Loading...
2007-478-Minutes for Meeting April 11,2007 Recorded 4/27/2007COUNTY OFFICIAL NANCYUBLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERKDS 4J 2007418 COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 1111111111111 111111 04/27/2007 03:57:27 PM 2007-478 Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244: Re-recorded to correct [give reason] previously recorded in Book or as Fee Number and Page v~ Es C { Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org MINUTES OF WORK SESSION DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2007 Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tammy Baney. Also present were Tom Anderson, Terri Payne and Catherine Morrow, Community Development Department; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Susan Ross, Commissioners' Office; Joe Studer, County Forester; and George Kolb, Road Department. Also present were twelve citizens. No representatives of the media attended. The meeting began at 1: 30 p. m. 1. Forester Update. Joe Studer gave an overview of various federal and state grants for the treatment of fuels on private lands, community fire plans and the FireFree Program. He explained how decisions are made as to where the funding is, applied, and advised of the various target dates. Central Oregon Community College is developing a class program for participants to oversee and sell timber, treat fuels and improve wildlife habitat in various locations around the County. A partnership with the Upper Deschutes Coalition involving an area south of Sunriver is underway to treat fuels on County-owned properties and privately owned lands. Funding is provided by grants from the National Fire Plan. Two lottery grant proposals were then discussed. One is with the Deschutes River Woods Homeowners Association, cooperating with the County Road Department and Project Wildfire to install evacuation route signs throughout the community. A second proposal is to treat wildland fuels around Cliff's Neighborhood, in conjunction with the City of Redmond, Cliff's Neighborhood Association and Project Wildfire. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, April 11, 2007 Page 1 of 6 Pages Commissioner Luke said that these projects could be funded from general funds rather than lottery grant funds. He asked Susan Ross to check into providing alternative funding for these projects, since they are public safety related. She suggested that the dollars come from the main economic development fund since the programs benefit the community as a whole. The Commissioners indicated it would be appropriate to fund the grants in this manner. LUKE: Move that funds for these grant requests be provided through the economic development grant fund. BANEY: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. The 2007 Fire Season Kickoff meeting on June 21 at the Fair & Expo Center, jointly sponsored by the Central Oregon Chief's Association and Project Wildfire, will feature a presentation by speaker Dr. Gordon Graham. Approximately 300 firefighters and law enforcement officials are expected. Jeff Powers of the City of Redmond and Ben King of Redmond gave an overview of what is being done in the canyon area in regard to wildfire mitigation. 2. Work Session: Destination Resort Issues. Terri Payne said there are still two issues that need to be addressed. She then discussed the tracking of overnight units. (A copy of her staff memo is attached.) The difficulty is reporting on individually-owned properties, especially if it is a lock-out type of unit. Catherine Morrow said there is no mechanism in place for Community Development to review every sale document for a deed restriction. Commissioner Luke asked why this could not be flagged and picked up by the title company upon sale. Ms. Morrow stated the deed restriction as well as how to enforce non-compliance are challenging problems. Ms. Payne said there could be Code enforcement against management or the individual owners, or the homeowners' association, but this is not the ideal way to handle it. The simplest way is to not allow individually-owned units be counted as overnight lodging. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, April 11, 2007 Page 2 of 6 Pages Commissioner Luke stated that the County is out of compliance with State law in this regard, and has been for many years. There needs to be a single standard, even if it is stricter than statute. Ms. Craghead said that the State law indicated individually-owned units are part of statute along with hotels, motels, and other types of lodging. Commissioner Baney said that some are already operating under the old rules and it will be difficult to put new regulations on old resort properties. They may be out of compliance. Ms. Craghead stated that testimony has been that the individually-owned units they manage make more money for them than the hotels and motels. There is no control from the County's standpoint once the properties have been turned over to owners. The only correction that can be made is on new developments. A mechanism is needed to make sure the requisite number of weeks are set aside and actually stay in place. Ms. Craghead added that they said to mandate the individual units go through a central reservation system requires an SEC filing, which is very time-consuming and complicated. If a central reservation system is not required, the SEC filing is not necessary. Ms. Payne said the Board could decide to redefine what overnight lodging is. Compliance is needed in whatever way the resorts wish to report. Ms. Craghead said that some resorts are not in compliance with their reporting requirements. It is hard to know who to go after if the information is not received, especially if the properties are individually-owned. Even though there are requirements, enforcement is the underlying problem. Commissioner Luke said that property management works well but enforcement is the issue at this point and new resorts may end up doing the same thing. Ms. Morrow stated that the stand-alone units owned by one person are being counted as more than one unit because of the lockout component. Each of those units are supposed to be available 38 weeks a year individually. It is almost impossible to track the usage. The State does not require this, but the County does in order to keep the tourist component in place, and for tracking revenue. LUKE: Move that Motion 1, Issue 5 Alternatives be used and that staff draft language: Amend County Code to allow individually-owned units counted as overnight lodging to be rented by a property manager as well as the resort; adding that they spell out who is responsible for reporting to the County and in some way identifying the units that are included. A single entity needs to put together the report. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, April 11, 2007 Page 3 of 6 Pages BANEY: Second. Commissioner Baney asked how the County then makes sure that the same house is not counted more than once, if it is being handled through property management and the resort; and how it is known if they are made available when they say they are. Ms. Payne said tracking includes the number of weeks available, the address and the owner. Ms. Morrow added that the reporting form addresses this. Most resorts are still under development at this point so this could be refined through he approval process and the application. Ms. Craghead stated that having a unit just being available doesn't mean it will be rented out that week, so it can't easily be tracked through revenue. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. Laurie Craghead then discussed the issue regarding phasing. Under current Code, a final master plan for the development is approved, followed by a tentative plan for the first phase. They then want to do an improvement agreement and put bonding into place. That would require all 150 units be built before sales can be made. They could sell 300 single family dwellings at that time. Within one year, all units would have to be built out. Under statute, they could record a final plat and the tentative plan but have to build fifty overnight units before selling; the most single family dwellings they could sell would be 100 at this time. This complies with the 2:1 ratio. If they build these out within a year, they can wait up to five years to bond for the next fifty overnight units, and they have an additional four years to build. In all cases, they have to maintain the ratio. Commissioner Luke said that the advantage of bonding all the units is that they can start selling lots right away. Ms. Payne stated that existing resorts might want to come in and amend their conceptual or final master plans if the regulations change. This could be a controversial issue for them. Commissioner Luke asked how the County knows when the units are done. Ms. Craghead stated that practically speaking, it doesn't matter. No one is going to commit to this process without building. Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, April 11, 2007 Page 4 of 6 Pages She said that she feels the County is better protected if the overnight units are built first. Commissioner Luke said that building fifty units takes substantial cash if they can't sell lots. Ms. Morrow said that if the objective is to have overnight units at the commencement of the resort, the statutory rules achieve that. Under current Code, they put up the cash and say what they want to do, but have since changed how they are doing things. The County could require them to stick with the original plan. Already Caldera has made changes that aren't part of the original proposal, and has been required to go back. BANEY: Move that staff draft Motion 2 of Issue 6 Alternatives: For all new applications, amend County Code to permit phasing as originally proposed by staff, as permitted but not required by statute; directing staff to bring back the amendment for Board consideration. LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: Yes. DALY: Chair votes yes. BANEY: Move that staff draft language that the applicants be required to build the first fifty units, but that bonding not be allowed for the first 150 units. LUKE: Second. VOTE: BANEY: Yes. LUKE: DALY: 3. Executive Session. Yes. Chair votes yes. The Board went into executive session at 3:40; present were the three Commissioners; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; and, for the real estate negotiation issue, Tom Anderson of Community Development. . ORS 192.660(2)(h), Litigation. After the executive session, action was taken as follows: Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, April 11, 2007 Page 5 of 6 Pages BANEY: Move that the County continue to defend and indemnify Sheriff Les Stiles after he has retired regarding litigation now pending, and for any future claims that might arise as long as they fall under the provisions of the tort claims act. LUKE: Second. • ORS 192.660(2)(e), Real Estate Negotiations. No formal action was taken. 4. Other Items. Economic Development Grant Request: Boys & Girls Club of Central Oregon for computer equipment. Commissioners Baney and Luke each granted $1,000. Being no further items to come before the Board, Chair Daly adjourned the meeting at 4:35 p. m. DATED this 11th Day of April 2007 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Minutes of Administrative Work Session Wednesday, April 11, 2007 Page 6 of 6 Pages { Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org WORK SESSION AGENDA DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 1:30 P.M., WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2007 1. Forester Update - Joe Stutler 2. Work Session: Destination Resort Issues - Terri Payne 3. Executive Sessions: • ORS 192.660(2)(h), Litigation • ORS 192.660(2)(e), Real Estate Negotiations 4. Other Items PLEASE NOTE: At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to kdress issues relating to: ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations; ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All me?tings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated. If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572. Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible. Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY. Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information. a Az/v-, Aj Page 1 of 2 Bonnie Baker From: Joe Stutter Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 12:47 PM To: Dave Kanner; Bonnie Baker Cc: Joe Stutler Subject: BOCC Administrative Work Session I'm requesting time on the 4/11 meeting for an update to BOCC topics will include: • Federal/State Grants • FireFree Program plans. • Community Fire Plans. • Central Oregon Community College Program of Work and projects. • Current contract/fuels treatment projects. • Lottery Grant proposals. • 2007 Fire Season Kickoff Meeting with Gordon Graham. I'll have briefing synopsis on each available at the session. Thanks, N joe- Joe Stutler Deschutes County Forester (541) 322-7117 office 4/5/2007 County AdministratorBOCC Forestry/Natural Resources Update April 11, 2007 Federal/State Grants: We have received an additional $250,000 in federal grants from the National Fire Plan. $ 200,000 will go towards the Greater Bend and Greater Redmond CWPP priorities and will treat fuels on private lands; a second grant for $50,000 will be spend inside the Greater Sisters CWPP on private lands to treat fuels. We have a potential fiscal issue with reimbursement by the federal government. On some grants we are able to turn the money around within days, others it takes weeks and sometimes months. We're working on expediting the reimbursement process and may have to move Title III $'s or???$ to cover the deficit and reimburse those funds when we receive the federal dollars. FireFree Program plans: The FireFree Program is scheduled April 21St-29th and again at various transfer stations on May 5-6th. This is the 10th anniversary of FireFree and we anticipate a huge success with yard debris based on the outreach and early signs of support from neighborhoods who never have participated previously. With the prices of oil this has generated a huge demand for chips to generate electricity. We expect that every yard of debris will be re- cycled either in compost or chipped for energy needs. Community Fire Plans: There is ongoing work in every Planning area to treat fuels, provide education or continue planning to address wildland fire concerns. We continue meeting with stakeholders for the last phase of the Greater Deschutes County CWPP with a target date of July 1St 2007. Central Oregon Community College Program of Work and projects: See attached narratives for more detail. A synopsis is the Capstone Class from COCC will be working on Deschutes County property to develop a contract to sell timber, treat fuels and improved wildlife habitat this spring; the second project is to develop a contract to treat fuels in Panoramic Estates which is near Sisters. Both projects are due in early June and there will be a formal presentation to the BOCC/County Administrator/Legal Counsel at that time which is part of the class curriculum. Current contract/f uels treatment projects: We have a $30,000 project south of Sunriver and in partnership with the Upper Deschutes Coalition. We will treat approximately 40 parcels of county owned property (our grant money) along with another 260 parcels of privately owned lands financed by grants from the National Fire Plan to the Coalition and under separate contract. Lottery Grant proposals; There are two lottery grant proposals for the BOCC tomorrow which ask for approximately $6500 for two locations in Deschutes County. The first proposal is @ Deschutes River Woods and a cooperative venture with the Homeowners Association, Project Wildfire and County Road Department to purchase and install evacuation route signs throughout the community. The second proposal treats wildland fuels around the Cliff's Neighborhood in Redmond in conjunction with the City of Redmond the neighborhood association and Project Wildfire. 2007 Fire Season Kickoff Meeting with Gordon Graham: Traditionally the local agencies have a pre-season meeting to discuss capabilities, predictions of the fire season, and update rosters as part of preparedness. This event has been sponsored by the Central Oregon Chief's Association for many years. This year we have the unique opportunity to complete the preseason meeting and have a 2-3 hour presentation by renowned speaker Gordon Graham. Project Wildfire and the Chief's Association are co-sponsoring this event and may draw up to 300 f irefighters and law enforcement officials throughout Central Oregon. Normal attendance has been approximately 50. I will serve as the Incident Commander of the event and the BOCC and County Administrator are invited to this event to be part of the preseason activities and hear Dr. Graham's presentation. Attachments MEMORANDUM DATE: March 23, 2007 TO: Deschutes County BOCC and County Administrator FROM: Joe Stutler RE: MOU with OSU and COCC As per the Memorandum of Understanding Deschutes County has with Central Oregon Community College and Oregon State University-Cascade Campus the following is the annual Program of Work for 2007-08: 1. Utilizing the Greater Sisters Community Fire Protection Plan as a guide, identify the communities/neighborhoods with the highest risk during wildland fires, contact the neighborhood associations to seek permission from individual owners to treat the fuels and provide for defensible space and complete and award a contract which will utilize National Fire Plan Grant funding to complete the work. Target date for this is June 2007. 2. Utilizing the Land Management Plans developed by COCC Capstone classes in previous years; implement the plan for the 160 acre parcel in Fremont Canyon. Implementation will entail creating a contract which will treat the fuels, and remove saw timber and other wood products for profit. Target date for completion of the contract is June 2007. 3. Work with the Deschutes County Forester to continue implementation of these projects throughout the next school year. 4. Prepare next Capstone class for completing a similar project for the additional 240 acres in Fremont Canyon next spring (2008). 5. Utilize the properties in Fremont Canyon for a variety of forestry and natural resource classes including chainsaw training, silviculture and dendrology field trips, timber marking and appraisal. As per the M.O.U. these activities will be mutually beneficial to Deschutes County and both educational institutions. JOSEPH E. STUTLER Deschutes County Forester Cc County Administrator, Legal Counsel, BOCC Central Oregon Community College Forestry Capstone Spring 2007 Course Objectives and Expectations For 2007 the Forestry Capstone Class will work on two distinct projects in close proximity but with uniquely different objectives. Project A: Greater Sisters Community Fire Plan (CWPP) was complete in 2005 and updated in 2006. The community with the highest structural vulnerability from a wildland fire perspective is Panoramic Estates. Several other neighborhoods have similar risks but none as extreme as Panoramic Estates. The objectives of this project are as follows: 1. Utilizing the Greater Sisters CWPP as the guiding document, identify the standards to be achieved in Panoramic Estates to reduce wildland fire hazards. 