2007-1495-Minutes for Meeting August 27,2007 Recorded 9/10/2007DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS CJ 2001
NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK y N 1495
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL
IIIIIII 09/10/2007 11;45;33 PM
111111111111111111111111
2007-1493
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
•C E S
[i
❑ Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www deschutes.org
MINUTES OF BUSINESS MEETING
DES CHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2007
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tammy Baney.
Also present were Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Timm Schimke, Solid Waste
Department; Tom Anderson, Paul Blikstad, Terri Payne and Will Groves,
Community Development; Susan Ross, Property & Facilities; Timm Schimke, Solid
Waste Department; media representatives Cindy Powof The Bulletin and a
person from News Channel 21; and approximately twenty other
Chair Daly opened the meeting at 10:00 a.m.
1. Before the Board was Citizen Input.
Mike Higham, a new resident living near the Bend Airport on Peterman Lane,
said he didn't receive any information about what was going on. He attended a
meeting that ended up being a yelling match. His issue is how long it will take
to get the job done; he was told 200 hours is the woke- sale scenario. At the
a.m. this weekend there were trucks backing up, so wondering
what definition of "cease of work" is. He heard that they are doing more work next
year in the taxi area.
Laurie Craghead stated that this ex parte contact, and is supposed to be done at
the hearing on Wednesday. This should be discussed at the hearing and not
outside the hearing process since it is quasi judicial in nature. However, it is
appropriate to talk with staff.
Commissioner Luke stated that he asking a simple question on how much noise
they can make and thinks he should be allowed to speak. Ms. Craghead
reiterated that this could be related to the issuance of a new permit; it is not
necessarily prohibited, but is ex parte. It is best if staff answers his questions.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, August 27, 2007
Page 1 of 9 Pages
Chair Daly said this should be discussed on Wednesday, but staff will try to
answer his questions now.
2. Before the Board was Consideration of Signature of Final Decision, and
First Reading of Ordinance No. 2007-022, Changing the Zone Designation
for Certain Property from Forest Use F-1 to Forest Use F-2 (Applicant:
Pine Forest Development LLC).
Will Groves gave a brief overview of the item, and said it should be approved
by emergency, as the time frame is expiring.
Ms. Craghead said the first and second readings could be conducted next week,
with an emergency clause. The Board needs to have the changes within seven
days prior to the decision.
Commissioner Baney asked if the emergency clause is required. Ms. Craghead
said there is a 150-day time limit required by the State, at which time the
County would be required to defend its decision. The land use decision and
findings document needs to be approved before that time.
LUKE: Move approval of the decision and finding document.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair vote yes.
The Ordinance will come before the Board for consideration of signature at the
September 5 Board business meeting.
3. Before the Board was a Public Hearing regarding a Revised Application
for a Tentative Plat, Modifying a Plan for a Measure 37 Subdivision
(Applicant: C Corp Homes/Arnett).
Paul Blikstad explained there are now 39 lots instead of 38. The original
homestead was not included before, but is a separate lot that needs to be a part
of the count.
The Board allowed a withdrawal of the original application and a new one was
submitted. The only issue before the Board today is the letter from the
Department of Environmental Quality. The Road Department is okay with the
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, August 27, 2007
Page 2 of 9 Pages
revisions. A letter has not come from the Fire District on the new application
but one was previously provided, and the changes since then are not significant.
Ms. Craghead stated that there is no State law or ordinance that requires the
County to take on the issues brought up in the letter from DEQ. Those are State
processes and oversight is handled by the State. They have not identified any
specific issues nor have they given any direction in this situation.
Commissioner Luke asked if DEQ responded to LCDC's comments about the
individual septic systems. Ms. Craghead stated that the only concern was
overflow into the pond located in the area, but not on the subject property. The
two State agencies do not seem to agree.
Commissioner Baney asked what kind of septic systems would be required in
that area and how mitigation can take place in regard to potential future
problems. Commissioner Daly said that this not a high water table area; the
only groundwater is the canal. He said he lived in the Amber Lake area all his
life and believes calling this a high water area is incorrect. Mr. Blikstad stated
that environmental health decides what is required for septic approval, and they
will weigh in on the side on caution when requiring a specific type of system.
Mr. Blikstad said that the Freeborn property to the south was an issue before,
and the Board may want to get some feedback from the applicant in this regard.
Chair Daly then read the opening statement to the audience.
In regard to bias, personal interest, conflict of interest, and ex parte contact,
Commissioner Luke said he had none to disclose. Commissioner Baney stated
that Mr. Arnett allowed her to place a campaign sign on his property some time
ago. Commissioner Daly said that Mr. Arnett has been a friend for many years,
and he worked for Mr. Arnett on projects long ago. Commissioner Daly also
stated that his brother helped build the lake, which is not on the Arnett property.
None of this would affect his decision on this issue.
There were no challenges from the audience. Chair Daly then opened the
hearing.
Ed Fitch, Redmond, representing the applicant, asked that the staff report be
incorporated into the record.
He explained that the Arnett property was never part of any wetland area that
was drained; that particular land was originally owned by Weigand years ago.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, August 27, 2007
Page 3 of 9 Pages
DEQ did one test on the dry well in the last year and did not find any
appreciable nitrates, and there has been no negative impact on the area.
Approval requires everything be handled on site, but the dry well is not on the
property and is not an issue.
He said a letter from LCDC was received stating that with the lot size being two
acres or larger, they have no objection to the proposal.
Mr. Hopp and Mr. Freeborn have reached an agreement, with the terms to be
worked out in the near future.
In regard to Measure 37, there is a provision in Measure 37 that after two years
after a claim is approved, no order is required to proceed with development.
This is an additional basis for approval. This statement is included in the
proposed findings.
Ms. Craghead said that they will note the two-year mark in the findings
although it doesn't change the findings.
Commissioner Daly asked about the irrigation rights. John Arnett testified that
the irrigation water will be pressurized and will provide a certain amount of
irrigation to individual lots. Mr. Fitch stated that drainage will be natural. The
irrigation rights will stay on the property.
Carol MacBeth of the 1,000 Friends of Oregon said that regarding DEQ
concerns about the septic systems, the burden of proof is on the applicant to
show that health and safety won't be an issue. She also stated that she doesn't
know what the relationship between Mr. Arnett and C Corp is. Ms. Craghead
explained that the applicant took out the application, but has appointed C Corp
to represent him.
Commissioner Luke stated the Board would be approving a plat, and each
individual lot will be evaluated as applications for permits come in. Ms.
Craghad stated that this was not brought up in the original application so cannot
be commented upon at this time. Commissioner Baney stated that the DEQ
letter only states that the on-site system should be addressed as appropriate.
Commissioner Luke said that it needs to be clear that Arnett is the applicant.
His preference is a sewer system but this seems to be a violation of Goal 11 per
the State.
Being no further testimony or rebuttal offered, the hearing was closed.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, August 27, 2007
Page 4 of 9 Pages
Commissioner Baney stated she would like to see the changes after they are
made, but is ready to vote subject to the changes in language.
Commissioner Daly said that a lot of the DEQ information is incorrect,
including the fact that the dry well is not on the applicant's property.
LUKE: Move approval of the application, subject to clarification in the
findings of the changes that have been discussed.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair vote yes.
4. Before the Board was a Public Hearing on Ordinance No. 2007-005,
Destination Resort Code Amendments.
Chair Daly read the opening statement. In regard to bias, prejudgment or
personal interest, none of the Commissioners had any to disclose. There were
no challenges from the public. Commissioner Luke noted that the Board has
another meeting to attend at noon, so if necessary this hearing can be recessed
then and continued at 1:30 p.m.
Terri Payne gave an overview of the item. She said that because there have
been changes proposed that were not previously open for public comment,
testimony is allowed on those changes at this time. County Code can be more
restrictive than statute, but not less restrictive. She then went over her staff
report, listing the items that need to be changed to comply with statute, and also
noting those changes that are permitted by statute but not required.
The hearing was opened at this time.
Tom Luersen, representing Caldera and Sunriver, referred to a letter he had
submitted on August 21. He said he has also spoken with County staff. He is
interested in moving forward, but wanted clarification of a couple of points. He
took issue with the language of recording overnight use, and also the location of
a rental office, which should not necessarily have to be at the resort. He added
that in regard to tracking usage, they are already paying room tax so that
information should be readily available through the County Finance
Department.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, August 27, 2007
Page 5 of 9 Pages
Laurie Craghead noted that there is no requirement to track usage of hotel and
motel rooms.
No other proponents testified.
Opponents Jim Guild and Nunzie Gould then spoke. Mr. Guild said that they
think destination resorts do not follow guidelines, and most people think of
them just as rural subdivisions. They encouraged the Board to take a look at
other ways for the resorts to pay their way, such as SDC's to cover
transportation, parks, schools and infrastructure.
Mr. Guild said that is a bond is posted, it needs to be substantial and very
restrictive. He added that his biggest concern is setting precedence with these
changes. Very expensive homes will not end up in the rental pool.
He also complained about the Tumalo/Cook Avenue intersection, which is
failing, and said the added use from the resort would make things worse.
Commissioner Luke pointed out that gas tax revenue paid for Cline Falls Road
improvements, and Eagle Crest paid for Highway 126 improvements. The
resort has put substantial money into a fund for improvements at Tumalo, but
the State has no money to match it.
Nunzie Gould submitted a letter from Marianne Fellner into the record. Ms.
Gould also submitted a letter herself, and read it to the Board at this time. (A
copy is attached.)
Commissioner Luke pointed out that a study needs to be done and there has to
be a justification before you can put SDC's into place. Dave Kanner added that
this is being investigated with the help of a consultant, and he hopes the work is
done by the end of the year.
