwelting FINDING: The applicant is proposing to establish a nonfarm dwelling on property that has no water rights. Therefore, the property is non-high value farmland.

Section 18. 16 05O Standards

2

r Dwellinos in the E FLJ Zones

Dweltings listed in DCC 18.16.02:5 and 18.16.030 may be allowed under the conditiõns set fo¡7h below for each kind of dwelling, and all dwellings are subject to the landowner for the properiy upon which the dwelling is c u-1 3-9/SM

A-1

3-5 I LM-1 3-24

5

placed, signing and recording in the deed records for the County, a document binding the landowner, and the landowner's successors ln interest, prohibiting them from pursuing a claim for relíef or cause of action alleging injury from farming or forest practices for which no action or claim is allowed under ORS 30.936 or 30.937.

G 1.

Nonfarm Dwelling.

One single-family dwellîng, including a manufactured home in accordance with secúion 18.116.070 of this títle, not provided in conjunction with farm use may be permítted on an existing lot or parcel subject to the following criteria: a

The Planning Director or Hearings Body shall make findíngs that:

I

The dwelling or activifies associated with the dwelling will not f.orce a significant change in or significantly increase fhe cosú of accepted farming practices, as defined in ORS 215.203(2)(c), or accepted forest practices on nearby lands devoted to farm or foresf use.

FINDING: The applicant will be required to sign and record the waiver listed above as a condition of any approval. Properties to the southwest, across Johnson Market Road, are zoned Forest Use, but, since the predominant tree species in this area is juniper, and based on a staff site visit, staff finds that there are no lands.devoted to forest use on nearby lands.

Therefore, the proposed dwelling will not force a significant change in or significantly increase the cost of forest practices on nearby lands.

Properties located to the east, west and north, across Johnson Market Road, are zoned EFU and several adjacent or nearby properties are irrigated and show signs of farm use. There is irrigated farm land to the northeast, and west, across Johnson Market Road. These properties are located over 500 feet from. the proposed home, are engaged in small-scale extensive operations and are buffered by topography and woodland from the proposed dwelling. For these reasons staff finds the dwelling will not force a significant change in, or significantly increase the cost of, accepted farming practices on adjacent or nearby lands devoted to farm use.

ii.

The proposed nonfarm dwetling does noú materialty alter the

stability of the overall land use pattern of the area. In determining whether a proposed nonfarm dwetling will alter the stability of the land use pattern in the area, the county shall consider the cumulative ímpact of nonfarm dwellings on other lots or parcels in the area similarly situated, by applying the standards under OAR 660-033-0130(4)(a)(D), and whether creation of the parcel wilt tead to creation of other nonfarm parcels, to the detriment of agriculture in the area.

FINDING: On June 1, 1998, the Land Conservation and Development Commission adopted amendments to the administrative rules implementing Goal 3, Agricultural Lands (OAR Chapter 660-033) to incorporate case law and to clarify the analysis under the "stability" approval C

U-1

3-9/SM

A-1 3 -5 I Ll\A-1

3-24

6

cr¡terion. The rules continue to apply the three-step "stability" analysis first articulated Sweeten v. Clackamas County,17 Or LUBA 1234 (1989). The rules are as follows:

in

(D) The dwelling wilt not materiatly alter the stability of the overall,land use pattern of the area. Ii determining whether a proposed nonfarm dwelling will alter the stabilíty of the land use pa{tern in the area, a county shall consíder the cumulatíve impaci ofpossrble new-nonfarm dwellings and parcels on other lots or parcels in thê area simitarly situated. To address this standard, the county shall:

(i)

Identify a study area'for the cumulative impacfs anatysls. The stydy area,shatt include'at least 2000 acres or a smaller area not less than 7000 acres, if the smaller area is a élistinct agricultural area based on topography, soil types¡.land use'pattern, or the type of farm or ranch oierat¡óné''or piactices that distinguish ît from other, adiacent a'gricult:ural areas. Findings shatt descrîbe the study area, ifs bôundaries, the location of the subiect parcel withín this area, why the selecÚed .area is representatíve of the land use pattern surrounding the subiect parcel and is adequate to conduct the analysis re'quired by thís standard. Lands zoned for rural residential or other urban or nonresource uses sha// not be included in the study area;

. (ií)

. (¡i¡) ' : , '

tdentify within the study area the broad types of farm uses (írrigated or no-nirrigated crops,.pasture or grazing lands), the number, Iocation and type of existing dwettíngs (farm, nonfarm, hardship, etc.), and the dwetting developtment.trends srnce 1993. . Deter¡nine the' potential number of nonfarm/lot of 'record dwellings that could be àpproved under subsecfío ns (3)(a) and section 4 of this rule, incluãing identificatíon of predomínant soil classifications, the parcels created prior to January 7, 1993, and the parcels larger.than -the minimum loi size that may be divíded to create new parcels for nonfarm dwettings under. ORS .215.263(4). The findings shall describe the existíng land use pattern of the study area including the distribution and arrangement of existing uses and the land use pattern that could result from approval of fhe possible nonfarm dwettings under thís subparagraph ; Determine whether approval of the proposed nonfarmllot of record dwettings together with existing nonfarm dwellings will materially alter the staøitity o the land use pattern in the area. The stability of the land use pattern witt be materially altered if the cumulative effect of exístíng and potentíal nonfarm dwellings will make ít more difficult fór the existíng types of farms in the area to contínue operatíon due to diminíshed opportunitíes to expand, purchase or ,éase farmland, acquire water rights or diminish the number of tracts or acreage in farm use in a manner that will destabílíze the overall character of the studY area;

Cumulative lmpacts Analysis Area. The County has applied an area of analysis including all EFU-zoned land located within a one-mile radius of the

1

subjåct propedy'J boundaries and including approximately 2,000 acres (hereafter c u- 1 3-9/SM

A-1

3-5 I LM-1 3-24

7

called "study area"). Staff finds this area of analysis is suitable to provide a comprehensive analysis of the character of the area surrounding the subject property because of its size and the number of parcels located within it. As indicated in a foregoing finding, the study area is zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EFU), Rural Residential (RR-10), Forest Use (F-2) and Surface Mining (SM).

Staff estimates that approximately one-half of the study area is zoned EFU.

There are 44 EFU-zoned tax lots in the study area (excluding the subject property). Two of these tax lots are in public (state) ownership. The remaining 42 tax lots are in private ownership. The privately owned parcels in the study area range in size from 0.04 to 201 âGrês: Nineteen of the tax lots in the study ârêâ:ârê 20 acres or less in size (45o/o), twelve tax lots are between 20+ and 40 acres in size (29o/o), eight tax lots are between 40 and 80 acres in size (19o/o), and three tax lots are larger than 80 acres (7%).

2.

Types of Farm Uses. The EFU zoned land in the study area involves farming primarily in the form of irrigated pasture and livestock grazing. Twenty-one (21) of the tax lots in the study area are receiving farm tax deferral, and all but four of them appear to have some kind of farm use occurring. The amount of water rights on these farm deferred properties ranges from zero to 93.17 acres. Based upon the amount of irrigation and the size of the parcels in the study area, staff estimates a total of 474 acres (acreage that ís possibly being irrigated) are engaged in farm use and approximately 1,078 acres are not engaged in farm use. As discussed above, the predominant farm practices include irrigated pasture and livestock grazing.