2. Identify specifically the private lands within the neighborhood that do not currently meet those standards, this will include homes and vacant lots. 3. Contact the appropriate neighborhood association and/or individual property owner and seek permission to treat the fuels on private lands. 4. Obtain written permission from each landowner using example from either Deschutes County or Oregon Department of Forestry. 5. Develop a contract which will include standards for treatment to meet specific objectives in the Greater Sister CWPP for an amount not to exceed $50,000. 6. If the entire amount can not be spent in Panoramic Estates, identify the next viable neighborhood for treatment and obtain written permission to treat fuels. 7. Under take a Request for Proposal (RFP) process to solicit bidders and award the contract before spring quarter is complete. Project B: Previous Capstone Classes have developed respective land management plans for two properties owned by Deschutes County; one is 240 acres and the second totals 160 acres. The objectives of this project are as follows: 1. Utilize the Capstone land management plans for both the 240 and 160 acre parcels as the guiding documents and the preferred alternatives. 2. Evaluate the market for all wood products to determine value. 3. Develop a contract which addresses the preferred alternative; undertake a RFP process to identify prospective purchasersibidders. 4. Offer a timber sale which results in a net financial gain for Deschutes County. 5. Develop other alternatives for Deschutes County if Objective 4 is not achievable. 6. Obtain all necessary permits from Oregon Department of Forestry. Strategic Plan/Agreement between Deschutes County, Central Oregon Community College and Oregon State University Introduction: Deschutes County owns approximately 10,500 acres of land which is either timbered or is representative of the Great Basis Ecosystem vegetation, namely juniper, sage or bitter brush. Until recently Deschutes County had held the land for future land exchanges, donations or outright disposal. Both Central Oregon Community College and Oregon State University have forestry and related earth science programs that would benefit from having access to these land for learning opportunities for the students. Purpose: Deschutes County and the educational institutions will benefit from the following proposed activities: 1. "Learn by doing" laboratories by field visits and projects. 2. Providing student projects and/or research projects in the close proximity of the campuses. 3. Provide guest instructors who are "practioners" in forestry, earth science, GIS and planning professions. 4. Development of land management plans for natural resources on portions of, or all of lands owned by Deschutes County. 5. Develop other types of plans such as noxious weeds, open space, restoration plans, and community fire plans. 6. Plan, sell and administer small volume timber sales including post, poles, chips and saw logs. 7. Provide summer/seasonal student intern positions using Title III monies. 8. Collaborating to apply for National Fire Plan, Healthy Forest Restoration Act, and other hazardous fuels federal funding sources. 9. Offer "hands-on" experience in grant writing. 10. Provide experience in an "urban forest" environment with land use proposals with the federal, state and local governments. 11. By utilizing a collaborative process, demonstrate how local government and educational institutions can provide a quality learning environment and be recognized as a leader in sound land management of public lands, simultaneously. How to Implement: Deschutes County, COCC and OSU would develop a formal agreement or memorandum of understanding to proceed. When: This agreement would be in place by (April) 1St 2005. Who: Deschutes County Forester, Deschutes County Commissioners, Deschutes County Legal Counsel; and representatives from COCC and OSU. OJTEs, G Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ora AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT For Board Business Meeting of April 2, 2007 Use "tab" to move between fields, and use as much space as necessary within each field. Do not leave any fields incomplete. Agenda requests & backup must be submitted to the Board Secretary no later than noon of the Wednesday prior to the meeting to be included on the agenda. DATE: March 22, 2007 TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners FROM: Terri Hansen Payne, CDD 385-1404 TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM: Work Session on TA-04-4: A request to amend County destination resort code PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? No BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS: On February 26 the Board decided 5 of the 7 decision points on this proposed text amendment. This work session is intended to address the remaining two issues, whether individually-owned residential units counted as overnight units can be rented from property managers as well as the resort, and the phasing of the required overnight lodging units. Lf/Z FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: None d k RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REOUESTED: Deliberate on the issues addressed in the attached memo. ATTENDANCE: Terri Hansen Payne DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS: Terri Hansen Payne Community Development Department s Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 STAFF MEMO http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ To: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners From: Laurie Craighead, Assistant Legal Council and Terri Hansen Payne, Associate Planner Date: April 2, 2007 Subject: Text Amendment TA-04-4 Deliberation 1. TA 04-4 Decisions At a February 26 work session for TA-04-4 the Board of County Commissioners (Board) discussed the seven decision points/issues on this request to amend County destination resort code. Five of the identified issues were resolved as shown in Attachment 1 and the Board requested further information