Ms. Gould complained that the public has not been kept aware of potential
changes in the Code on this issue. Commissioner Luke replied that there have
been several meetings, some of which were reported on in the local newspapers.
He added that Deschutes County and the resorts have a good record of
recording receipts, and the outside auditor indicates all is being handled
correctly. Sometimes it is hard to find out what individual property owners are
doing, but he said he takes exception to her statement that the County is remiss.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, August 27, 2007
Page 6 of 9 Pages
He stated that these changes have nothing to do with overnight receipts or room
tax; they have to do with the ratio. The County is collecting when a room is
rented out; there is no tax due until it is actually rented. This does not relate to
the 2:1 ratio.
Laurie Craghead added that the resorts have to provide the number of nights the
rooms are available; room tax is based on the actually rented nights.
Ms. Gould said that the reason they would not rent it out is that they want to sell
homesites. This makes it more profitable for them. These could change from
an overnight unit to a regular residence. It needs to be easier to track with
fewer loopholes.
Carol MacBeth of 1,000 Friends of Oregon stated that she echoes Ms. Gould's
statement. Destination resorts have a legislative history, but it is not in the best
interest of the area to have ex-urban subdivisions. She supports the
amendments with the exception of the change to 38 weeks; she feels it should
be 45. State law allowed destination resorts to be located where they are, in
mostly rural areas, and no one foresaw two small towns, Bend and Redmond,
growing so much. This was developed to bring people into remote areas for
economic reasons.
She said it is hard to find out the actual ratios in the resorts. Also, counties are
going to be negatively impacted by demands on transportation and other
infrastructure over time.
Kelly Smith, a resident living off Bull Springs Road and a member of the
Deschutes County Planning Commission, confirmed that his e-mail send the
day before is part of the record. He asked if an additional public hearing could
be held in the evening so working people can make their views known.
Commissioner Luke pointed out that they can submit testimony on the written
record. The original hearings of the Planning Commissioner were held in the
evening. Most of the proposed changes are to get the County into compliance
with State law.
Commissioner Baney said some of the components have not gone before the
Planning Commission. Ms. Craghead pointed out that they are not a decision-
making body, and their role is to make a recommendation to the Board. The
Board can make all the changes it wants. The Board did go back to the
Planning Commission last December for comments, which is very rare.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, August 27, 2007
Page 7 of 9 Pages
Commissioner Luke added that the Board also had a joint meeting with the
Planning Commission on this issue. Ms. Craghead noted that the general issues
are already worked out, and the Board needs to make a decision on changes the
Planning Commission has already recommended.
Mr. Smith said he didn't want this coming back to the Planning Commission at
this time. Commissioner Luke asked if the Planning Commission has meetings
during the day for other people. Mr. Smith said they might if they have to. He
wants to see the resorts be more accountable. The main change that he does not
like is the requirement of 38 weeks instead of 45. That leaves about 3.5 months
when it is not available for rent. This won't help the County.
The meeting was recessed until 1:30 p.m., at which time it was continued.
Sandy Lonsdale stated that he has lived here for thirty years. He feels the
Board should support what the Planning Commission has recommended, as
they speak for the citizens. He added that destination resorts should pay for
themselves and taxpayers should not have to foot the bill.
Commissioner Luke pointed out that there is nothing in the law that says the
destination resorts have to contribute, but the County has required this.
Mr. Lonsdale said that the formula used is not right; there are a lot of costs
besides pavement. The destination resorts are being treated liberally and the
County is being stuck with a larger percentage of costs. Commissioner Luke
stated that ODOT determines the impacts on state highways.
No other testimony in opposition was offered. The meeting was then opened
for rebuttal testimony.
Commissioner Daly asked about the purpose of reducing the ratio. Nancy
Craven, representing the resort, said that there were conversations between
DLCD staff, the Governor's staff and others in Salem a couple of years ago
about this issue. This allows the property owners some additional usage of the
property and helps to facilitate putting the properties into a mandatory rental
pool. DLCD proposed this change to allow more flexibility, and it is state law.
The resorts didn't get the number they wanted. There was some research done
nationally to find out how other states handle this. The owners are more willing
to put the property into the rental pool, as they will have greater opportunities to
use it themselves. This produces more revenue for the County.
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, August 27, 2007
Page 8 of 9 Pages
The Board then discussed how to handle adoption of the changes. Clarification
is needed on the location or nature of the rental agency. Ms. Craghead said that
proposed changes can be put on the County website ahead of time. Another
public hearing is not needed.
LUKE: Move that the public hearing be closed, with the written record left
open until September 30 for comments. The final draft of the
document is to be available on the County website no later than
September 15.
BANEY: Second.
VOTE: BANEY: Yes.
LUKE: Yes.
DALY: Chair vote yes.
5. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
None were offered.
Being no further items to come before the Board, Commissioner Daly
adjourned the meeting at 1: 55 p.m.
DATED this 27th Day of August 2007 for the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners.
Michael M. Daly, Chair
Dennis R. Luke, Vice Chair
ATTEST:
&,ax~ 4~2
Recording Secretary
Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Monday, August 27, 2007
Page 9 of 9 Pages
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY
Please complete this card & turn
it in to a County staff person.
Name: L!G`- X" 17-/4
Mailing Address: 1,S70() Bj/1
~S,~Jrt is 9<4
Phone 58 2 - 796
E-mail Address: ~G,s/94~C~ wc.rn.cr
Date: 11,2 710 7
Subject: jef~-. 6,rcrfr
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY
Please complete this card & turn
it in to a County staff person.
Name:
Mailing dress:
F
Zowt/ F r
one
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY
Please complete this card & turn
it in to a County staff person.
Name: ~J
Mailing Address: Phone ~2,&-33&5'
E-mail Address: v knom,
Date:
Subject: c.,Qo~_
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY
Please complete this card & turn
it in 211~ County staff person.
Name: 6v l
Mailing Address: ►JSq-L~' T u). ewa\,W
PID , - -8 e t~ __N) 4 0 R_ E q,11)4_
Phone g - ?6
E-mail Address:
Date: T -2- 7 0~7
Subject: lAk EPA,
E-mail Address:
Date:
Subject:
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY
}Tease complete this card & turn
it in to a County staff person.
Name: NYcv ( v
Mailing Address:
Phone
E-mail Address:
Date:
PO;C
Subject:
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY
Please complete this card & turn
it in~a County staff person.
Name: ~mv\_ Lu e/-5-e,
Mailing Address:
Phone
E-mail Address:
Date:
Subject:
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY
Please complete this card & turn
it in to a County staff person.
Name:
Mailing Address: ),6po
1/S~ ~J U
r
Phone -2 F2 - -7~5-
E-mail Address: CA
Zq-
Date:
Subject: d"C7T ApP"61-D&V
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY
Please complete this card & turn
it in to a County staff person.
Name:l-C ? A►~
Mailing Address:
,PE 74/z kn IV ~_A.,'
Phone 3 5-63Lr
E-mail Address:
Date: a"-
Subject: qLY pvvt-- Alv~,se
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY
Please complete this card & turn
it in to a County staff person.
Name:
Mailing Address:` a. z Li S~
Phone
E-mail Address: c_:~;4,,Q Awl- lM.r~•
Date:
Subject: sa«~;~
IF YOU WISH TO TESTIFY
-lease complete this card & turn
it in to a County staff person.
Name: flk~ L is a 6,~?
Mailing Address: R) s3~~
&4,,d , og- °t -i 70 E
Phone .NI - 40
E-mail Address: shKsdc,( @Qa)pee-r.n&f-
Date: - -7 0 7
Subject: .u wg,~ -TA 04
"WAA
8-27-07 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
FOR A LEGISLATIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE THE DESCHUTES
COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
This is a public hearing on Ordinance 2007-005. The County file number is TA-04-4. This
a legislative matter, meaning the outcome of this process could change the zoning laws
of Deschutes County. This proposal would:
■ amend the definitions of destination resorts and overnight lodging units
■ amend various provisions of the destination resort code regarding required initial
resort investment, protection for specified Goal 5 resources and parts of the code
related to resort accommodations.
The standards applicable to this proposal are defined in the staff report dated 8-22-07.
The Board of County Commissioners takes notice of the record below and includes that
record as part of the record before us.
The Board of County Commissioners will hear oral testimony, receive written testimony,
and consider the testimony submitted at this hearing. The hearing is also being taped.
The Commissioners may make a decision on this matter tonight, continue the public
hearing to a date certain, or leave the written record open for a specified period of time.
The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The staff will give a report on this
issue. We will then open the hearing to all present and ask people to present testimony
at one of the tables or at the podium. You can also provide the commission with a copy
of written testimony.
Questions to and from the chair may be entertained at any time at the chair's discretion.
Cross-examination of people testifying will not be allowed. However, if any person
wishes ask a question of another person during that person's testimony, please direct
your question to the chair after being recognized. The Chair is free to decide whether or
not to ask such questions of the person testifying.
Prior to the commencement of the hearing any party may challenge the qualifications of
any member of the Board for bias, prejudgment or personal interest. This challenge
must be documented with specific reasons supported by facts.
Should any Board member be challenged, the member may disqualify himself or herself,
withdraw from the hearing or make a statement on the record of their capacity to hear
and decide this issue.
At this time, do any members of the Board need to set forth any information that may be
perceived as bias, prejudgment, or personal interest?
I will accept any challenges from the public now.
