Planning and Zoning

 FIRST ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: Goals Exception, House Bill 3214 and amendments to OAR 660-004-0018(2).

1. Despite the LUBA decision requiring a Reasons Exception, the Board finds that House Bill 3214 resulted in amendments to OAR 660-004-0018(2).
2. In House Bill 3214 the Oregon Legislature directed the LCDC as follows: "The [LCDC] shall adopt or amend rules regarding the statewide planning goal criteria described in ORS 197.732(2)(a) and (b). The rules adopted or amended pursuant to this subsection must allow a local government to rezone land in an area physically developed or committed to residential use, as described in ORS 197.732, without requiring the local government to take a new exception to statewide planning goals related to agricultural and forest lands. The rules must allow for a rezoning that authorizes the change, continuation or expansion of an industrial use that has been in operation for the five years immediately preceding the formal land use planning action that was initiated for the change, continuation or expansion of use."
3. The LCDC amended OAR 660-004-0018(2) to allow physically developed or irrevocably committed exceptions "to those that satisfy (a) or (b) or (c) and, if applicable, (d):" which no longer requires compliance with all subsections of Section -0018(2) to avoid a Reasons Exception under Section -0018(4).
4. The Board finds the subject area was never zoned for agricultural or forest use because the County zoned the subject property RRFF-5 and designated it Rural in 1980.
5. The Board finds that its original findings relating to satisfaction of OAR 660-004-0018(2)(b)(A)-(C) together with the LUBA's findings at page 9- "We think the county's findings are adequate to explain why the RI plan and zone designations meet OAR 660-004-0018(2)(b)(A)-(C)." show that an exception to Goals 3 and 4 is not required.

SECOND ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: Future driveway relocation and ODOT safety requirements.

1. The Oregon Department of Transportation standards require that when a development application is submitted to the County, the access to the site is to be relocated to comply with sight distance safety standards.
2. The Board finds that the location of the future driveway access is approximately 100 feet to the north of the northern existing driveway access to State Highway 213 according to the revised traffic study submitted by Lancaster Engineering.
3. The Board finds that two applicable standards apply to the driveway in its present and relocated position, ODOT sight distance safety standards applicable to Hwy 213 and the County's historical commitment Policy 3.0(a). The Board finds that rezoning the driveway in its present location is permissible without a development application and because that driveway has a clear historical commitment to industrial uses under Policy 3.0(a). When balancing the interests of the County in promoting transportation safety against rezoning the driveway in its present location the Board finds that Conditions of Approval 2 and 3 which require relocation of the driveway access within one year should remain in force which provides the applicant with increased transportation safety on State Highway 213. The Board also finds that when the driveway is abandoned in its present location and relocated according to Conditions of Approval 2 and 3 to preserve transportation safety, the historical commitment to industrial uses which is long standing at the driveway's present location must be balanced against the interest of the County and State in providing safe transportation facilities and that long standing commitment supports the finding of rezoning the driveway in its future location under the Board's sound interpretation of its own Policy 3.0(a).

THIRD ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: RI use consistency with the rural character of the area.

1. All adjacent and surrounding properties to the north, east, south and west, on the west side of Highway 213 are zoned RRFF-5 and are developed with residential, commercial and industrial uses. These properties have a rural character.
2. The Board finds this extensive record shows Hal's Construction is a paving contractor where the company's work occurs offsite. While there may be up to 40 employees employed by Hal's Construction, the Board finds that any onsite labor consists of clerical and equipment servicing and is only ancillary to the offsite work and is not labor intensive.
3. Because the existing industrial uses permitted under the RI are not labor intensive and because this rural area is a mix of rural uses the RI uses are consistent with the rural character for the area.

SEVENTH AND TENTH ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR: Driveway Relocation Notice.

1. The subject property has two driveways which provide direct access to State Highway 214. Both driveways have inadequate sight distance to the south according to ODOT standards. The applicant proposed to remove both driveways and construct on new driveway further north based on ODOT safety requirements for sight distance.
2. ODOT has determined that there is a suitable location to construct a driveway to meet the minimum sight distance standards. This location is set out in Exhibit B to the Order.
3. The map showing compliance with the Oregon Department of Transportation's relocation for driveway access was distributed with the Notice for the remand hearing which provides for review and response.

EIGHTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: Site Use Limits.

1. The Board finds that amendments to OAR 660-004-0018(2) required by the Oregon Legislature in HB 3214 provide that the existing conditions of approval regarding site use limits are adequate.

NINTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: Mitigation Based on a Revised Traffic Study and Conditions of Approval 4, 5 and 6.

1. The LUBA decision required a revised Traffic Impact Study by Lancaster Engineering to compare the most traffic generative uses in the RRFF-5 and RI zones in order to determine whether or not mitigation efforts need to be increased.
2. As the County previously found, the increased traffic under the RI zone would significantly affect two transportation facilities.
3. Comparing the most traffic generative uses in the RRFF-5 and RI zones in the revised transportation report, the mitigation efforts set forth in Conditions 4, 5, and 6 are sufficient to comply with the Transportation Planning Rule.
4. The County finds that mitigation set forth in Conditions 4, 5, and 6 need to be completed within 1 year of this Decision.

TENTH ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR: Compliance with CCZO 1202.01(E). 

1. CCZO 1202.01(E) requires that the safety of the transportation system is adequate to serve the level of development anticipated by the zone change.
2. The revised Traffic Study prepared by Lancaster Engineering addresses safety concerns from the relocation of the driveway access for the site. The Board finds that the standard in CCZO 1202.01(E) is satisfied.