The record indicates that the study area is located within the Tumalo lrrigation District. The study area includes. soil type(s) classified as high value (36A and 1528), and as nonhigh value (34C, 388, 61C, 62D, 72C, B5A, 101E, sBC, 141C, 155D and 157C).

3

Existing Dwellings. The record indicates that 26 of the 42 privalely-owned tax lots in the study area have dwellings. These dwellings were built in the following years: 5 dwellings prior to 1979, I dwellings from 1979 to 1992, and 1 3 dwellings from 1993 to present.

Staff finds that the dwellings developed prior to 1979 predated the County's EFU zone and therefore were not subject to EFU zoning requirements. The I dwellings developed between 1979 and 1992 include 2 farm dwellings and 1 nonfarm dwelling. The dwellings constructed up until the late 1980's in this time period were not necessarily reviewed as either farm or nonfarm dwellings. Of the 13 dwellings constructed in 1993 or after, 3 were nonfarm dwellings, 3 were lot of record dwellings, 5 were farm dwellings and 2 were replacement dwellings.

4

Dwelling Development Trends Since 1993. As discussed above, 13 of the dwellings constructed in 1993 or after were nonfarm dwellings, lot of record dwellings, replacement dwellings or farm dwellings. No new farm dwellings have been approved in the study area under the income standards adopted in 1

995.

cu-1 3-9/SMA-1 3-5/LM-1 3-24

B

5

potential Nonfarm Parcels. Seventeen of the privately owned tax lots in the study atea are vacant. One of the vacant tax lots (17-11-11; 3A2) is almost

entirely irrigated, according to Assessor's records- This property probably would not qúalify for a nonfarm- dwelling. There are no properties that have valid conOit¡onât use permits for nonfarm dwellings that have not been constructed.

Therefore, staff iinds that there are a potential 16 nonfarm dwellings that could be established on vacant properties.

Of the existing tax lots, there are nine within the study area (17-11-1, tax lots 40S, 700, ZOl, lOg; 17.11-11, tax rlot 2OO;'17-11-12, lax lots 200, 201, 2O2 and 300) that have enough irrigation water',to qualify for an irrigated land div-ision, where a small, dry uñprodr;1¡ug portion of a farm property is partitioned olf flom a larger farm paicel itrat qualifies under sections 18.16.055 and 18.16-065 of Ti¡e 18. There ¿¡g g privately owned,tax lots that could qualify for a non-irrigated do land division under OöC 19,10.055(G). There are also several properties that public not qualify for a non-irrigated land division because they lack frontage on a road. Stâtf RnOs that ihere is potential for an additional 17 nonfarm dwellings through partitioning of properties. This is an estimate because all new nonfarm p"r"e'|" would havé to'be reviewed under both the conditional use criteria for a nonfarm dwelling and the paÉition criteria.

6.

potential Nonfarm Dwellings. Theoretically, if all of the existing and potential properties identified above were,approved for nonfarm dwellings there could be

an additional 33-such dwellings,(16 vacant parcels, and additional dwellings on each of the parcels potentially capable of a land division)' It is not clear whether a nonfarm dwelling can:be approved on each parcel, since they are reviewed on a case by case básis. The dwellings have to be reviewed for iheir effect on the stability ót tne land use pattern, whether they are on land generally unsuitable land foi the production of crops or livestock, and whether ¡rey w¡il cause a significant change in or significantly increase the cost of accepted farming,practices on adjacent land.

Staff will assume for purposes of.review that up to 33 new nonfarm dwellings could be developed, based on the 16 vacant parcels, and the 17 hax lots potentially eligible for a partition.

7

Potential Lot of Record Dweltings. under section 18.16.050(E) and oAR 660033-130(3), a lot of record dwelling may be sited on an EFU-zoned parcel on nonhigh'välue farmland if 'the parcel was created and acquired by the current o*n"r].pr.ior to -January 1 , 1985, has continuously been owned by the present owner,àincê then, and if the lot or parcel,on which the dwelling will be sited was part of a tract on November 4,1993, no dwelling exists on another lot or parcel ihrt *"r part of that tract. Under Section 18.16.050(F) and OAR 660-033on high value farmland if it meets 130(3Xc), 'ciiieriaa lot of record dwelling may,be sited for a lot of record-dwelling on non-high value farmland and the the planning Division finds the parcel cannot practically be managed for farm use ,,due to extraordinary circumstances inherent in the land or its physical setting," such as "very steep slopes, deep ravines ..' ol'other similar natural or physical barriers."

cu-1 3-9/SMA-1 3-5/LM-1 3-24

I

The Planning Division has previously determined that lot of record dwellings can be difficult to obtain, given the requirement for ownership prior to 1985, and the land cannot be suitable for farming based on the above factors. Some parcels may qualify for a lot of record dwelling, but without a specific analysis of each and every parcel, this determination cannot be made. Staff notes that three of the tax lots in the study area have been approved for a lot of record dwelling.

8.

Stability and Character of the Land Use Pattern of the Area. Based upon the above findings, staff finds the land use pattern and character of the study area is a mix of farm use, rural residential and vacant land with larger forest zoned properties to the southwest and surface mining to the southeast. Much of the EFU zoned residential development within the study area occurred on or after 1993, most of which were nonfarm dwellings. The.land use,pattern will continue to be farming and rural residential on those properties not suitable for farm use.

The proposed dwelling will be consistent with the land use pattern of the area by allowing a nonfarm dwelling on dry, unproductive property.

9.

Effect on Stability from Proposed Non-irrigated Partition and Nonfarm Dwellings. Approval of the proposed nonfarm dwelling will make a total of 27

dwellings in the study area. The cumulative effect of adding this nonfarm dwelling will not "materially alter the stabílity of the land use pattern in the area" by making it more difficult for the existing farms to continue operation due to diminished opportunities to expand, purchase of lease farmland, acquire water rights or by diminishing the number of tracts or acreage in farm use. The property does not contain any water rights and,does not appear to have ever been in farm use. lt is a wooded tract that separates small, scattered farming activíties to the west, acros,s Johnson Market Road, and,to the northeast from larger surface mining activities to the southeast. The proposed nonfarm dwelling will be located interior to the tract, well separated from any farming activities.

The approval of the pr:oposed nonfarm dwelling will not set a precedent for the wholesale approval of nonfarm dwellings to the detriment of surrounding farming.

Historical aerial photos show that all of the properties currently employed iR farm use have remained so over the years. Each proposed nonfarm dwelling is reviewed on the conditions that pertain to a subject property and the surrounding atea. For these reasons staff finds that the proposed nonfárm dwelling will not materially alter the stability of the land use pattern in the area.

I'1.

2.

c u- 1 3-9/S

M A-1 3-5 I LM-1

The proposed nonfarm dwelling is sifuated on an existing lot or parcel, or a portion of a lot or parcel, that is generally unsuitable for the production of farm crops and livestock, or merchantable tree specíes, considering the terrain, adverse soi/ or land conditions, drainage and flooding, vegetation, location and size of the tract.

For the purposes of DCC 18.16.050(G) only, "unsuitabílity,, shatt be determined with reference to the following:

3-24

10

a.