(Hearing none, I will open the public hearing). STAFF REPORT
~0TEa C
wv 2~
° { 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
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board Business Meeting of 8-27-07
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: 8-20-07
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Terri Hansen Payne, CDD 385-1404
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Public Hearing on TA-04-4: destination resort code amendments.
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? Yes
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
TA-04-4 is a request for amendments to Deschutes County Code, initiated by Sunriver, Pronghorn and
Eagle Crest resorts. On December 4, 2006, there was a joint public hearing with the Board of County
Commissioners and the Planning Commission. After that hearing, the Planning Commission made a
recommendation to the Board on this proposal. Over the last 8 months, the Board of County
Commissioners has held six work sessions to discuss the details of this proposal. A final work session
was held on August 22, 2007. During these work sessions, the Board has deliberated on the applicant's
proposal, and requested additional amendments. Because the current proposed ordinance varies from
the original proposal, a public hearing was scheduled for August 27 to allow public comments on the
new language.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REOUESTED:
Hold a public hearing and take testimony on TA-04-4.
ATTENDANCE: Terri Hansen Payne
DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS:
Terri Hansen Payne
0
C-ALDERA
5 l' It, I N G
August 21, 2007
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 Wall St., Suite 200
Bend, OR 97701
Re: Text Amendment TA-04-4
Dear Board of County Commissioners:
On behalf of the Caldera Springs destination resort, I would like to submit
the following comments regarding the proposed amendments to Title 18 in Text
Amendment No. TA-04-4.
1. Overnight Lodging Ratio
As a preliminary matter, we are pleased that the Board is amending Title
18 to reflect the changes in the state destination resort statute. We understand that the
Board also intends to adopt the increase in the overnight lodging ratio (from 2:1 to
21/2:1), but that you are waiting to do so until LCDC changes Goal 8 to match the newly-
revised statute (Senate Bill 1044). We want to reiterate our strong support for the 21/2:1
ratio, and to encourage you to adopt the ratio as soon as SB 1044 and the revised Goal
become effective.
2. DCC 18.113.060(1..)(3)(d)
DCC 18.113.060(L)(3)(d) generally sets forth the information that must be
provided in the annual report on each individually-owned overnight lodging unit. (See
page 9 of Draft Exhibit "B" to Ordinance No. 2007-006). While we understand Staffs
and the Board's desire to gain sufficient information to ensure compliance with state and
local law, we think two of the requirements of DCC 18.113.060(L)(3)(d) are superfluous
and potentially problematic.
First, subsection (iii) requests data regarding how many nights out of the
year a unit was actually rented. This is not required by state law. Rather, to qualify as
an overnight lodging unit, a wholly-owned unit must be available for rental 38 weeks per
year. Because no one can control whether a unit is actually rented or not, the law
focuses only on availability for rental, not on actual rented days. We urge you to
remove any requests for superfluous information such as actual rented days in order to
minimize the burden on the record keepers (the homeowners, HOA, resort, and rental
companies), and to minimize the amount of data that the County must review each year.
Also, because this information is not necessary, it will likely only create confusion and/or
generate incorrect press about the status of a resort's compliance with the law (i.e, if the
annual report shows that a unit was actually only rented 20 weeks per year, such data
could generate a negative news report suggesting that the unit is not compliant with the
38 week requirement. While this would be untrue, the misinformation could stir up
unnecessary controversy for the resort and the Board).
Caldera Springs Real Estate, LLC
PO Box 3609 * Sunriver * Oregon 97707
development rx sunriver-resort.com
541-593-7942 [office] 541-593-3642 [fax]
CALDERA
S 1' k, I IN C; `i
Second, subsection (iv) would require the annual report to include
"documentation showing that these units were available for rental as required." This
section is ambiguous and is repetitive of subsection (ii), which already requires the
report to state "how many nights out of the year the unit was available for rent." In other
words, under subsection (ii) the report must state that the unit was available for rent at
least 38 weeks per year. It is unclear what additional information is necessary to
provide "documentation" under subsection (iv) to again confirm that the units were
available for rent 38 weeks per year. We request that the Board delete subsection (iv),
or clarify what a resort is supposed to provide in order to comply with this additional
reporting requirement.
If Staffs intention in adding subsection (iv) was to provide additional
assurance regarding the veracity of any statements made in the report about the
number of weeks that a unit is available for rent, the Board could add a statement such
as the following at the close of the paragraph (d): "The annual report shall include a
statement by the resort and/or NOA confirming that the information regarding each
overnight lodging unit is based upon current data obtained from the real estate property
manager responsible for the rental of each unit." This, in lieu of the unclear requirement
of subsection (iv), would simply certify the accuracy of the basic data in the report.
3. DCC 18.113,060(L.)(4)
The proposed teat of DCC 18.913.060(L)(4) reads as follows (see page 9
of Draft Exhibit "B" to Ordinance No. 2007-008):
44. Each resort shall facilitate rental to the general public
of the overnight lodging units by setting up and maintaining
in perpetuity, a rental office in a convenient location at the
resort and by setting up and maintaining in perpetuity a
telephone reservation system."
This text is not required by the state statute. It also conflicts with one of
the purposes of the revised statute and code, which is to clarify that overnight lodging
rentals may occur through a central reservation and check-in system operated by the
resort OR by a real estate property manager. The proposed text creates a situation in
which a resort has to provide a staffed rental office at the resort and a telephone
reservation system, in perpetuity, even though the statute and code otherwise allow
rentals to occur through independent property managers. This will place an
unnecessary burden on resorts to maintain on-site rental offices and staff people, which
may not be justified if the majority of owners of overnight lodging units choose to use
alternative property managers.
Caldera Springs Real Estate, -LL,C
PO Box 3609 * Sunriver * Oregon 97707
development cr"-,,sunriver-resort.com
541-593-7942 [office] 541-593-3642 [fax]
CALDERA
4 1' R 1 N G
In addition, Sunriver and other resorts have found that rental offices are
often better located off-site, in Bend or alternative locations, rather than in the middle of
the resort. Not only should the provision of a resort-operated rental office be optional
rather than mandatary, its location should not be prescribed by the code but should be
dictated by market research and visitor's demands.
Therefore, we request that the Board delete DCC 18.113.060(L)(4) in its
entirety because it is not necessary to implement the state statute, and it will place an
undue burden on the resort.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to
Title 18, and do not hesitate to contact me with any further questions.
Si rely,
Thomas P. Luersen
Regional Managing Director, Pacific Northwest
Lowe Hospitality Group
Caldera Springs
cc: Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner
Culdera Springs Real Estate, LLC
PO Box 3609 * Sunriver * Oregon 97707
development t ssunriver-resort.com
541-593-7942 [office] 541-593-3642 [fax]
Introduction
b
This is a de novo hearing on the request by C Corp ~ iomes on application no. TP-06-
977, as amended under application MA-07-10.
The applicant has requested approval of a Tentative Plat for a 39-lot subdivision on
property within the Exclusive Farm Use zone. This application was previously
considered by the Board as a 41-lot subdivision after a public hearing held on March 19,
2007. The Board's decision on the prior submittal was appealed to the Land Use Board
of Appeals, and the outcome was the Board withdrawing its decision and the applicant
amending the application. With the amendment submitted, a new hearing before the
Boad was scheduled This hearing is being conducted in accordance with the
procedures established under Title 22 of the Deschutes County Code.
Burden of proof and Applicable criteria
The applicant has the burden of proving that they are entitled to the land use approval
sought. The standards applicable to the applications are listed in the Board's prior
decision located at the table next to the entrance to this hearing room.
Testimony and evidence at this hearing must be directed toward the criteria set forth in
the notice of this hearing, as well as toward any other criteria in the comprehensive land
use plan of the County or land use regulations which any person believes apply to this
decision.
Failure on the part of any person to raise an issue, with sufficient detail to afford the
Board of County Commissioners and parties to this proceeding an opportunity to
respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue.
Additionally, failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to the
proposed conditions of approval with sufficient detail to allow the Board to respond to the
issue precludes an action for damages in Circuit Court.
Hearings Procedure
The procedures applicable to this
Commissioners will hear testimony,
evidence and information submitted
decision. The record as developed
hearing.
hearing provide that the Board of County
receive evidence and consider the testimony,
into the record, and will be the basis for their
to this point is available for public review at this
Order of Presentation
The hearing will be conducted in the following order. The staff will give a staff report of
the prior proceedings and the issues raised by the application. The applicant will then
have an opportunity to make a presentation and offer testimony and evidence.
Proponents of the application will then be given a chance to testify. When all other
proponents have testified, opponents will then be given a chance to testify and present
evidence. After both proponents and opponents have testified, the applicant will be
allowed to present rebuttal testimony, but may not present new evidence. At the Board's
discretion, if the applicant presented new evidence on rebuttal, opponents may be
recognized for a rebuttal presentation. At the conclusion of this hearing, the staff will be
afforded an opportunity to make any closing comments. The Board may limit the time
period for presentations.
Cross-examination of witnesses will not be allowed. A witness who wishes, during that
witness' testimony, however, to ask a question of a previous witness may direct the
question to the Chair. If a person has already testified but wishes to ask a question of a
a subsequent witness, that person may also direct the question to the Chair after all
other witnesses have testified, but prior to the proponent's rebuttal. The Chair is free to
decide whether or not to ask such questions of the witness.
Continuances: The grant of a continuance or record extension shall be at the discretion
of the Board.
If the Board grants a continuance, it shall continue the public hearing to a date certain at
least seven days from the date of this hearing or leave the written record open for at
least seven days for additional written evidence.