on the two issues listed below. II. Issue 5 PROPOSAL: Individually-owned residential units counted as overnight lodging may be rented through property managers as well as the resorts Current County Code ■ Requires a minimum of 150 overnight lodging units ■ Requires no more than 2 individually-owned residential units for every 1 overnight lodging unit ■ An individually-owned residential unit can be counted as overnight lodging if the following are met o The unit is available a specified number of weeks/year o The unit is rented through one or more central reservation and check in services Proposed change o The unit is rented through one or more central reservation and check in services or a property manager The concern with Issue 5 is that if the individually-owned units counted as overnight lodging are rented through numerous property managers rather than a central system, tracking those units could be difficult. Tracking is important to ensure that resorts are following the accommodation regulations. Note that resorts are currently responsible for tracking and reporting on those units as shown below and they would continue to be responsible for complying with our code. REPORTING/TRACKING REQUIREMENTS Current County Code ■ If a resort counts individually-owned residential as overnight lodging then they must do the following for each unit o Identify the unit on the plat o Deed restrict the unit o Add a CC&R irrevocable provision limiting the use of the unit o In any rental contract between the owner and the resort, add language that the unit must comply with County requirements Quality Services Performed with Pride Decision Points for TA-04-4 o Report annually on the owner, number of weeks available, number of weeks rented New County Code requirements (Issue 3) ■ The Board voted on 2-26-07 to include additional annual reporting requirements o On the resort accommodation ratio o On the status of the 150 overnight lodging units o On the individually-owned units counted as overnight lodging (similar to what is already required by County Code) Unfortunately, having these requirements has not guaranteed compliance. Historically, planning staff have been unable to adequately oversee adherence to these requirements. To initiate more effective monitoring, for 2006 and 2007 the County requested the required reports on individually- owned units counted as overnight units. Other ideas for ensuring that resorts comply with County requirements on individually-owned units counted as overnight lodging are discussed below. ADDITIONAL REPORTING/TRACKING OPTIONS ■ Use Code Enforcement to enforce compliance o Due to the small fines involved, this may not be effective ■ Track these units through the transient room tax o Due to the way the room tax code is written and enforced, this may not be effective ■ Amend code to define overnight lodging as hotel, motel or timeshare units only o This would not allow individually-owned residential units to be counted as overnight lodging, so it would be very effective ■ Amend code to require verifiable compliance with accommodation regulations before any individual plats can be approved o Having this explicit provision would provide resorts with clear direction and would stop development if a resort is not complying, so it would be very effective o Although not explicitly in the code, the County could impose such a requirement now. Without documentation of compliance with the overnight lodging requirements, the resort will not be able to show how the applied for tentative plat complies with the Final Master Plan Below are the motions for this issue that were presented during the discussion of February 26, plus two additional motions based on the options discussed above. Motions 2, 3 and 4 are compatible and could be adopted in any combination together or separately. However, if Motion 3 is adopted Motion 1 is no longer applicable and the vote taken on February 26 regarding the number of weeks residential counted as overnight are available (Issue 4) is no longer pertinent. Motion 3 amends the code to no longer allow residential units to count as overnight lodging, so the issues of how often they are available and how they are rented become irrelevant. Issue 5 Alternatives Motion 1 Amend County Code 18.04.030 and 18.113.060(D)(2) and 18.113.070(U) and 18.113.090(J) to allow individually-owned units counted as overnight lodging to be rented by a property manager as well as the resort (permitted by statute, but not required, although giving them the option may be better from the SEC regulation standpoint) Motion 2 Do not amend County Code to allow individually-owned units counted as overnight lodging to be rented by a property manager as well as the resort (would retain current county code which is more restrictive than Statute) Motion 3 Amend DCC 18.04.030 and DCC 18.113 to require overnight lodging to be provided only as hotels, motels or timeshares. This motion rescinds the vote taken on February 26 on Issue 4. (would be stricter than Statute) Motion 4 Amend DCC 18.113 to include language clarifying that before approval of each plat the County will require a verifiable report showing compliance with resort accommodation requirements would be stricter than Statute Decision 4-2-07 Page 2 Decision Points for TA-04-4 III. ISSUE 6 PROPOSAL: Allow phasing of the required 150 overnight lodging units over a maximum of 14 years DESTINATION RESORT OVERNIGHT LODGING UNITS PROVISIONS The following table highlights the differences between current code requirements and the requirements ro osea o the a iicants. Httacnment roviaes implementation exam pies. No. of Units Current Count Code Proposed Count Code 1S 50 Units ■ Build or financially assure all 150 ■ Build prior to selling any lots units prior to the sale of any lots ■ After recording of the Phase 1 Final Plat ■ If bonded, the term is generally one (because the units can't be built without year and the units must be built or plat approval) the bond renewed in that time period ■ Must be done prior to/simultaneously with the recording of the Phase Final Plat 2" 50 Units See above ■ Build or financially assure within 5 years of initial lot sales ■ If financially assured, the units must be completed within 4 years (i.e. at year 9 after the initial lot sales 3` 50 Units See above ■ Build or financially assure within 10 years of initial lot