A

lot

or parcel shatl not be considered unsuitable

solely

because of size or location if it can reasonably be put to farm or forest use in coniunction with other land. lf the parcel is under forest assessr??ent, the dwelling shall be situated upon generally unsuitable land for the production of merchantable lree späcíes recognized by the Forest Practices Rules,

considering the terrain, adverse soil or land conditions, drainage ind flooding, vegetation, location and size of the parcel.

b

or parcel is not "generally ungqitab!9" simply because it is foo smatl to be farmed profitably by itself. If a lot or parcel

A

tot

or otherwisê tftâ;ttãllêd as part of a commercial farm or ranch; it is'not "generally unsuítable"' A Iot or parcel is presumed to be suitable íf it rs composed of class l-vl s;oils, Jusf because a lot or parcel predominantty 'is unsuitable for one farm use does not mean it is not suítable for another fa;rm use. If the parcel ís under forest assessme nt, the area is not "generally unsuitable" simply becautse it is too small fo be managed for forest production can be sold, leased, rented

profitabty bY itself.

c. :

"";$¡:: , .

.

:

,

or paicel under forest assessrnent can be sold, leased, rented o-r otherwise managed as a part of a forestry operation, it is not "generally uinsuitable". If a lot or parcel is

If a

1ot

:i':",r'::;:;i: :i';?::;,:i,i ï:i:;"j:'ji';ffiï":ii per acre per year. If a lot or parcel is fiber ubic feet of wood ;"1

c

under forest assessn?e nt; to be found compatible and not s eriously ínterfere wíth foresf uses on surrounding land it

!,i;i,i::iiiî';"i"::1:'il::'J"':!":"i'::":"';'::"i:::r:;"';[ surrounding land-

juniper as FINDING: The property consists of mixed juniper and ponderosa pine woodland, with are in characteristics soil the dominant tree öp"õ¡"r. Those properties in the area with similar for generally unsuitable farm use if they are in resource use at all. Staff finds that the property is forest usê because juniper is not a commercial species' water rights but is located wíthin the boundaries of Tumalo lrrigation The property 'Thé has no irrigation property is not receivingépecial assessment for farm orforest use. Based on a staff District. site visit properties tô ttre west, souihwest and northeast contain irrigated farmland: There is an irrigation'ditóh or canal on the subject properly that cuts across the northwest corner. Without irrilation the soils on the property aie all'Class 6s or higher, unsuitable for crop production.

To determine whether it is feasible to use the property for livestock grazing, staff estimates the value of beef production based on the following assumptions, which have been derived through consultation with OSU Extension Service:

. cu-13-9/SM

One Animal Unit Month (AUM) is the equivalent to the forage required for a 1,000 pound cow and calf to giaze for 30 days (700 pounds of forage). According to the

A-13-5]LM-13-24

11

. . o .

soil data sheets for the soils on the subject property, in a normal year 700 lbs./acre dry weight of forage can be produced.

On good quality forage, an animal unit will gain 2 pounds per day.

Two animal units will eat as much in one month as one animal unit will eat in two months.

Forage production on dry land is not continuous: Once forage is eaten, it generally will not grow back untilthe following spring.

An average market price for beef is $1.20 per pound.

Based on these assumptions, the value of beef production on the property can be calculated using the following formulas: 30 days x 2tbS/day/acre = 60 lbs. beef/acre 1 acre per AUM

60 lbs. beef/acre x 40 acres x $1.20/lb.

-

$2,880

Thus, the value of beef production on this property would be $2,880. This figure does not take into account any land clearing, fencing, veterinary, feeding, watering, purchase price of animals or other costs associated with livestock grazing. Staff finds that a prudent farmer would not invest in livestock grazing operation with this anticipated gross return and that this demonstrates that the property is generally unsuitable for livestock grazing. Ultimately, staff finds that the subject property is generally unsuitable for farm use, meeting this criterion.

a

IV.

The proposed nonfarm dwelling is not within one-quarter míle

of a dairy. farm, feed.'lpt or sa/es yard, unless adequate

provisiqns are made and approved hy the Planning Director

or Hearings Body for a þuffer between such ¿rses. The establishment of a buffershall be designed based upon

consideration of suçh factors as prevailing winds, drainage, expansion potential of affected agricultural uses, open space

and any other factor that may affect the livability of the nonfarm dwelling or the agriculture of the area.

FINDING: The property is not within one-quarter mile of a dairy farm, feed lot or sales yard, meeting this criterion.

Road access, fire and police sel-r'ces and utility systems (i.e. electrical and telephone) are adequate for tt¡e use.

FINÐlNG: The applicant submitted the following information to demonstrate that public services and utilities are adequate:

I

Electricity. Central Electric Cooperative (CEC). A will-serve letter has

been

submitted.

2

Road access. The applicant intends to access the property from Tumalo Park Road, which is consistent with the comments from the County Road Department.

3,

Telephone. CenturyLink and cell phone service is available in the area.

c u-1 3-9/SM A-1 3-5 I LM-1 3-24

12

4.

5.

6.

Domestic water. On-site well.

Fire protecfion. Deschutes County Rural Fire Protection District No. 2.

Police protection. Deschutes County Sheriff.

Based on these findings, staff fìnds that required services are adequate for the use v.

The nonfarm dwelling shall be ¡ocated on a lot or parcel created prior to January 7, 7993, or was created or is being created as a nonfarm parcel under the land division standards in DCC 15.16.055(8) or (C).

FINDING: As determined in LR-98-6, the property was created by deed in 1961. This criterion is satisfied.

J.

Loss of tax deferral. Except as provided in DCC 18'16.050(l)(2)' pursuant fo ORS 215.236, a nonfarm dwelling on a lot or parcel in an -Exclusíve Farm lJse zone that is or has been receivíng special assessrne nt may be approved onty on the condition that before a building permítrs rssue{ the applícant must produce evidence from the Cõinty Assessor's Office that the parcel upon whích the dwetting is proposed has been disquatified for special assessmenf at value for ,'farm use under ,ORS 308.370 or other special assessrnent under oRs 308.765, 321.352, 321.730 or 321.815, and that any additionat:tax' or penatty. ím posed h¡r. the as a result of disqualification has been paid,

Co u nty

Assessor

FINDING: According to Assessor's records, the property is not receiving special assessment for farm use. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable'

3.

A.

.

Section 18.16.070. Yards The front yard shalt be a minimum of: 40 feet from a properiy line fronting on a locai street, 60 feet from a properfy line fronting on a collector sfreef, and 100 feetfrom a properTy:linefrontíng on an arterial street.

FINDING: The property has frontage on Johnson Market Road, a designated collector, and Tumalo park Road,'a local street. 'The applicantrs plot plan shows a building envelope that is approximately 600 feet from Johnson Market Road and 200 feet from Tumalo Park Road.

Therefore, this criterion is satisfied.

B.

Each side yard shalt be a minimum of àS feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling froposed on property with side yards adiacent to property currently'emptoyed in farm'us, and receíving special assesstnent for farm use, the side yard shall be a minimum of 1A0 feet'

FINDING: The proposed use is a nonfarm dwelling and abuts tax lot 200, which is currently Therefore, a 1OO-foot setback is required from both of these property employed 'Thein farm use. plot plan shows a building envelope located 200_.feet from the east applicant's lines. property line and 400 feet from the north property line. This criterion is satisfied. c u- 1 3-9/SM A-1 3-5 I LM-1 3-24

13

Rear yards shall be a minímum of 25 feet, except that for a nonfarm dwelling proposed on property with a rear yard adjacent to property

c.

currently employed in farm use, and receiving special assessrnent for farm use, the rear yard shall be a minimum of 100 feet.