If at the conclusion of the hearing the Board leaves the record open for additional written
evidence or testimony, the record shall be left open for at least seven days for submittal
of new written evidence or testimony and at least seven additional days for response to
the evidence received while the record was held open. Written evidence or testimony
submitted during the period the record is held open shall be limited to evidence or
testimony that rebuts previously submitted evidence or testimony.
If the hearing is continued or the record left open, the applicant shall also be allowed at
least seven days after the record is closed to all other parties to submit final written
arguments but no new evidence in support of the application.
Pre-hearing Contacts, Biases, Conflicts of Interests
Do any of the Commissioners have any ex-parte contacts, prior hearing observations,
biases, or conflicts of interest to declare? If so, please state the nature and extent of
those.
Does any party wish to challenge any Commissioner based on ex-parte contacts, biases
or conflicts of interest?
(Hearing no challenges, I shall proceed.)
CARL W. HOPP, JR.
ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
August 23, 2007
Tammy Baney VIA HAND DELIVERY
Michael Daly
Dennis Luke
County Commissioners
Community Development Department
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
Bend, OR 97701-1925
Re: File No: TP-06-977
Applicant: C Corp Homes
Location: 5792 NE 5th Street, Redmond, OR
County Assessor's Map: 14-13-27
Tax Lot: 300
Dear Commissioners:
El
AUG2
A -y CL;
As I have previously informed the County, I represent R.L. and Donna Freeborn, the
owners of property located at 1085 NE ONeill Way, Redmond, Oregon 97756, which is
due south of the subject property. This letter is to call to your attention to prior testimony
included in the file by virtue of my letter dated October 23, 2006 to the Hearings Officer.
You will note in the prior testimony that Mr. Freebom's concern pertains to drainage. My
clients would appreciate your review of my October 23, 2006 letter, copy of which I am
attaching to this letter in making your decision.
Sincerely,
HOPP, JR.
CWH:se
Enc.
cc: Paul Blikstad
Edward Fitch
R.L. Freeborn
168 N.W. Greenwood • Bend, Oregon 97701 • (541) 388-3606 • FAX (541) 330-1519 • EMAIL: bill®cwhopp.com
CARL W. HOPP, JR.
ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
October 23, 2006
Deschutes County Hearings Officer
Community Development Department
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
Bend, OR 97701-1925
Re: File No: TP-06-977
Applicant: C Corp Homes
Location: 5792 NE 5`h Street, Redmond, OR
County Assessor's Map: .14-13-27
Tax Lot: 300
Dear Hearings Officer:
I represent R.L. and Donna Freeborn, the owners of property located at 1085 NE O'Neill
Way, Redmond, Oregon 97756. This letter is their written testimony to be included in
the above file.
The Freeborn property is located due south of the property owned by John Arnett, who
has made a Measure 37 claim and through whom C Corp Homes is now seeking to plat a
42 lot subdivision. Irrigation canals flow from the south to the north on the eastem
Freeborn property line and on the western Freeborn property line. The Freeborns irrigate
by flooding their property with water flowing downhill toward a natural drainage in the
center of their property. This drainage flows from south to north through the center of
the Freeborn property onto the Arnett property.
This drainage also drains other properties to the south of ONeill Way. It is a natural
drainage which has been utilized for irrigation tail water drainage as well as natural
drainage from snow and rain. A letter from James C. Carnahan, a licensed professional
engineer verifying the natural water course is attached. Also attached is a letter from
Steve Johnson (COD stating that it is COI's policy that where development occurs in the
path of a natural drainage, it is incumbent upon the downstream neighbor to take
appropriate action to manage the flow of water onto their property.
The drainage has been utilized by the property owners since the time the land was first
settled. Under Oregon case law, the Arnett property is not entitled to block the natural
1 drainage of the lands in the area. Butler v.Maas, 163 Or. 201, 94 P.2"1' 1116 (1930).
168 N.W. Greenwood 0 Bend, Oregon 97701 9 (541) 388-3606 • FAX (541) 330-1519 0 EMAIL: hopp@empnet.com
October 23, 2006
Re: . File No: TP-06-977
Page 2
Harbison v. City of Hillsborough,. 103 Or. 257, 204 P. 613 (1922)., and Garbarino v. Van
Cleave, 214 Or. 554, 330 P.2d 28 Or. (1958).
The parties also have a prescriptive right to utilize the drainage onto the Arnett property.
That is based on the fact that the irrigation tail water and surface drainage has flowed
upon the Arnett property from the properties to the south for over 50 years. The
prescriptive right is also established in Oregon case law. Arrien v. Levanger, 263 Or.
363, 502 P.2d 573 (1972), Harris v. Southeast Portland Lumber Co., 123 Or. 549, 555,
262 P. 243, 245 (1928).
The Freeboms do not object to the subdivision as long as the drainage issue is resolved.
Failure to address this issue will likely cause damage to homes built in the water course.
Sincerely,
CARL HOPP, JR.
CWH: b
Enc10 re
10/23/2006 08:01 FAX 541 389 7623 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOC X1001
"UIIII
DAVID EVANS
ANDASSOCIATES INC.
October 23, 2006
Mr. Carl W. Hopp, Jr.
Attorney at Law, LLC
168 NW Greenwood Avenue
Bend, OR 97701
SUBJECT: WATER COURSE THROUGH PROPERTY OWNED BY R.L.1 EF,159RIC
Dear Mr. Hopp:
N
O
(A
Q.
As you requested, I have reviewed the Freeborn property relative to a contour map consideration and field
observation, regarding a natural water course across the property. As I have indicated on the attached map, a
water course, defined by the land topography, clearly exists. The natural drainage area initiates over a half-
mile south of the O'Neil Highway and continues for approximately 3/4-mile north of the O'Neil Highway
where it ends in a basin (note the encircling contour line). In addition to irrigation water, it would convey
1 storm water (either rain or snow melt) runoff.
J Sincerely,
DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
ames C. Carnahan, P.E., P.L.S.
Office Manager
Attachments/Enclosures: Marked up USGS quad map showing Freeborn property and natural water course
~E~EO pR
~US aIN4- t
a1NtcoN
FS, CAIM-1
Renews 11-31- a
709 Northwest Wall Street Suite 102 Bend Oregon 97701 Telephone: 541.389.7614 Facsimile: 541.389.7623
10/23/2006 08:01 FAX 541 389 7623 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOC [a 002
From:001D
5415480243 10/23/2006 15:06 #677 P.001
CENTIZAL OREGON IRRIGATION DISTRmCT
1055 SW Lake Court, Redmond, OR 97756
Phone: 541.548.6047 Fax: 541.548.0243
www.coid.org
23 October. 2006
Carl William Hopp, Jr
Hopp & Paulson, LLP
168 NW Greenwood
Bend, OR 9770.1
Dear Bill,
In response to your inquiry of last week, the District's position on development and water management
issues is as follows;
y~ While it is the landowner's responsibility to manage the water use on their property and not create unwanted
tailwater on a.neighbor's property, it is also recognized that the natural lay of the land is in some cases a
significant factor contributing to the natural path of the water whether from irrigation or natural precipitation.
In the cases of residential or commercial development where the development lies in the path of natural
drainage, the District considers the development an Agent of Change to the historical landscape and also
carries responsibility for managing water that will naturally flow onto their property.
So in the situation of development in an area.of known drainage, there is a mutual responsibility of the
"uphill" neighbor to manage their water properly and for the "downhill" neighbor to take appropriate steps to
manage water that will flow downhill to their property.
I trust this is a satisfactory explanation of Central Oregon Irrigation District's policies.
Steven C Jg*on
District S , etary - Manager
l
FW: C Corp Homes/ file TP-06-977 (MA-07-10)(MA-06-21)A-07-1 Notice of Public He... Page 1 of 2
Mike Daly
From: Paul Bliksted
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 3:11 PM
To: Dennis Luke; Mike Daly; Tammy Baney; Laurie Craghead
Subject: FW: C Corp Homes/ file TP-06-977 (MA-07-10)(MA-06-21)A-07-1 Notice of Public Hearing
From: PRIEST Barbara [mailto:PRIEST.Barbara@deq.state.or.us]
Sent: Friday, August 24, 20071:44 PM
To: Paul Blikstad
Cc: Carmel Bender; Robinson.IGrk@epamail.epa.gov
Subject: FW: C Corp Homes/ file TP-06-977 (MA-07-10)(MA-06-21)A-07-1 Notice of Public Hearing
Paul:
DEQ was surprised not to receive a public notice on this hearing. DEQ does wish to comment as we have stated
in the past (attached Email dated 6/6/07). Measure 37 sites are not exempt from meeting existing federal and
state environmental and public safety requirements.
The Amber Lake area is sensitive due to existing high groundwater. Many existing domestic wells already occur
in this vicinity and new subdivisions will most likely also use groundwater as a drinking water source. Keeping
this source of water clean and sustainable is critical. The ~t~f th~.prnr~~~hriivision was once part of a
large wetland that was ~inefJ in 149o when Amber Lake was created. In 1991 an illegal drywell was installed
r under the lake into the local groundwater table (direct discharge) which is violation of federal and state rules. Due
to this any discharges received by the lake are directly discharged into the local aquifer and then into the
domestic wells for consumption. Currently the lake is receiving discharges from several sources including rain,
residential runoff, along with overland agricultural waste water from adjacent upland farms and cattle operations.
The lake's water level is currently controlled by the illegal drywell, in addition a dike has been installed (with no
permits) to prevent the existing homes in the subdivision from rising lake waters. The agricultural waste water
(tailrace) discharges are of concern and threatens to increase the lake levels as well as contaminate local drinking
water resources. The likely impact of the subdivision on the existing lake/wetlands and local groundwater levels
has not been addressed.