sales ■ If financially assured, the units must be completed within 4 years (i.e. at year 14 afer the initial lot sales One issue raised is that, according to State statute, if a resort chooses to phase, the first 50 overnight lodging units must be built before any lots could be sold. This could put a financial burden on a proposed resort and might lead to default. Note that the applicant's representative has suggested that the phasing provision would most likely be used by resorts which are already approved and which may have the first 50 units completed. With an amendment to their master plans, these resorts could postpone building the remainder of their required overnight units while they continue to develop single family lots. Another issue is that, if overnight lodging is needed to promote tourism, then 14 years is too long to wait for these units. Staff believes this concern is mitigated by the required accommodation ratio. If a resort does not provide the second 50 units until nine years after initial lot sales, as allowed, they will also be limited during those nine years to selling no more than 100 lots. (2:1 ratio) Issue 6 Alternatives Option removed by applicant Motion 2 Amend County Code 18.04.030 and 18.113.060(A)(1) and (5) to permit phasing as originally proposed by Staff (permitted by Statute, but not required) Motion 3 Do not amend County Code to allow phasing of the 150 overnight lodging units (would possibly be more restrictive than Statute, legal question as to whether we need to require the first 50 units to be built Decision Attachments 1. February 26 Board decisions 2. Phasing scenarios 4-2-07 Page 3 Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 Attachment 1 (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ To: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners From: Terri Hansen Payne, Associate Planner Date: April 2, 2007 Subject: Text Amendment TA-04-4 Deliberation Results as of 2-26-07 1. TA 04-4 At a work session on February 26, 2007 the Board of County Commissioners made the following decisions regarding TA-04-4. Issues 5 and 6 are yet to be decided. II. List of Decision Points Issue 1 Proposal Increase the required resort investment from $4 million in adjusted 1984 dollars to $7 million in adjusted 1993 dollars Decision Amend DCC 18.04.030 and 18.113.060(A)(3) and (4) to increase the required resort investment as proposed Issue 2 Proposal Add language requiring a conservation easement for specified Goal 5 resources located at destination resorts Decision Amend County Code by adding a new section 18.113.120 to require conservation easements Issue 3 Proposal Add a requirement for an annual report on resort accommodations Decision Amend County Code 18.113.070(U) to add language to require an annual accommodation report as required b Statute Issue 4 Proposal Modify the definition of overnight lodging units to lower the number of weeks that individually-owned units counted as overnight lodging are required to be available for rent from 45 weeks/ ear to 38 weeks/ ear Decision Amend County Code 18.04.030 and 18.113.060(D)(2) and 18.113.070(U) and 18.113.090(J) to lower the number of weeks individually-owned units counted as overnight lodging are available for rent Issue 7 Proposal Change the ratio between individually-owned residential units and overnight lodging units from 2:1 to 2.5:1 Decision I No motion - no change will be made to Countv Code Quality Services Performed xvith Pride Attachment 2 Issue 6: Phasing of the Required Overnight Lodging Examples Note that for both scenarios below, the limiting factor is the required 2:1 accommodation ratio. To continue to provide single family lots, a resort must also continue to add overnight lodging. Under Current Countv Code - standard process Month/Year Action March 2007 Approval of Final Master Plan FMP July 2007 Approval of Phase 1 Tentative Plat, which is a subdivision of 100 single family dwelling SFD lots and 150 overnight lodging units August 2007 Developer enters into Improvement Agreement (IA) and secures bond for all 150 overnight lodging units, records IA and Phase 1 Final Plat August 2008 All 100 Phase 1 SFD lots sold, approval of Tentative Plat for Phase 2, which is a subdivision for another 200 SFD lots End of August Recording of Final Plat for Phase 2 and 200 SFD lots sold 2008 There are 300 SFD lots sold and 150 units overnight lodging units financed - 2:1 ratio maintained September 2008 Construction on 50 overnight lodging units completed but Developer doesn't ask for any portion of the bond back, developer applies for a Tentative Plat approval for Phase 3 for 100 more SFD lots. Because the bond is tied specifically to the original 150 overnight lodging units, and no more overnight lodging units have been built or any additional units bonded for, the Phase 3 application must be denied. Overnight lodging must be provided in bonding period or an extension granted New SFD lots can be approved if additional units are part of FMP, however no new SFD lots can be approved until more overnight lodging is provided Under State Statute/Proposed Countv Code Month/Year Action March 2007 Approval of Final Master Plan FMP July 2007 Approval of Phase 1 Tentative Plat, which is a subdivision of 100 single family dwelling SFD lots along with 50 overnight lodging units August 2007 Recording of Phase 1 Final Plat June 2008 1 sset of 50 overnight lodging units constructed, then 100 SFD lots sold No new SFD lots permitted without additional overnight lodging June 2013 Due date for construction of 2" set of 50 units, but Developer decides not to construct 2nd set of 50 units and enters into Improvement Agreement (IA) with County and bonds 2nd set of 50 units. Developer records IA for 2"d set of 50 units, and Phase 2 Final Plat for next 100 SFD lots and all lots are sold There now are 50 overnight lodging units on the ground and 50 units financed: 200 SFD lots sold - 2:1 ratio maintained June 2017 2" set of 50 overnight lodging units constructed as required June 2018 Developer enters IA with County and bonds for 3r set of 50 units. Upon recording of IA, Developer records Final Plat for Phase 3 for next 100 SFD lots and all lots are sold There now are 100 overnight lodging units on the ground and 50 units financed: 300 SFD lots approved and sold - 2:1 ratio maintained June 2022 3r set of 50 overnight lodging units constructed as required New SFD lots can be approved if additional units are part of FMP, however no new SFD lots can be approved until more overnight lodging is provided 18. 