FINDING: As discussed above, the proposed dwelling is a nonfarm dwelling and tax lot 200, which abuts the subject property along the north and east property lines, is currently employed in farm use. Therefore, a 100-foot setback is required from these property lines. The applicant's plot plan shows a building envelope located 200 feet from the east property line and 400 feet from the north property line. This criterion is satisfied.

In addition to the sefbacks set forth herein, any greater sefþacks requíred by applicable building or structural codes adopted by the Sfafe of Oregon

D.

and/or the County under DCC 15.04 shall be met.

FINDING: Staff is not aware of any greater setback required by applicable building or structural codes. However, that will be determined by the Building Division when a buildíng permit is submitted.

4.

Section 18.16.060. Dimensional Standards

E.

Building height. No building or structure shall be erected or enlarged to exceed 30 feet in height, except as allowed under DCC 18.120.040.

FINDING: The applicant did not specify a building height: .However, staff finds that with an appropriate condition of approval, this criterion can be satisfied

5.

Section 18.16.080 Stream Setbacks

permit better light, air, vision, stream pollution control, protectíon of fish and wildlife areas and presentation of natural scenic amenities and vistas atong sfreams and lakes, the following setbacks shall apply: To

A.

All

B.

All structures, buildings or similar

seu/age dr'sposal ínst?llations, such as sepfic tanks and septic drainfields, shall,be sef back from the ordinary high water mark along all súreams or lakes a minimum of 100 feet, measured at right angfes to the ordinary hígh water mark. In those cases whetre practical dífficulties preclude the location of the facilities af a distance of 100 feet and the County Sanítarian fínds that a closer location will not endanger health, the Planning Director or Hearings Body may permit the location o:f these facilities closer to the stream or lake, but ín no case closer than 25 feet. permanent fixtures shall be set back from the ordinary hígh water mark along all streams or lakes a minímum of 100 feet measured at right angles to the ordinary.high water mark.

FINDING: These criteria are not applicable because there are no streams or lakes on or near the property.

c u-1 3-9/SM

A-1

3-5 I LM-1 3-24

14

6.

R

Section

Notwithstanding the provisions of DCC 18.16.070, setbacks from rimrock shall be as provided-in OiC tA.tt6.160 or 18.84.090, whichever is applicable.

FINDING: This criterion is not applicable because there is no rimrock on the property.

B.

CHAPTER 18.56, SURFACE MINING COMBINING ZONE

1.

Section 18.56'030, Application of Provisions

The standards set for-th ín DCC 18.56 shatl apply in addition to those speclfied in regulations or in DCC Tifle lB for the underlyíng zone. If a conflíct govern. shall standards occurs, the provisions of DCC 18.56

i.:

findings. The proposed FINDING: The standards under Dcc 1g.56 are addressed in the following :: : dwelling is subject to SMIA ¡'eview. uses

Sectíon 1B 56 050.

2

rmitted:

,Uses perm'itted conditíonally shall be fhose identified as condítional uses in the underlying zone(s) with which the SMIA Zone is'combined and'shall be subject to att condítions of the SMIA Zone. i¡

also allowed FINDING: The proposed dwelling is allowed conditionally in the EFU zone and is conditionally in the SMIA zone.

Section 1 8.56.070 Setbacks:

A.

No noise-sensifiye or dusú-se nsitíve use or structure established or constructed after the designation o:f the SMIA Zone shall be located within 250 feet of any su¡-face mining zone, except as provîded for ín Secfion 18.56.130.

FINDING: The surface mining site (Site No. 293) is located on tax lots 500, 600' 700 and 800

with (east half) as shown on Deschutes County Assessor's map 17-11-12. Th9_s]te plan submitted closest ìne appt¡óation indicates the proposed dwelling will be set back at least 250 feet from the is met' criterion This boundäry associated with the surface mining zone. i

i:

B.

:

.,No noisersensitivè or dust sensifive use or structure established or constructed after the designatíon of the'SMIA zone shall be located within one-quarÍer mile of any existing or proposed suúace míning processin g or storage síte, uniess the appticant demonsfrafes that the 'proposed-use will not prevent the adiacent surtace:mining operatíon 'from

meeting the sefbacks, standards, and conditions set forth ín DCC 18.52.090, 18:52.110, and 18'52'140, respectively'

, '

. :'.\ FINDING: ln the ESEE Findings and Decision for site No. 293, processing is allowed only on the is located. at westerly portion of tax lot 500 ãnd on tax lot 600. The proposed building envelope provisions of section setback The teast z;obo feet from the surface mining processing area.

c u- 1 3-9/SM

A-1

3-5 I LM-l 3-24

15

18.52.090(8) are met because the applicant proposes to locate the proposed dwelling more than one-quarter mile from the designated processing site.

Staff also notes section 18.52.140 is not applicable to this application, since the mining site is preexisting and is not subject to this section.

c.

Additional sefbacks in the SMIA zone may be requíred as part of the site plan review under DCC 18.56.104.

FINDING: Additionalsetbacks will not be required D.

An exceptíon to the 250-foot setback in DCC 18.56.070(A) shall be allowed pursuant to a written agreement for a lesser setback made between the owner o;f the norse-sensitive or dusf-sensitive use or structure located within 250 feet of the proposed surface míning activity and the owner or operator of the proposed surface mine. Such agreement shall,be notarized and recorded in the Deschutes County Book of Records and shall run with the land. Such agreement shall he submitted and consídered at the time of site plan review or site plan modifi cation.

FINDING: The proposed dwelling will be set back from the mining boundary at least 250 feet.

Therefore, no exception is required or requested.

4.

Section 18.56.090, Specific Use Standards The following standards shall apply in the SMIA Zone:' New dwellings, new noise-sensífive and dust-sensítive.gses'or structures, and additions to dwellings or norse and dust-sensitive uses or structures in existence on the effective date of Ordinance No. 90.014 which exceed 70 percent of the size of the existing'dwelling or use, shall be subject to the criteria esfab/lsfied in DCC 18.56.100.

FINDING: The proposed dwelling is a new dwelling, and it is subject to the criteria listed in DCC 18.56.100.

5.

Section 18.56.100. Site Plan ApprovalC¡'iteria

B

Site plan review and approval, pursuant to the County Uniform Land Use Action Procedures Ordinance,:shall be rëquired for alluses ín fhe SMIA Zone príor to the commencement of any,construction or use.

FINDING: The applicant has applied for site plan review for the proposed dwelling, which is being reviewed and processed under Tllle 22.

D.

The site plan shall be approved if the Planning Director or Hearings Body finds that the site plan is consísúent with the site-specifíc ESEE analysis in the surtace mining element of the Comprehensíve Plah and that the proposed use will not prevent the adjacent surtace mining operation from meeting the sefbacks, standards, and conditions set forth ín DCC 18.52.090, 18.52.110, and 18.52.140, respectively.

cu-1 3-9/SMA-1 3-5/LM-1 3-24

l6

FINDING: The following findings address the proposal's consistency with the site-specific ESEL analysis for the adjacenl surfaCe mine. These findings also address how the proposed dwellíng will ñot prevent the adjacent surface mining operation from meeting the setbacks, standards, and conditíons set forth in Chapter 18.52, Surface Mining zone.

Gonformance with ESEE Analysis in the Gomprehensive Plan

.