The proposal does not address likely stormwater discharges (surface or groundwater). Surface water discharge
would require applying for a state permit and the protection of the existing subdivision would need to be
addressed. The use of drywells would require DEQ registration and approval.
The proposed development, due to its size, will need to obtain an erosion control permit (12000 state permit). No
discharges can be made to the lake or its wetlands during construction, and the lake and it's wetlands are to be
protected (no sediments are to be discharged). Any potential physical incursions into the wetlands or the lake
(infilling or excavating) are required to obtain a 401 Certification in advance.
Any proposed domestic onsite septic systems will need county/state permits. The county will need to insure that
the discharges do not further reduce or threaten the quality of the local groundwater resources.
Barbara Priest
DEQ UIC Coordinator
8/27/2007
FW: C Corp Homes/ file TP-06-977 (MA-07-10)(MA-06-21)A-07-1 Notice of Public He... Page 2 of 2
(503) 229-5945
A FAX of this email will also be submitted.
8/27/2007
j` TEa
wG A
° { 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
AGENDA REQUEST & STAFF REPORT
For Board Business Meeting of August 27, 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: August 13, 2007
TO: Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
FROM: Paul Blikstad, Community Development Dept. 6554
TITLE OF AGENDA ITEM:
Public Hearing on a 38-lot Measure 37 subdivision for C Corp Homes
PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS DATE? Yes
BACKGROUND AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The Board previously approved the Measure 37 subdivision on appeal. The County's decision was
appealed to LUBA by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. The Board has
withdrawn their previous decision, and the applicant has submitted an application to modify the request
to reduce the number of lots from 41 to 38, to have lot sizes that are at least 2 acres in size, and to
propose individual septic systems instead of a community sewer system.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
None
RECOMMENDATION & ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff recommends approval of the requested subdivision with the changes proposed. And also
recommends that the applicant be required to complete a draft decision for review by Legal Counsel
and Planning staff.
ATTENDANCE: Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner
DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTS:
Planning staff will be mailing out the Board's decision.
r°-
Community Development Department
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/
DATE: August 20, 2007
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner
RE: Revised Tentative Plat for TP-06-977, Arnett Measure 37 subdivision
The applicant in this matter has submitted a revised tentative plat map for the Arnett Measure
37 subdivision submitted by C Corp Homes, through application no. MA-07-10. The revised
map includes a reduction in the number of proposed lots from 41 to 38, all lots are at least 2
acres in size, and individual septic systems rather than a community sewer system are
proposed for the project. We have scheduled a public hearing on the revised tentative plat
before the Board for Monday, August 27, 2007 at the 10:00 a.m. regular meeting.
Items that are also different from the prior tentative plat that was approved by the Board are: a
reduction in the number of acres of open space (no open space is required), the road locations
are only slightly different, and the new map shows a "common/ open space" area along the
frontage of lots 1-3, 6-38. Staff is not sure what the purpose of this common/open space area
is. If this is indeed common area, then the proposed lots with this common area would
technically not meet the road frontage requirement (in this case private roads), which the Board
has found is a non-exempt standard. Staff believes that the applicant needs to address this at
the hearing.
We have solicited comments from the County Road Department and the Redmond Fire
Department, which have not yet been received. I will try and bring any comments they have to
the hearing, or if I receive them ahead of time, I will forward them to you.
Quality Services Performed with Pride
Ronald L. Bryant *
BRYANT
Craig P. Emerson
EMERSON
Edward P. Fitch
& FITCH, LLP
Steven D. Bryant
Michael R. McLane
Attorneys at Law
Michael W. Flinn
Lisa D.T. Klemp
July 30, 2007
Nicholas J. Geil
Alison M. Trimble
HAND DELIVERED
* ALto admitted in Washington
Deschutes County
Community Development Department
117 NW Lafayette Avenue
Bend, OR 97701-1925
Re: Arnett Subdivision - TP-06-977 (MA-06-21)
Dear Commissioners:
Applicant, John Arnett, hereby submits a modification of the land use application on the following
issues:
1. To modify the density of the development to make all parcels a minimum of 2 acres in size each;
and
2.. To modify the application to propose on-site septic systems and not a community sewer system.
I am also enclosing our check in the amount of $520.00, which constitutes the modification of application
fee.
The proposed modifications will resolve the State of Oregon's concerns with the application that are the
subject of DLCD's appeal to LUBA, and resolve the pending appeal of this application. I am enclosing a
copy of a letter from the State confirming the same.
We respectfully request the matter be set before the Board for hearing on or before August 30, 2007.
Thank you.
Very truly yours,
w
6 ard P. Fitch
EPF/mcm
Enclosure
cc: John Arnett
Paul Blikstead
Laurie Craghead
GAwP511EPR 371Amettl5th StreettDEVELOPMENWlanning Department.0l.wpd(mcm) SCA~~+`M
®~2007
888 S.W. Evergreen Ave. P.O. Box 457 Redmond, OR 97756-0103 JUL 11 3 ~1~
(541) 548-2151 Fax (541) 548-1895 E-mail bef@rdmond-lawyers.com~ a
%
ES
Community Development Department
{ Planning Division
117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, OR 97701-9925
(541) 388-6575 - Fax (541) 385-1764
http://www.deschutes.org/cdd
MODIFICATION OF APPLICATION
(DCC 22.20.055)
Spa •ot>
FEE: -
EVERY MODIFICATION OF APPLICATION SHALL INCLUDE:
1. A completed application form.
2. Payment of required modification fees.
3. All new information to be considered in the application.
PLEASE PRINT
Applicant's Name (print): C Corp Homes Phone: (5 41 ? 350-3025
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 638 City/State/Zip: Redmond, OR. 97756
Property Owner's Name (if different)*: John Arnett Phone: ( 541) 548-2151
Mailing Address: 5792 NE 5th City/State/Zip: Redmond, OR 97756
Land Use Application Being Modified:
TP-06-977, MA-06-21
Property Description: Township 14 Range 13 Section 27 Tax Lot 300
THE PLANNING DIRECTOR OR HEARINGS BODY SHALL NOT CONSIDER ANY. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED
BY OR ON BEHALF OF AN APPLICANT THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE MODIFICATION (AS THAT TERM IS
DEFINED IN CHAPTER 22.04) UNLESS AN APPLICAN AGREES IN WRITING TO RESTART THE 150-DAY
TIME CLOCK. SIGNATURE OF THE APPLI SIGNIFIES THAT THE APPLICANT AGREES TO
RE-START THE 150-DAY TIME CLOCK O - _D E, MODIFICATION IS SUBMITTED.
Applicant's Signature: `
Property Owner's Signature (if differ n[) - '
Agent's Name (if applicable): Brant, Em on & Fitch, LLP
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 457
2117119
L14_71 548-2151
City/State/Zip: Redmond, OR 97756
'If this application is not signed by the property owner, a letter authorizing signature by the applicant must be attached.
1/07
ARNETT RANCH SUBDIVISION
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL BURDEN OF PROOF STATEMENT
The purpose ofthis second supplemental burden ofproof statement is to address Statewide Goals
11 and 14 in order modify the density of the development to make all parcels a minimum of 2 acres in
size and to modify the application to propose onsite septic systems and not a community sewer system.
1. Proposal. Applicant proposes a 38-lot subdivision on 108 acres. The proposal originally
submitted is modified only to provide a minimum lot size of two acres, and to provide onsite septic
systems rather than a community sewer system.
The original application proposed 1.1 to 5-acre size lots (41) and a community sewer system or
onsite septic systems. The original application addressed the requirements for the density now proposed
and onsite septic systems and satisfied the applicable criteria. The increase in lot size and commitment
to onsite septic systems modifies the proposed application, but does not require analysis of new criteria
because the original application previously addressed a greater density, and the possibility of onsite
septic systems. Therefore, no substantial change to the application is made by making the proposed
modifications. The applicable criteria have already been addressed and deemed satisfied by the staffand
hearings officer.
2. History. The original application was reviewed by staff and the hearings officer. Upon
initial review of the application, there was an error in the record in that a hydrology report was not
appropriately entered before the hearings officer. The matter was appealed to the Board and the
appropriate hydrology report and traffic analysis were admitted into the record. The Board unanimously
approved the subdivision.
After the Board orally approved the subdivision, the Department of Land Conservation and
Development raised the Goal 11 and 14 issues. Applicant believes that these goals are inapplicable but
has agreed to modify the subdivision to comply with Goals 11 and 14 by increasing the size of the lots
to a minimum of 2 acres (Goal 14) and eliminating the community sewer system (Goal 11). The effect
of this will reduce the overall number of lots from 41 to 38. The applicant intends to establish an open
common area easement on the interior lots so that some of the common area features of the original
application are preserved. This will not affect the lot size but will ensure green space within the
subdivision itself. A copy of the modified subdivision proposal is submitted herewith.
DATED this - day of July, 2007.