113.060. Standards for destination resorts. D. A destination resort shall, cumulatively and for each phase, meet the following minimum requirements: 1. The resort shall have a minimum of 50 percent of the total acreage of the development dedicated to permanent open space, excluding yards, streets and parking areas. Portions of individual residential lots and landscape area requirements for developed recreational facilities, visitor-oriented accommodations or multi-family or commercial uses established by DCC 18.124.070 shall not be considered open space; 2. Individually-owned residential units shall not exceed two such units for each unit of visitor-oriented overnight lodging. Individually-owned units shall be considered visitor-oriented lodging if they are available for overnight rental use by the general public for at least 45 weeks per calendar year through one or more central reservation and check-in service(s). E. Phasing. A destination resort authorized pursuant to DCC 18.113.060 may be developed in phases. If a proposed resort is to be developed in phases, each phase shall be as described in the CNIP. Each individual phase shall meet the following requirements: I. Each phase, together with previously completed phases, if any, shall be capable of operating in a manner consistent with the intent and purpose of DCC 18.113 and Goal 8. 2. The first phase and each subsequent phase of the destination resort shall cumulatively meet the minimum requirements of DCC 18.113.060 and DCC 18.113.070. 3. Each phase may include two or more distinct noncontiguous areas within the destination resort. 18.113.070. Approval criteria. U. A mechanism to ensure that individually-owned units counting toward the overnight lodging total remain available for rent for at least 45 weeks per calendar year through a central reservation and check-in service. Such a mechanism shall include all of the following: 1. Designation on the plat of which individually-owned units are to be considered to be overnight lodging as used in DCC 18.113; 2. Deed restrictions limiting use of such identified premises to overnight lodging purposes under DCC 18.113 for at least 45 weeks each year; 3. Inclusion in the CC&R's of an irrevocable provision enforceable by the County limiting use of such identified units to overnight lodging purposes under DCC 18.113 for at least 45 weeks each year; 4. Inclusion of language in any rental contract between the owner of the unit and any central reservation and check-in service requiring that such units be made available as overnight lodging facilities under DCC 18.113 for at least 45 weeks each year; and 5. A requirement that each such unit be registered and a report be filed on each such unit yearly by the owner or central booking agent on January 1 with the Planning Division as to the following information: a. Who the owner or owners have been over the last year; b. How many nights out of the year the unit was available for rent through the central reservation and check-in service; and c. How many nights out of the year the unit was rented out as an overnight lodging facility under DCC 18.113. JTES c Community Development Department Q Planning Division • Building Safety Division • Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue • Bend, Oregon • 97701-1925 (541) 388-6575 • FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/ cdd/ April 2, 2007 Alan Van Vliet Director of Development, Eagle Crest, Inc. P.O. Box 1215 Redmond, OR 97756 SUBJECT: Yearly Destination Resorts Housing Report Dear Mr. Van Vliet: In February, April and November 2006 Deschutes County sent letters requesting the required report on individually-owned residential units that Eagle Crest is counting as overnight lodging. This information is needed to ensure Eagle Crest is complying with County overnight lodging requirements and the required ratio between overnight lodging and individually-owned residential units. On February 26, 2007 County planning staff met with Nancy Craven and Linda Swearingen and they conveyed to us that Eagle Crest has not been able to track individually-owned units counted as overnight lodging since County requirements for deed restrictions and rental through a central reservation system have not been followed. As you know, Eagle Crest was the first, and for many years the only, destination resort in Deschutes County. Destination resorts are supported by Statute in that they can be sited on resource lands without having to go through the complicated goal exception process. In return, resorts are intended to provide economic benefits through increased tourism. To that end, the Statute specifically requires the provision of overnight lodging at all destination resorts. The County understands that Eagle Crest may well be meeting the spirit of the overnight lodging requirements, with hundreds of vacation rental units that may exist but cannot be easily tracked. However, with the tremendous growth of new destination resorts in Central Oregon, meeting the spirit of the law is not sufficient. In the Burden of Proof for Eagle Crest III it states that: "Eagle Crest does not include individually-owned units in its calculation toward the overnight lodging that remain available for rent for the 45 week minimum. " (CU-99-85 page 23) Yet, without counting individually-owned residential units Eagle Crest is clearly out of compliance with the required accommodation ratio. Nancy and Linda did provide us with the number of hotel rooms and timeshare/fractional units that meet the definition of overnight lodging. Unfortunately, those numbers are substantially below the number of required overnight lodging units. Furthermore, they only verbally provided us with the numbers and did not provide any documentation to support those numbers. Quality Services Performed with Pride We understand the difficulty of tracking individually-owned units that are counted as overnight lodging. That is why County Code sets clear limitations on these units and requires a deed restriction. Our requirements are intended to assure that as a resort gets built out these units will remain available as overnight lodging. The issue now is how can Eagle Crest be brought into compliance with destination resort accommodation requirements. There are likely many actions that could be taken. As a start, we would recommend that Eagle Crest ensure that any properties remaining for sale are required to comply with the overnight lodging requirements, including deed restrictions. Additionally, rental property owners could be contacted to see if there are some who are willing to permit deed restrictions. We realize it might be difficult to get the required number of overnight units through those actions. Still, while there may be no quick or simple fix to this problem, a fix is possible and necessary. If you have any questions, please contact me at (541) 385-1708. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Sincerely, Catherine Morrow, Planning Director DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING DIVISION cc: BOCC, Nancy Craven, Linda Swearingen December 4, 2006 Deschutes County Commissioners Dennis Luke Bev Clarno Mike Daly Testimony on Public Hearing on Destination Resort Code Amendment I write in reference to the proposed destination resort code amendment. I believe it would be premature to change the destination resort code without studying the impacts that. this language will have. Very important topics were discussed during the Planning Commission's remapping of the DR zone which took place from October 2005-February 2006. Public discussion of this sort should be included in this record: Impact that destination resorts have on the location of affordable housing, on the poor condition of County roads, on the huge request for Water useage, on Sheriff services and fire protection from Wildfire Urban Interface, on Resort Accountability, Deschutes County enforcement and on the demands placed on Community Development Department Staff. These are issues that I encourage you to discuss during the course of your taking testimony this evening 1. Regarding the housing ratio increase from 2.0 to 2.5:1 Transportation How many more trips will permanent housing place on our already failing road systems? In many resort cases such as Eagle Crest, there has been a fixed top limit mechanism for contributing toward infrastructre needs. How will Deschutes County and/or ODOT be compensated for this proposed increase in traffic on our infrastructure? Why is there no transportation SDC now in the County? The huge cloverleaf at Sunriver is over budget and has taken longer to build than. anticipated. What monetary participation will destination resorts make toward this infrastructure if you grant their sweeping density request? Water How much more domestic water and irrigation water will a permanent home use than an overnight unit? What mitigation will be required to offset the added use of water? Deschutes County is concerned about it's water quality and it's use of water. The Oregon Insider's article "Central Oregon Water" (by DRC attached) identifies a base case, low growth case and a high growth case of acre-feet demand by destination resorts. The high growth estimate for destination resorts requires 35% more water than the base case. Which ratio is used to obtain these demand 2025 figures: the 2.0 : 1 housing ratio or the 2.5 : 1 housing ratio? According to The Water Report also created by DRC attached the 2025 demand for destination resorts is 9% of basin water! whereas municipalities over this same time frame are demanding only 2% of our basin water. What Is this the best use of our water resource, should resorts be developed on poor soils and water rights be diverted from good agricultural soils to accomplish the mitigation programs that are being drafted to meet water in stream? Central Oregon Deschutes County has been the hot spot for destination resorts. Adjacent counties are watching closely. Jefferson and Crook counties will be quick to adopt Deschutes County rules. As you can see from the attached article on Crook County, their destination resorts are just adjacent to major cities in Central Oregon. For instance Remington Ranch/Winchester is closer to Redmond than Prineville. How will Deschutes County collect for the taxing impacts which resorts in adjacent counties create? This issue has been brought to you by The City of Redmond's Chris Doty in the attached 2 correspondances dated September 7, 2006. This is just the beginning of the woes. Affordable Housing What distance do employees of destination resorts have to travel to find affordable housing? At the very minimum increasing density should be tied to building affordable housing on site so that employees do not have to commute huge distances at exhorbitant fuel prices. Sherriff's Services The rural sherriff bond failed this past November 2006 in Deschutes County. Now you are willing to increase the density of homes in Destination Resorts. This density increase will cause a longer response time for current population. Wildfire Urban Interface Why should BLM's Cline Buttes Recreation Plan have to protect added density so destination resorts can sell more lots? How do public entities get compensated for density increases after they have already created fixed mitigation MOD's? Recreation Deschutes County is one of few in the State of Oregon that does not have a parks department. It is time for County accountability in light of our escallating population. It is time for a Deschutes County Park System for public recreation and to not rely on destination resorts or federal lands to meet the needs of our citizenry. Phasing of recreational opportunities does not mean they will be constructed during the course of a developer's ownership of a resort. Eagle Crest's management has been turned over to at least 13 neighborhoods. The Ridge Owner Association The Eagle Crest Master Association and 13 sub Owner Associations such as: Fairway Vista, Riverview Vista, Vacation Resort, Eagle Crest Home Owners, Hotel, Phase III: Creekside, Desert Sky, Highland Parks, Vista Rim Phase II: Forest Green, Forest Ridge, Eagle Creek, Eagle Springs The Falls. Have residents of Eagle Crest been notified of this proposed land use that could occur within 500 feet of their property? Exactly where will accountability for overnight units come from if each unit of overnight accommodation is managed separately? Thank you for your thoughtful appreciation of the complexity of this code amendment. Nunzie Gould 19845 JW Brown Bend OR 97701 420-3325