The ESEE (Economic, Social, Environmental, and Energy) analysis adopted by the county for Site No. 2g3, indicates that land uses in conflict with surface mining will be allowed to occur pursuant to OAR 660-16-010 (paragraph #27). Although residential developmen! is a confliciing use in relation to a surfaòe m¡ne, the county determined in the ESEE analysis that, "New conflicting and 'noise.sensitive' and 'dust-sensitive' uses, such as single-family dwellings, may be. rlt"d *ithin the SMIA zone only if the applicant has signed a waiver of remonstrance precluding protest of any surface mining activities, and. closer that % mile to storage and piocessing-sites only if the applícant can demonstrate that the proposed use will not.rr"" a mining operationto violate siting standards..." (paragraph 27)._Staff finds that the applicant's froposal ,will be consistent with the site-specific ESEE analysis, therefore, ii ihe setback standards specific in Section 18:52.090, 18.52.110, and 18.52j40 are met. Noise standards are addressed below.

Gonformance with Section 18.52.090 Subsection 1g.s2.090(A) requires a 250-foàt setuacr for surface mining activities from noise-sensitive or dusi-sensitive uses. The information submitted indicates a 250-foot setback from the surface mining site, meeting this standa¡'d- ' , .,i '

Subsection 18.52,090(8) requires that a mining operator locate storage of resource materials, processing operations.and storage of equipment which create noise and dust at least one-quarter mile from any noise or dust sensitive use, unless the operator demonstrates the following:

a.

Due to parcel size, topography, existing vegetation, or location of conflicting uses or resources, there is no on-site location for the storage,and processing of material or storage of equipment which will have less noise or dust impact; and

b.

Alt noise control and air quality standards of this title can be met by the proposed use for which the exception is requested

FINDING: The applicant has proposed locating the dwelling more than one-quarter mile from the mining operations which create noise and dust. Therefore, the subsection 18:52.090(8) criteria are met.

Conformance with Section 18.52-110 of Title 18 This section details the siting and the performance standards that a'mining operation must meet.

a.

Access, The mining operator must meet the standards specified under this subsÇt¡on, regardlãss-of applicant's proposal. Access to the mining site is

c u- 1 3-9/SM A-1 3-5 I LM-1 3-24

17

from Tumalo Park Road. Applicant's proposal meets the requirement of Section 18.56.100(D), therefore, since the proposed use will not prevent the adjacent surface mining operation from meeting the required setbacks, standards and conditions for road access to public roads and all on-site roads.

b.

is required to visually screen miníng dust sensitive uses only if it is a new site or if site operations from noise and plan review is required.

Screeninq. The

m ining

operator

FINDING: The applicant's proposal meets the requirement of Section 18.52.100 (D) since the proposed use will not prevent the adjacent surface mining operation from meetíng the required standards and conditions for supplied screening, based on the fact that Site No. 293 is a preexisting site and is exempt from these requirements unless the surface mÍning operation is expanded.

c.

Air Qualitv. The minin g operator is required to meet discharge and dust standards prescribed by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) air quality regulations.

FINDING: Staff finds that the proposed use will not cause the sufface mining operator to violate DEQ dust standards because those standards are in force regardless of the presence of the house. Since Site No. 293 is a pre-existing site, the county has no jurisdiction to regulate the operation unless the site is expanded.

d.

Erosion Gontrol.

FINDING: This subsection does not apply to the surface mining operation because it is existing site. These criteria only apply if the síte is expanded. e.

a

pre-

Streams and Drainage.

FINDING: Again, because Site No. 293 is a pre-existing site, these criteria do not apply unless the site is expanded.

f.

Equipment removal.

FINDING: The mining operator is not affected by this requirement because mining operations are occurring at a pre-existing site. However, the applicant's proposal has no effect on whether equipment is removed from the mining site after mining and reclamation is completed.

g.

Flood Plain.

FINDING: The mining operation on Site No. 293 is not being conducted within a flood plain Therefore, staff finds this criterion is not applicable.

h.

Noise.

FINDING: This subsection requires a mining operation to not create noise from vehicles, equipment, or accessory uses which are audible off the site and which exceeds DEQ noise control c u-1 3-9/SMA-1 3-5/LM-1 3-24

1B

standards. Based on DEe noise tables, staff estimates the trucks, bulldozer and loader used on

the site generate 86 dBA (decibels, A-weighted scale) of noise on the site'

formula Noise decreases with distance from a source according to the following noise attenuation used bY

DEQ:

2o rog D/50

is The letter D represents the distance between the source of noise and the location where noise heard. The applicant's proposed dwelling is at least 250 feet from the surface mining zone , boundary, and an additional,'3s0 feet to thã dosest mining area located on the east half of tax lot .,800: Using the attenuation formula, staff finds the noiqe ievel drops'by 21.6 dBA (20 log 6Q0/50) by the tinie noise generated .at the mining site reaches the applicant's proposed homesite' due to current T'herefore, staff estirñates the noise level at the proposed homesite to be 64.4 dBA

operations.

7 of oAR 340Noise generated at this mining site is required to meet the standards found in Table and L1 noise L10, L50, the 35-035: for existing industriaisources oi noise. This table sets forth dBA,,respectively' 75 levels between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. to be 55 dBA,60dBA, and 1% in Lso, L10, and L1 refer to the level of no¡seihat is expected to occur during 5oo/o, 10o/o, and any'given hour, or 30 minutes, 6 minutes, or 36 seconds, respectively.

Due to the type of equipment,and the duration of particular phases of activity during mining,.the county geneially consioärs the L10 noise level for medium duration noises to be the appropriate above standard to evaluate for mining operations. The L10 standard is 60 dBA, based on the of of level. reaoh mentioned Table 7. The above findings indicate the noise reaching the site:w-ill mining 64.4 dBA. Staff finds the placement o-f a dwelling in the location shown will cause current the operations to, violate DECit noise standaids. Tñerefore, in order to meet this criterion aþplicant will either have.to site,the dwelling so that it.is at least 1,000 feet from the closest

surface.mining area or provide a noise stuOy demonstrating that the proposed location the meets the standard: This.means the house w¡Íl have to be located at least 650 feet from approval. any of a condition southeast corner of the subject property. This will be attached as

i.

Hours of OPeration.

FINDING:, This mining site must meet standards for operating hours for industrial sites regardless of applicant's proposã¡. Staff finds the applicant's proposal meets the requirement of Section mining operation f g.S'6.f 00 (D), and that the proposed use wilt not prevent the adjacent surface from meeting the applicable standards.

j.

Drillinq and Blastinq.

FINDING: lf drilling and blasting is part of the DOGAMI permit for this site, then it is able to into play if continue to do so bãcause it is a pre-existing site. county regulations would only come the site were to expand. Thus, the proposãd house would not cause the surface mining operator to violate these standards.

Extractio Site Size.

k.

FINDING: This standard, limiting excavation to five-acre areas at one time, is applicable to this not have mining site under its DoGAMI peimit. Therefore, staff finds the applicant's proposal does to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. c u- 1 3-9/S M

A-1

3-5 t LM- I 3-24

19

l.

Fish and Wildlife Protection.

FINDING: This standard requires fish and wildlife values required in the ESEE analysis be protected. Because this is a pre-existing site, the ESEE conditions are not applicable to this mining site at this time. Therefore, this standard is not applicable to the applicant's proposal. m.