EDWARD P. FITCH, OSB 78202
Of Attorneys for Arnett Ranch Subdivision
Bryant, Emerson & Fitch, LLP
P.O. Box 457
Redmond, OR 97756
Telephone: (541) 548-2151
Facsimile: (541) 548-1895
Efitchnaredmond-laWers.com
Page I - ARNETT RANCH SUBDIVISION SUPPLEMENTAL BURDEN OF PROOF
STATEMENT
GAWP5I\EPF\ 37TArnett\5th StreeADEVELOPMENTSecond Supplemental Burden of Proof Statement.02.wpd(mcm)
DOJ Natural Resources Fax:503-378-3802 Jul 16 2007 1642 P.02
HARDY MXERS PETER D. SHEPHERD
Anomey Generol Deputy Attomey Gcncral
DEPARTMENT OF J
GENE ISION
By Facsimile (541) 548-2151
Mr. Ed-Fitch
Bryant Emerson & Fitch LLP
888 S.W. Evergreen Ave.
~ edmond, OR 97756-0103
f~-
MEI~i'1<' OF J
RAL COUNSEL DN
July 16, 2007
RE: Arnett Subdivision Application
Dear Mr. Fitch:
Thank- you for your letter of earlier today. If Deschutes County takes a voluntary
remand, and if the land use application for the Arnett subdivision is then amended so that the lots
in the subdivision are larger than 2 acres, and utilize individual septic systems, and is otherwise
within the terms of the State's order "not applying" certain laws, DLCD will not oppose the
subdivision application.
DLCD does want to ensure that there is an opportunity for public comment during the
remand process on any issues related to Goals 11 (sanitary sewer or water supply) or 14 (density
end size), and requests that the county's process on remand provide such an opportunity. In
addition, as we discussed on Friday, it will be up to Deschutes County in the first instance to
determine whether the permit application complies with the land use regulations that continue to
apply to Mr. Arnett's use of the property.
I trust this will make DLCD's position clear. If you have continuing questions, please
contact Steve Shipsey (503-947-4500) or Darsee Staley (503-947-4700). Virginia Gustafson will
be back in the office next Monday, August 23rd. Shc should bo your primary contact on the
subdivision application, and Ms. Staley should be your contact on any aspects of this matter that
are in litigation.
qar ul ,
an
Assistant Attorney General
cc. Laurie Craghead (by email to: laurie cra-zhead aeco.deschu.tes.or.us)
RMWlnnw: GENLI6 505 . doc
1162 Coi= Street NE, Salem, OR 97301-4096 'telephone: (503) 9474500 Fax: (503) 378-3802 TTY: (503) 378-5938
r°=
)AwA~-_<
Community Development Department
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/
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners will hold a Public Hearing on
Monday, August 27, 2007 at 10:00 A.M. in the Barnes and Sawyer rooms of the
Deschutes County Services Building located at 1300 NW Wall Street in Bend, to
consider the following request:
FILE NUMBER: TP-06-977 (MA-07-10) (MA-06-21) A-07-1
SUBJECT: An application for a Tentative Plat for a 38-lot subdivision on
108 acres in an Exclusive Farm Use zone. After the Board of
County Commissioners withdrew for reconsideration the
County's decision on the original subdivision, that had been
appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals, the applicant
filed an application to modify the request to reduce the
number of lots from 41 to 38 with a 2-acre minimum lot size,
and has proposed individual septic systems for the lots.
APPLICANT: C Corp Homes
LOCATION: 5792 NE 5th Street, Redmond; County Assessor's Map 14-13-
27, tax lot 300.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS MAY APPEAR, BE HEARD, BE REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, OR SEND WRITTEN SIGNED TESTIMONY. ALL WRITTEN REPLIES
MUST BE RECEIVED BY THIS DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE HEARING DATE OR
SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING. ANY PARTY TO THE APPLICATION IS ENTITLED
TO A CONTINUANCE OF THE INITIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING OR TO HAVE THE
RECORD LEFT OPEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 22.24.140 OF THE
DESCHUTES COUNTY CODE.
Recipients of this notice may request a copy of the Staff Report or Hearings Officer's
decision (25 cents a page). Any person submitting written comment or who presents
testimony at the hearing will receive a copy of the decision.
Failure to raise an issue in person at the hearing or in writing precludes appeal by that
person to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). Failure to provide statements of
evidence sufficient to afford the decision-maker an opportunity to respond to the issue
precludes appeal to LUBA based on that issue.
A copy of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant and applicable criteria are available for inspection at the Planning Division at
no cost, and can be purchased for 25 cents a page.
Notice of Public Hearing
TP-06-977 (MA-07-10), (MA-06-21), A-07-1
Page 1
Quality Services Perfortned with Pride
STANDARDS AND APPLICABLE CRITERIA:
Title 18 of the Deschutes County Code, County Zoning.
Chapter 18.16, Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) Zones
18.16.030, Conditional uses permitted - high value and non-high value farmland
18.16.050, Standards for dwellings in the EFU zones
18.16.055, Land divisions
18.16.060, Dimensional standards
18.16.065, Subzones
18.16.070, Yards
Oregon Revised Statutes 215.417
Title 17 of the Deschutes County Code, Partitions.
Chapter 17.16, Approval of Subdivision Tentative Plans and Master Development
Plans
Chapter 17.36, Design Standards
Chapter 17.44, Park Development
Chapter 17.48, Design and Construction Specifications
The meeting location is wheelchair accessible. For the deaf or hearing impaired, an
interpreter or assistant listening system will be provided with 48 hours notice. Materials
in alternate formats may be made available with 48 hours notice by dialing 541-388-
6621. For other assistance, please dial 7-1-1, State Relay Service.
NOTICE TO MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER: ORS CHAPTER
215 REQUIRES THAT IF YOU RECEIVE THIS NOTICE, IT MUST PROMPTLY BE
FORWARDED TO THE PURCHASER.
Please contact Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner, with the County Planning Division at (541)
388-6554 if you have any questions.
Dated this
Mailed this
day of August, 2007
day of August, 2007
Notice of Public Hearing
TP-06-977 (MA-07-10), (MA-06-21), A-07-1
Page 2
Qz~
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
stis
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING (541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
FILE NUMBER: TP-06-977 (MA-07-10) (MA-06-21)
DOCUMENT MAILED: Board of County Commisser's Notice of Public Hearing
LOOKUP AREA: N/A
TAX LOT NUMBER(s): 14-13-27,300
I certify that on the day of August, 2007, the attached Board of County
Commissioner's Notice of Public Hearing, dated August , 2007, was mailed by first
class mail, postage prepaid, to the person(s) and address(es) set forth on the attached list.
DATED this day of August, 2007.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
By:
C Corp Homes
John Arnett
c/o David and Kristi Weigant
5792 NE 5th Street
P.O. Box 638
Redmond, OR 97756
Redmond, OR 97756
Ed Fitch
Hal Keever
Bryant, Emerson & Fitch, LLP
W & H Pacific
P.O. Box 457
9755 SW Barnes Road, Suite 300
Redmond, OR 97756-0103
Portland, OR 97225
Loyal and Blanche Kloes
R.L. Freeborn
6535 NE 11th Street
755 SW 7th
Redmond, OR 97756
Redmond, OR 97756
Carl W. Hopp, Jr.
Newton Consultants Inc.
Attorney at Law, LLC
David J. Newton
168 NW Greenwood
521 SW 6th Street, Suite 100
Bend, OR 97701
Redmond, OR 97756
Mike Baron
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
6220 NE 11th Street
Development
Redmond, OR 97756
c/o Carmel Bender
635 Capitol Street NE, Suite 150
Salem, OR 97301
Quality Services Performed with Pride
tti 2a
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
az__
0. J
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
STAFF REPORT
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner
August 22, 2007
Work Session on Text Amendment TA-04-4
1. TA 04-4
TA-04-4 is a proposed amendment to County destination resort zoning code in Title 18. This
proposal was initiated by Sunriver, Eagle Crest and Pronghorn resorts in order to bring County
Code into line with changes to state destination resort statute.
II. Background
The resorts initiated this application in July 2004 and a public hearing was held in front of the
Planning Commission (Commission) on November 4, 2004. The Commission made a
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (Board) on these amendments, but
before the Board could review the recommendation the applicants requested that the proposal
be put on hold. It was reopened in May 2006 at the applicants' request. Due to the length of
time since the initial Planning Commission review, the Board invited the Commission to again
participate and reaffirm their recommendation or make a new recommendation.
A joint public hearing was held with the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning
Commission on December 4, 2006 (Attachments 1). The Planning Commission deliberated and
made a recommendation to the Board on December 14, 2006 (Attachment 2). The Board held a
work session on January 29, 2007 and asked staff to divide this application into discrete
decision points. The seven decision points were then discussed at work sessions on February
20, February 26, April 2, May 7 and June 20.
Based on the work session discussions the Board provided direction to staff on the seven
issues and requested additional code amendments. The additional amendments were not part
of the original discussion and therefore another work session has been scheduled for August 20
and an additional public hearing has been scheduled for August 27.
In the following discussion, for easy reference, the issues discussed are numbered as they were
numbered in the discussion of decision points.
Quality Services Performed with Pride
TA-04-4
III. Proposed Amendments
Applicant proposed amendments
Required by State Statute
Issue #1
Increase the required resort investment from $4 million in adjusted 1984 dollars to
$7 million in adjusted 1993 dollars
Permitted b State Statute
Issue # 4
Lower the number of weeks individually-owned residential units are required to be
available for rent from 45 weeks/ ear to 38 weeks/ ear
Issue # 5
Allow the individually-owned residential units to be rented through a property
mans er as well as the resort
Issue # 6
Allow the overnight lodging to be phased in over 14 years
Issue # 7
Change the required ratio between individually-owned residential and overnight
lodging from 2:1 to 2.5:1
Staff additions to the applicant proposal
Required by State Statute
Issue # 2
Add a new code section to require conservation easements for specified Goal 5
resources
Issue # 3
Require an annual report on resort accommodations
IV. Planning Commission
Amendments recommended by the Planning Commission
Required by State Statute
Issue #1
Increase the required resort investment from $4 million in adjusted 1984 dollars to
$7 million in adjusted 1993 dollars
Issue # 2
Add a new code section to require conservation easements for specified Goal 5
resources
Issue # 3
Require an annual report on resort accommodations
Amendments not recommended by the Mannino Commission
Permitted by State Statute
Issue # 4
Lower the number of weeks individually-owned residential units are required to be
available for rent from 45 weeks/year to 38 weeks/year
Issue # 5
Allow the individually-owned residential units to be rented through a property
manager as well as the resort
Issue # 6
Allow the overnight lodging to be phased in over 14 years
Issue # 7
Change the required ratio between individually-owned residential and overnight
lodging from 2:1 to 2.5:1
8-22-07 Page 2
TA-04-4
V. Board of County Commissioners
Amendments Included in the Attached Ordinance
Required b State Statute
Issue #1
Increase the required resort investment from $4 million in adjusted 1984 dollars to
$7 million in adjusted 1993 dollars
Issue # 2
Add a new code section to require conservation easements for specified Goal 5
resources
Issue # 3
Require an annual report on resort accommodations
Permitted b State Statute
Issue # 4
Lower the number of weeks individually-owned residential units are required to be
available for rent from 45 weeks/ ear to 38 weeks/ ear
Issue # 5
Allow the individually-owned residential units to be rented through a property
manager s well as the resort
Issue #6
Allow the overnight lodging to be phased in over 14 years with the following
changes:
Require the first 50 units to be built before any lot or unit sales - this is required to
comply with a Land Use Board of Appeals decision on Thornburgh Resort
Specify that the 2:1 ratio between individually-owned residential and overnight
lodging must be maintained at all times
Additional amendments to ensure the required 150 overnight lodging units are built
If a resort chooses not to phase as allowed by Issue # 6, a resort must build all
150 units before the sale of any lots or units
Additional amendments to strengthen overnight lodging reporting and tracking
No processing of new land use actions or permits without proof of compliance with
resort accommodation requirements
Require resorts to create and maintain a registry of all overnight lodging
Require resorts to create and maintain a rental office and hone line
Require outside property managers to comply with the reporting requirements
Require documentation of the accommodation ratio and all individually-owned
residential units counting as overnight lodging before each final plat is approved
Clarify that the requirements for CC&R language and rental contract language are
enforceable b Count Code Enforcement
Amendments Not Included in the Attached Ordinance
Permitted b State Statute
Issue # 7
Change the required ratio between individually-owned residential and overnight
lodging from 2:1 to 2.5:1
Note: There are legal concerns over this issue based on the text of State Statute
197.445 and Goal 8 so no change will be made at this time
VI. Review Criteria
Deschutes County lacks specific criteria in DCC Titles 18, 22, or 23 for reviewing a legislative
zoning text amendment. Instead these types of amendments must show through adequate
factual findings that they are consistent with State Statute, the Statewide Planning Goals and
the County's Comprehensive Plan. The relevant Statute for reviewing this application is ORS
197.435-197.467. The relevant Statewide Planning Goals are: Goal 1: Citizen Involvement,
Goal 2: Land Use Planning and Goal 8: Recreation. Goals 3-7 and 9-19 were reviewed and
determined not to apply specifically to this application.
8-22-07 Page 3
TA-04-4
VII. Findings
State Statute ORS 197.435-197.467
State Statute is satisfied because the proposed changes to County Code are consistent with or
more restrictive than Statute. In no instance is the proposed ordinance more lenient than
Statute.
Goal 1 Citizen Involvement
This goal promotes opportunities for citizen involvement in planning. This goal is satisfied
through County code requirements on public noticing and involvement. The following public
hearings were held on this proposal.
■ Planning Commission public hearing November 4, 2004
■ Joint Board of County Commissioners/Planning Commission public hearing on December
4, 2006
■ Board of County Commissioners public hearing August 27, 2007
Goal 2: Land Use Planning and the County Comprehensive Plan
This goal establishes a planning process and policy framework for land use decisions based on
local comprehensive plans. It ensures that the framework is based on facts and encourages
coordination with other jurisdictions and agencies. This goal is satisfied because the proposed
amendments conform to the County Comprehensive Plan Destination Resort chapter (DCC
23.84).
Goal 8: Recreation
This goal includes specific language on destination resorts. Goal 8 also includes an overall 2:'
resort ratio between individually-owned residential units and overnight lodging units. This goal
is satisfied because the proposed amendments conform to the goal language for destination
resorts.
VIII. Ordinance
The amendments discussed by the Board in the series of work sessions have been
incorporated into Ordinance 2007-005 (Attachment 3). For the public hearing a copy of this staff
report with findings will also be attached to the ordinance.
Attachments
1. 12-4-07 Staff Report
2. 12-14-07 Planning Commission minutes
3. Draft Ordinance 2007-005
a. DCC 18.04.030 amendments
b. DCC 18.113 amendments
8-22-07 Page 4
- E CG
o rv
TA-04-4: 8-20-07: Attachment 1
Community Development Department
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/
STAFF REPORT
To: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
cc: Deschutes County Planning Commission
From: Terri Hansen Payne, Associate Planner
Date: December 4, 2006
Subject: Text Amendment TA-04-4
PURPOSE
The purpose of text amendment TA-04-4 (Attachment 1) is to revise Deschutes County
Zoning Code sections 18.04 and 18.113 to incorporate1993 and 2003 changes to state
destination resort statute.
II DESTINATION RESORT BACKGROUND
In 1984 regulations were added to State Planning Goal 8: Recreation, to allow the siting
of destination resorts on rural lands without having to go through the state goal
exception process. These rules made it easier to build destination resorts and at the
same time set specific standards for their development. The intent was to promote
tourism, create jobs and contribute to rural economic development.
Over the next four years destination resort regulations were added to State Statute
(ORS 197.435-197.467) and the goal was amended to ensure consistency between
statute and goal. In 1992 Deschutes County mapped lands available for destination
resorts and created Deschutes County Code (DCC) sections regulating destination
resorts, including Title 23 comprehensive plan policies (DCC 23.12 and 23.84) and Title
18 destination resort zoning definitions and overlay code (DCC 18.04 and 18.113).
The statute and goal were again amended in1993/1994 to allow phasing of the required
150 overnight lodging units, to raise the required investment and how it is calculated and
to require conservation easements for specified resources. Title 18 and Title 23 were not
updated to incorporate the new regulations.
In 1999 the County added a destination resort chapter to Title 19 Bend Urban Growth
Area Zoning. Title 19 Bend zoning Code was written to conform to the 1993 statute
changes.
Quality Services Performed zvith Pride
TA-04-4: 8-20-07: Attachment 1
In 2003 destination resort statute was again amended, with separate criteria established
for eastern Oregon. The amendments permitted counties in eastern Oregon to remap
lands eligible for destination resorts every 30 months. Additionally, various requirements
for resort accommodations were revised. Deschutes County Code has not been updated
to incorporate the new regulations.
In 2005 statute was again amended to expand the regulations on remapping to all of
Oregon. In response to the 2003 and 2005 legislative changes, State Planning Goal 8,
Recreation, was updated in 2006.
III. TA 04-4 PROPOSAL 2004
In July 2004 Nancy Craven, representing Sunriver, Eagle Crest and Pronghorn, applied
for a text amendment to update the language in DCC 18.04 and 18.113 regarding
destination resorts. These amendments were intended to incorporate the statute
changes from 1993 and 2003 into County Code. Ms. Craven also submitted an
application for Cascade Highlands to update DCC Title 19, Bend Urban Growth
Boundary Zoning to incorporate the 2003 statute changes.
In addition to the changes proposed by the applicant, staff at that time identified three
additional changes, two to Title 19 and one to Title 23. Because the current request does
not propose amendments to these titles, these changes are not included in this staff
report.
IV. PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION 2004
The Deschutes County Planning Commission held a work session on these code
changes on October 14, 2004 followed by a public hearing on November 4, 2004.
Staff recommended approval of the proposed code changes, but noted that one section
of the applicant's proposal was more lenient than state statute. The submitted proposal
allowed the first 50 units of the required 150 units of overnight lodging to be built or
bonded before the sale of any residential lots or units. State statute requires the first 50
units to be built and does not allow bonding. The minutes of the November 4, 2004
Public Hearing (Attachment 2) show all parties agreeing to remove the bonding option
for the first 50 units. Public comment in support of the proposed changes was provided
by the applicant and two other resort representatives. No comments were made in
opposition to this update. With the removal of the ability to bond the first 50 units, the
Planning Commission recommended approval of the applicant and staff proposed code
changes.
Soon after the Planning Commission recommendation the applicant requested that staff
put this amendment on hold.
V. TA-04-4 PROPOSAL 2006
On May 23, 2006 the applicant sent a letter (Attachment 3) requesting the application be
restarted for Title 18 only. The current proposal is nearly identical to that considered by
the Planning Commission in 2004, including retaining the language allowing the first 50
overnight units to be bonded. One change that has been made from the 2004 proposal
Page 2
TA-04-4: 8-20-07: Attachment 1
is in regard to the dollar investment required. The 2004 proposal was worded to require
an initial investment of $7 million on visitor accommodations rather than on visitor
accommodations and developed recreational facilities. The current proposal added the
words 'developed recreational facilities' as part of the $7 million investment, which
complies with the language in statute.
VI. PROPOSAL DETAILS AND ANALYSIS
The proposed changes are intended to bring County Code into conformance with
changes to State Statute. The changes primarily address the regulations for visitor
accommodations and the required resort investment.