Surface Water Manaqement.

FINDING: Management of water resources ín a manner that meets DEQ and DOGAMI standards

is required regardless of aþplicant's proposal. Applicantls proposal meets the requirement of 18.56.100(D), therefore, since the proposed use will not prevent or affect in any manner the ability of the adjacent surface mining operation from meeting the required standards. n

Storage of Equipment.

FINDING: This standard regarding the limitation of equipment necessary for the mining operation is not affected in any manner by the proposed residence.

o.

Securitv Plan.

FINDING: This standard does not apply to the applicant's proposal as the mining activity occurs on a pre-existing site.

p.

ESEE lmpacts Resolved

FINDING: This standard does not apply to the applicantrs proposal as the mining'site operated as a pre-existing site and is therefore not required to meet the ESEE conditions at this time.

Conformance with Section 18.52.140of Title lA; Conditional Use Criteria

FINDING: The criteria in this section must be met by a mine operator to obtain a conditional use permit for certain activities such as crushing, processing aggregate ínto cement, expansion or replacement of a pre-existing dwelling, or off-site sale of the mineral resource. Since this is a preexisting site, these criteria would only be applicable if the operator wanted to expand the site.

6.

Section 18.56.120, Waiver of remonstrance:

The applicant for site plan approval in the SMIA zone shall sign and record in the Deschufes County Book of Records a statement declaring that the applicant and his successors will not now or in the future complain about the allowed su¡-face mining activities on the adjacent surtace mining site.

FINDING: The applicant will comply with this criterion when, as a condition of approval, the applicant signs and records a Waiver of Remonstrance in the Deschutes County Book of Records.

The waiver form will be prepared by the County and must be recorded with the County Clerk's office prior to issuance of any building permit for the dwelling.

cu-1 3-9/SMA-1 3-5/LM-1 3-24

20

c

CHAPTER I8.84, LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT COMBINING ZONE

I

Section

1

020. Aoplication

Provisions

provisions of this chapter shall apply to all areas within one'foufth mile The 'roads identified as landscape management corridors in the of Comprehensive.Plan and the County Zoning Map. The provisions of this cnapter shatt atso apply to alt areas within the boundaries of a Sfafe scenic watenany or Federát'w¡td anA scenrc livgr çorridor and -all areas wífhin 660 feet of íiv"rt and streams otherwise,identified a landscape ma,nagement corridors in the comprehensive plan and the County Zoning Map. The distance specified äbore shali be measured horizontally from the centerlíne of des:ignated'landscape management roadways or from the nearest ordinary high water mark of a designated landscape managemeyt,

river or stream. fn" fm¡t"tion

in this section

shall not unduly restrict

accePted agri c ultu ral Practi ces

FINDING: Johnson Market Road is identified on the county Zoning Map as the landscape

with this management feature. The subject property falls within the.LM combining zone associated -Therefore, proposed use. the to the provisionsof this chapter are applicable road.

2.

Section 18.84.040. Uses Permitted Conditionallv

Uses permitted ín the underlying zone wilh which !\9 LM Zone is c,o.r,n.hí\ed shall'be permitfed as conditiõnat uses in the LM Zone, subiect to the provisions in DCC 18.84. is FINDING: The proposed dwelling is permitted as a conditionai use in the EFU zone, and .,' permitted conditionally inrthe LM zone; 3.

A.

Any new structure

or substantial atteration of a structure requiring

a

nuíUing permit, or an agrícultural structure, wíthin an LM Zone shall obtaín-site ptatn approial in accordance with DCC 18.84 prior to construction;, As used in DCC 18,84 substantíal alteration consisfs_ of an alteration whích,,exceeds 25 percent in the size or 25 percent of ' fhe assessed value of the structure. l

FINDING: The proposed dwelling requires management review.

B.

c u-1 3-9/S M

A-1

a building permit, and is subject to

landscape

Structures which are not visibte from the designated roadway, riuer or stream and which are assured of remaining notvisíble because of vegetation, topography or existíng development-are exempt from tl9 próvisions oi pêc'18;84.080,(Design Revíew Standards) and DCC '18.84.090 (Setbacks). An apptícable'for síte plan review in the LM Zone shati conform-wíth the provisions of DCC 18.84, or may submít evidence that the proposed structure witt not be visible from the

3-5 I LM-1 3-24

21

designated road, river or stream. Súrucfures not visible from from the desígnated road, ríver or stream must meet setback standards of the underlying zone.

FINDING: The subject property is adjacent to Johnson Market Road. The proposed building envelope is located approximately 600 feet east of the road. The existing vegetation between the dwelling and the road, as well as the distance (600 feet) will prevent the structure from being visible from the road. Provided that screening vegetation between the house and the road is retained, this criterion is satisfied. As a condition of approval the applicant will be required to maintain vegetation between the house and the road, except as provided in DCC 18.84.080(A).

With this condition the proposed dwelling is exempt from all other provisions of DCC 18.84.080 and 18.84.090.

D.

CHAPTER 18.88, WILDLIFE AREA COMBINING ZONE.

a.

Section 18.88.040. Uses Permitted Conditio¡alllr A.

Except as provided in DCC 18.88.040(8), in a zone in which the WA Zone is combined, the conditional uses permitted shall be those

perm¡tted conditionally by the underlying zone subiect to the provisions of the Gomprehénsive Plan, DCC 18.128 and other

applicable provisions of this title.

FINDING: The proposed dwelling is a conditional use in the EFU zone and, thus, it is permitted conditionally in the WA zone. Applicable provisions of this title and the Cornprehensive Plan are addressed in this decision. b

Section 18.88.060. Sitinq Standards.

A. B.

Setbacks shall be those described in the underlying zone with which the WA Zone is combined.

The footprint, including decks and porches, for new dwellings shall be located entirely within 300 feet of public roads, private roads or recorded easements for vehicular access existing as of August 5, 1992...

FINDING: Setbacks Within the EFU zone are discussed above. The property abuts Johnson Market Road along its west boundary and Tumalo Park Roâd along its south boundary. Both of these roads existed as of August 5, 1992.

Additionally, the applicant provided an aerial photograph dated 1985 which, the applicant asserts, shows a road that enters the property in the northeast corner, travels southwesterly towards Johnson Market Road, and then turns south and east, traveling northeasterly until it exits the property to the east in about the center of the property. Staff:confirmed the existence of this road during a site visit on May 10, 2013. This road is shown on the applicant's plot plan; most of the proposed building envelope is within 300 feet of this road. The southeast corner of the plot plan extends 350 feet away from the road. This portion of the building envelope cannot be approved without the applicant demonstrating that this site meets DCC 18.88.060(BX1). This shall be made a condition of any approval.

cu-1 3-9/SMA-1 3-5/LM-1 3-24

22

c.

Section 1 B 88.070. Fence

ards.

The following fencing provisions shall apply as a condition of approval for any new fences consiructed as a part of development of a property in coñjunction with a conditional use permit or site plan review...

FINDING: The applicant has not proposed a fence as part of this development. However, in order to ensure compliance with this criterion, an appropriate condition of approval with be imposed' With such a condition this criterion can be satisfied tv.

CONGL USIONS:

The proposed conditional use application can meet the requirements of Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code

V.

DECISION: APPROVAL, subject to the following conditions.

VI.

GOND

A.

plan will Approval is based upon the submitted plan. Any substantial change to the approved require a new application.

B.

The applicant shall obtain an access permit for any new access to Tumalo Park Road prior to issuance of the building permit for the dwelling.

c.

The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Deschutes

ONS OF APP OVAL:

County

Environmental Soils and Building Safety Divisions.

D.

prior to issuance of the building permit for the dwelling, the applicanVowner shall sign and record with the County Clerk a'document binding the landowner, and the landowner's successors in interest, prohibiting them from pursuing a claim for relief or cause of action alleging injury from farming or fórestry practices for which no action or claim is allowed under ORS 30.936 to 90.937.

E.

The maximum building height for the house is 30 feet.

F.

lf a new fence is proposed as part of this development it must meet the requirements of DCC 18.88.070(A), except as allowed in DCC 18.88.070(8)'

G,

prior to issuance of a building permit for the dwelling, the applicant shall sign and record with the County Clerk a statement declaring the applicant and his successors will not now or in the future complain about the allowed surface mining activities on the adjacent surface mining site.

H.

c

u -1

The applicant shall either site the dwelling so that it is at least 1,000 feet from the closest sudacä mining area or provide a noise study from a qualified sound engineer 3-9/S M A-1 3-5 I LM-1 3-24

23

demonstrating that the proposed location meets the DEQ noise standard. This means the house will have to be located at least 650 feet from the southeast corner of the subject property. t.

Except as provided in DCC 18.84.080(A), the applicant shall retain existing vegetation between Johnson Market Road and the house.

J

The footprint of the house shall be located entirely within 300 feet of the road located within the subject property, and which is shown on the applicant's plot plan.

VII.

DURATION OF APPROVAL:

." The applicant shall apply for a building permit for the proposed nonfarm dwelling within four (4) yea-rs of the date this decision becomes final, or obtaĂ?n an extension under Title 22 of the County Code, or this approval shall be void.

The applicant shall apply for a building permit for the house in the SMIA and LM Combining Zones within two (2) years of the date this decision becomes final, or obtain an extension under Tille 22, or this approval shall be void.

This decision becomes final twelve (12) days after the date of mailing, unless appealed by a party of interest.

DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION

Written by: Kevin Harrison, Principal Planner Dated this 13th day of May, 2013

c u-1 3-9/S M A-1 3-5 I LM-1 3-24

Mailed this 13th day of May, 2013

24

{

S rrffiffifñiããEõlõil l^9sEssxeflr PwPost

oilrr.

SECTt0N 12

I

uaP

PURpoSt

0il1r.

l"

I

R€vlSÊ0:09/06/?000

1-31

17 11

l1l,M

12

DESCHUTES COUNTY

rr¡çôñ'iïRtlms-ßìR€l lîffiõifi p8€P¡R^Troil lfoR

T.175. R.11E. =

100,

sEe ilaP 17

t1 0l

2-7

,

"vryiltyriurtdl!tþtû 12

1¡

ry

20t zot.ot rc Corcel loÉ flo.s 500Rr 100

r{.27

(

PÁrc€[ 3 (PoRlroil)

'\ s

?r\

Ð

Ù'10

J00

?tNt \ o\\ rf 'À'r 202 200

f,.91Æ

+.nU¡:'L

{.F'l

1-3

*

a00

PTRCR 2

PMCEL I

800

?00

600

l2

!¡

s00

12

l3

t¡ sEf

I]

l8

17 11

12

Ës Gommunity Ðevelopment Department ptsnriing,Diúislon Bullding Såtet¡¡ Þivisltrn Eùi¡ronr¡e¡ital Soils Divislon

fi

P;O. Boxr60Ó5 '117 NW 'l-afayede Avétriiê' ;Bénd, Oregon 97708-6005

(541)3S8-6575

FAX

(541)3Bs-r764

http : //wwW.co ¡deschutes.or. us/cddl

........:..,'.,.. \tl NOTICE OF DECISION

The Deschutes :County planning Division has qpproved the land use applications

below:

,

:.

FILE NUMBERS:

Joyce E. Coats Revocable Trust

OWNER :')

::,:

CU-13-9, SMA-13-5 and L1\A-13-24

The subiect property has an assigned address of 19210 Tumalo Þ;tk ñ;ä;àÃo-i'r ¡iäntiiied on Deõchutes county Assessor's Map No. 1 7-11-12, as tax lot 900.

LOGATION:

'':.:

desct'ibed

: .

'

I

,ÁTTORNEY: ' . ' ' ':i

M. Lewis ' Tia Schw¿be, Williamson & Wyalt

'

,

SUBJECT: conditiona uslvq app roved area and f

'STÀFF

CöttÌACÎ:

'

Kèvin Harrison, (541) 385-1401

APPLICABLE GRITERIA:

of Title 22 of the DCC

DECISION: Staff finds that the application meets all applicable criteria, and approval is being

granted subject to the following conditions:

coN A.

o NS OF AP

Any Approval is based upon the site plan and information submitted by the applicant. substantial change in the plan shall require a new application.

Quatity Seruices Pe.rþnned wìth Prírle

B.

The applicant shall oĂžtain an access permit for any new access to Tumalo Park Road prior to issuance of the building permit for the dwelling.

c.

The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from the Deschutes

County

Environmental Soils and Building Safety Divisions.

D

Prior to issuance of the building permit for the dwelling, the applicanUowner shall sign and record with the County Clerk a document binding the landowner, and the landowner's successors in interest, prohibiting them from pursuing a claim for relief or cause of action alleging injury from farming or forestry practices for which no action or claim is allowed under ORS 30.936 to 90.937.

E.

The maximum building height for the house is 30 feet.

F.

lf a new fence is proposed as part of this development it must meet the requirements of DCC 18.88.070(A), except as allowed in DCC 18.88.070(8).

G.

Prior to issuance of a building permit for the dwelling, the applicant shall sign and record with the County Clerk a statement declaring the applicant and his successors will not now or in the future complain about the allowed surface mining activities on the adjacent surface mining site.

H.

The applicant shall either site the dwelling so that it is at least 1,000 feet from the closest surface mining area or provide a noise study from a qualified sound engineer demonstrating that the proposed location meets the DĂ‹Q noise standard. This means the house will have to be located at least 650 feet from the southeast corner of the subject property.

t.

Except as provided in DCC 18.84.080(A), the applicant shall retain existing vegetation between Johnson Market Road and the house.

J.

The footprint of the house shall be located entirely within 300 feet of the road located within the subject property, and which is shown.on the applicant's plot plan.

This decision becomes final twetve (12) days after the date mailed, unless appealed by a party of interest. To appeal, it is necessary {o submit a Notice of Appeal, the appeal fee of $250.00 and a statement raising any issue relied upon for appeal with sufficient specificity to afford the Hearings Body an adequate opportunity to respond to and resolve each issue.

Copies of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at no cost. Copies can be purchased for 25 cents per page. Pending land use applications can be accessed online at www.deschutes.org/cdd. Click on .CDD lnformation Center" heading; then click on "Pending Land Use Applications" located on right side of page (opens in new window).

NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIEN HOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER 215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST BE PROMPTLY FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER. Dated this 13th day of May, 2013 c u - 1 3-9/S M A-1

3 -5 /

LM-1 3-24

Mailed this 13th day of May, 2013 2

Return To

Kevin Harrison, PrinciPal Planner Community DeveloPment DePt. 117 NW Lafayette Ave., P.O. Box 6005 Bend, OR 97708-6005

FARM AND FOREST MANAGEMENT EASEMENT Eric W. Coats, Co-Trustee, or his successors in trust, under the Joyce E.. Coats the Revocable Trust, OàteO October 23, 2002, and any _amendments thereto, herein called on Grantor, is the o*À"r of real property described in Exhibit A, and identified or depicte-d conditions Deschuies County ÀiseJsors n¡ap' r lll-12 as tax lot 900. ln accordance with the tvllY dated Division, Planning County Deschutes ]3,2013, set forth in the decision of the property ãpproving tanO use óermit CU-13-9, Grantor hereby grants to the owner(s) of all áäjâ""Àtio the above described property (Grantees), a þerpetual non-exclusive farm and forest

práctices management easement as follows: g-ranting of thìs The Grantor, his heirs, successors, and assigns, hereby acknowledges by the farm zone in designated easement úat the above-described property is situated in a farming or from resulting Deschutes County, Oregon, and may'be subjected to conditions of harvesting and foiest practicãs oñ'aãiiönt'lands. such oper-ations include management and construction road timber, disposal of slash, reforestation, application of chemicals, maintenancu,- nV raising,' harvesting and selling crops or by tlu feeding, breeding, sale õf, or the flroduce _of, lÑestock, poultry, fur-bearing animals or managemeni for dairying and the sale of dairy products or-any.other agricultural or honeylees or"'iO hortiiultural use or aniriraihusbandry or any combination thereof, and other accepted and customary farm and forest managemênt actiúities conducted in accordance with Federal and produce State Laws. Such farm or foresl management activities ordinarily and necessarily Granto/s use of noise, Oust, smòie, and other conditioris that may conflict with Grantor's property foi residential purposes. Except as allowed by ORS 30.930 through 30'947 , Grantor irerbOy'waives all commón law rights !o objegt to normal, non-negligent farm and forest managemeni ãct¡vit¡es legally cond-ucted on ád¡acent lands that may conflict with Grantor's use of Grantods property'for'residential purposes, and Grantor hereby gives an easement to the adjaceni p.ö"r{V owners for the resuliant impact on Grantor's property caused by the farm and forest management activities on adjacent lands' Grantor shall comply with all restrictions and conditions for maintaining residences in farm and forest ionàr'that may be required by State, Federal, and local land use laws and regulations. Grantor shall compty iruitn att fire safety regulations developed by the Oregon Dðpartment of Forestry for residential development within a forest zone'

1.

Z.

This easernent is appurtenant to all property adjacent to the above-described property, and shall bind the treirs, suðËJssors, and adsigns ót Grantor, and shall endure for the benefit of the adjacent landowners, their heirs, succðssors, and assigqs, The adjacent landowners, their heirs, ,rä""rrorr, and asÀlgnr àr" heieby expressly granted the right of third-party enforcement of this easement.

GRANTOR

daY of

Dated this

-

-,2013

JOYCE E. COATES REVOCABLE TRUST

Eric W. Coats, Co- Trustee

STATE OF OREGON

) ) SS

COUNTY OF

)

2013, before me, a Notary Public in and for said County day of On this Co-Trustee and State, personallY aPPeared the within named Eric W. Coats, known to me to be the

- Coats Revocab le Trust, who acknowledged to me that he executed the same of the Joyce E.

freely and voluntarily on behalf of said Trust

Notary Public for My Commission ExPires:

File No. CU-13-9

Farm and Forest Management Easement

2

Exhibit A

The Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (NW1/4 SW1/4) of Section Twelve (12),

Township Seventeen (17) South, Range Eleven (11) East of theWillamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Oregon.

File No. CU-13-9

Farm and Forest Management Easement

3

Return

To:

Kevin Harrison, Principal Planner Deschutes Co. Comm. DeveloPment 117 NW LafaYette, P.O. Box 6005 Bend, Oregon 97708-6005

EASEMENT (wAlvER oF REMONSTRANCE)

As a condition of the grant of development approval pursuant_t9 9_h-tp!.t 18 5q^of the Deschutes County Code for iax Lot 900 of Township 17, Range 11 E.W.M.., Section 12, and further described on Exhibit A (hereafter referred to as "burdened property"), G¡31to¡ hereby gi"nti and/or relinquishes to the owners of record of the property describ-ed in Exhibits B, C and lnventory of Mineral and Aggregate ó and furlher deäcribed on the Deschutes County"benefited property"), as Grantee/s, any Resources as Site No. 293 (hereafter referred to as the anJ all rights of remonstrance or protest that they may have by virtue.of-ownership of the burdened property or otherwise to the visual, noise, dust, reclamation, traffic and any other similar impacts from the following protected activities:

(1) Surface mining activities lawfully co¡{t1ct.e_{in

connection with a pre-existing mine, as thatterm iidefined in Sectión 18.52.160(8) of the Deschutes County Code, on the benefited ProPertY; or

(Z)

Surface mining activities that might be lawfully conducted in the future on the benefited property under county or state permits or exemptions.

Grantors acknowledge that by virtue of such grant they have no remaining rights to complain or protest about the protected activities described above.

This Waiver of Remonstrance Easement runs with the land and is binding upon the heirs, successors and assigns of the undersigned's interest in the burdened property or any persons acquiring through the undersigned an interest in the burdened property' GRANTOR:

day of

Dated this

-

JOYCE E. COATS REVOCABLE TRUST

-,2013 Eric W. Coats, Co-Trustee

STATE OF OREGON

)

COUNTY OF

) SS )

2013, before me, a Notary Public in and for said day of On this in named Eric W. Coats, known to me to be the with personally the appeared County and State, T Co-Trustee of the Joyce E. Coats Revocable rust, who acknowledged to me that he executed the same freely and voluntarily on behalf of said Trust Notary Public for My Commission ExPires

Exhibit A

(NW-l/4 of the Southrvest Quarter The Northwest Quarter st"itt' irtngì ett"tn

Townsnü'sääät" 0ïl oregon' iüiñffi;üi\'I*tdlan, Deschutes còuntv'

Twelve (12),

Waiver 2

SW:t]4) of Section

(tl)

Bast of the

Exhibit B

tha Southeast qusrter of the Southeast Quarter and thc Esst ila¡f of the Southyest Qr¡¡rtcr of the Southeait Quarter of Secrion Scventeen (17)' South, Range Eteven TIglve_(fZ),,all (ll), E¡st òf the1¡-lornshtp h-tlt¡pcttL Nc¡ldt¡n.

Waíver

3

Exhibit C

Host höIf o! the southvest quòrtcr of- che-'southeast äüiitäi-isttt¡s¡{Í oi Éectlon-12, rovnahtp l7' Ranse

li,

Waiver

E.r{.H.

4

Exhibit

--

---

D

i2;lor

---+he-S\\¿1l4-ofthe$.W1/4;anrttheSEl/4oftheS\4rll4öfSeõriön trip rZ Soutlt Range I l, East Willamette Meridian, Deschutes County, Orägon, together with30aoresofwaterrights tobe appurtenant to tl¡e SWl/4 oftheSWiT4 ofSãction

t2,

right

of way for road conveyed -EI!!PI 1965 in Volume l&,Page3l I

ro

Deschutæ county as recorded Juty 12,

Deed Records.

Waiver

5