There are two types of visitor accommodations discussed in destination resort statute,
individually-owned housing units and overnight lodging units. Individually-owned units
are residential units that can be used as primary residences or second homes or rental
units. Overnight lodging is defined as separately rentable units not available for
residential use, such as hotel rooms. Resorts are required to provide 150 units of
overnight lodging and maintain a defined ratio between the number of individually-owned
units and the number of overnight lodging units. There is some flexibility provided in that
ilndividually-owned units can be counted as overnight units if they are available for rent a
specified number of weeks per year.
Resort Accommodation Changes
Phasing: Deschutes County Code currently calls for all of the required 150 overnight
lodging units to be built or bonded before initial lot sales. The proposed language would
change that to require just the first 50 units to be built or bonded before initial lot sales.
The next 50 would need to be built or bonded within 5 years of initial lot sales and the
final 50 would need to be built or bonded within 10 years of initial lot sales. If the last 100
units are bonded, they would be required to be built within four years of bonding.
State Statute requires the first 50 units to be built, without the option to bond. Therefore
both our current code and the proposed code are more lenient than state statute. The
Planning Commission recommendation in 2004 required building those first 50 units to
comply with statute. Staff has provided language to conform to statute and Planning
Commission recommendation (Attachment 1, Exhibit D).
Aside from that issue, allowing the overnight lodging to be phased in has the potential to
change the composition of resort accommodations. The new language would ensure
that 50 overnight units are provided, but would allow the remaining required 100 units to
be phased in over the next ten years, with the final units not being built for14 years after
initial lot sales.
Individually-owned units counted as overnight lodging: Currently individually-owned
units can be counted as overnight lodging if they are available 45 weeks per year
through a central reservation system operated by the resort. This proposal would reduce
the number of weeks these units are required to be available to 38 weeks per year.
Additionally, the units could be rented through a real estate property manager as well as
the resort. Both of these changes provide the resorts with additional flexibility with little
substantive impact.
Page 3
TA-04-4: 8-20-07: Attachment 1
Ratio between individually-owned residential units and overnight lodWn_g units:
The new language would change the ratio of individually-owned units compared to
overnight units, allowing for a larger number of residential units. Currently the required
ratio is no more than 2 residential units for each overnight unit. The new language allows
resorts to provide no more than 2.5 residential units for each overnight unit.
Unfortunately, the wording in statute regarding the 2.5:1 residential/overnight ratio
specifically refers to the first 50 required overnight units, and not to the overall resort
accommodations. Additionally, when Goal 8, Recreation, was updated in 2006 to
incorporate recent statute changes, the language defining a resort-wide ratio of 2:1 was
retained with the 2.5:1 again referring only to the first 50 units in eastern Oregon.
Therefore there is a question of whether changing our code to an overall 2.5:1 ratio
could put the County at risk of being more lenient than Goal 8.
It is likely that this language does not reflect the intent of the legislation, which was to
allow an overall ratio of 2.5:1 in eastern Oregon. In fact, resort representatives at one
point were attempting to change the ratio to 5:1, based on their analysis of market
conditions. That does not however, address the concern that the County needs to
comply with both State Statute and Goal 8. Staff recommends not changing the ratio in
County Code until these issues are resolved (Attachment 1, Exhibits C and D).
This issue has been discussed with the applicant. The applicant disagrees with staff
interpretation of the statute and goal language and will be submitting evidence into the
record to support their reading.
Criteria for meeting the accommodation requirements: The language ensuring that
the various accommodation requirements are met would be changed in a number of
places. However, 2003 statute changes included a requirement that eastern Oregon
resorts provide an annual report on the status of the 150 overnight units, the ratio
between residential and overnight units, and for individually-owned units counted as
overnight units, the number of weeks they were available for rent. That language is not
clearly included in this proposal. To bring the County into full compliance with current
statute, staff recommends adding that requirement. (Attachment. 1, Exhibit D).
Overall intent of destination resorts: DCC 18.113.010(E) destination resort code
states:
"It is not the intent of DCC 18.113 to site developments that are in effect
rural subdivisions, whose primary purpose is to serve full-time residents
of the area."
As proposed by the applicant these changes would increase the amount of residential
housing permitted in destination resorts. There is no data available on whether the
existing residential units in destination resorts are being used a primary homes or
second homes or rentals. Without that information it is not possible to analyze the land
use impacts that would result from an increase in destination resort residential units.
Additional Changes
Investment: State Statute before 1993 required a total initial investment of $2 million in
adjusted 1984 dollars, with one third of that total going to developed recreational
facilities. DCC 18.04 defining destination resorts mirrors that language. DCC 18.113
Page 4
TA-04-4: 8-20-07: Attachment 1
however, currently requires an initial first phase minimum investment of $2 million in
adjusted 1984 dollars for lodging, restaurants and meeting rooms as well as an
additional $2 million in adjusted 1984 dollars for developed recreational facilities.
This proposal would update county code to require an initial investment of $7 million in
adjusted 1993 dollars, with one third going to developed recreational facilities. This
would bring us into compliance with current statute requirements.
To provide an idea of how the dollar investment would change, the 2006 required
investment has been calculated using the federal consumer price index calculator.. $2
million in 1984 dollars would require an investment in 2006 of $3,905,679. $7 million in
1993 dollars would require an investment in 2006 of $9,829,066. So, the required
investment would rise, even considering the total investment required by County Code is
double state requirements.
Conservation Easements: In 1993 language was added to destination resort statute
requiring a conservation easement for specified comprehensive plan resources. This
language has been included in Title 19 (19.106.120) and could be added to Title 18 as
well. Again, this would ensure the updated County Code is in compliance with statute.
This is included in Attachment 1, Exhibit D.
VII. COMPLIANCE WITH STATE PLANNING GOALS
State Statute (ORS 197.250) requires all local land use regulations to comply with State
Planning Goals. The following goals apply to this application.
Goal 1 Citizen Involvement: Goal 1 requires local jurisdictions to provide notice of
proposed land use matters. This proposal has been noticed in the following manner.
1. Planning Commission noticed public hearing 11-04-04
2. Notice mailed to applicants and list of interested parties from 2004 on 11-16-06
3. Publication in the Bend Bulletin on 11-19-06
4. Press release 11-21-06
Goal 2 Land Use Planning: Goal 2 requires consistency in land use planning. As
proposed, this would change only Title 18, leaving Title 19 and Title 23 unchanged. That
would retain and worsen the existing inconsistencies between titles. For example, the
definition of destination resorts would be different in Title 18, Title 19 and Title 23.
Goal 8 Recreation: Due to the discrepancies noted above regarding the bonding of the
first 50 overnight units and the ratio of individually owned units and overnight lodging,
this proposal could put us out of compliance with Planning Goal 8.
VIII. FINDINGS
This request is a legislative action and a public policy decision. Deschutes County lacks
specific criteria for reviewing a legislative text amendment. The applicant bears the
burden for justifying that the text amendment is consistent with State Statute, the
Statewide Planning Goals and the overall policy goals in the County Comprehensive
Plan.
Page 5
TA-04-4: 8-20-07: Attachment 1
With the following exceptions, the language proposed in TA-04-4 reflects current State
Statute and therefore would bring Title 18 into line with the 1993 and 2003 changes to
state law and the 2006 changes to Goal 8. Substituting the language in Attachment 1,
Exhibits C and D on the issues listed below would bring the County Code fully into
compliance with State Statute.
1. Change 18.113.060(A)(1)(a) to remove the bonding option for the first 50 overnight
units.
2. Change 18.04 definition of Destination Resorts (D2) to retain the current 2:1 ratio of
individually-owned units and overnight lodging. DCC 18.113.050(B)(24) and
18.113.060(D)(2) and 18.113.070(U) also address the ratio and should retain the
2:1 ratio.
3. Add language to 18.113.070(U) requiring an annual resort accommodation report as
defined in statute.
4. Add a new section 18.113.120 requiring conservation easements as defined in
statute.
IX. SCHEDULE
Due to the two year length of time since the Planning Commission voted on this
proposal, the Board of County Commissioners has invited the Planning Commission to
attend the public hearing in an advisory capacity. The public hearing is scheduled for
December 4, 2006 at 5:30 p.m. Please feel free to contact me at (541) 385-1404 with
any questions or concerns.
X. OPTIONS
Attachment 1 contains the draft ordinance with Exhibits A and B showing the applicant's
proposed language with the new language underlined and the language to be removed
identified by stFikethrough. Exhibits C and D, submitted in the same format, show
applicant's changes, with staff recommended changes highlighted.
Option 1: Approve the proposal as submitted by the applicant.
Option 2: Approve the proposal with the staff recommended changes to the application
Option 3: Modify the proposal.
Attachments
1. Ordinance 2006-036
a. Exhibit A, Applicant proposed changes to DCC 18.04
b. Exhibit B, Applicant proposed changes to DCC 18.113
c. Exhibit C, Staff proposed changes to applicant's proposal for DCC 18.04
d. Exhibit D, Staff proposed changes to applicant's proposal for DCC 18.113
2. November 4, 2004 Planning Commission minutes
3. Application letter dated May 23, 2006
Page 6
1
TA-04-4: 8-20-07: Attachment 2
Community Development Department
Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division
o _
117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925
(541)388-6575 FAX (541)385-1764
http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/
1. CALL TO ORDER
MEETING MINUTES
Deschutes County Planning Commission
Deschutes Services Center
1300 NW Wall Street, Bend, OR 97701
December 14, 2006 - 5:30 P.M.
Present: Todd Turner; Kelly Smith; Keith Cyrus; Robert Otteni; Brenda Pace; Susan Quatre.
Staff present were Catherine Morrow; Planning Director; Terri Payne, Associate Planner; Dee
Van Donselaar, Associate Planner; Sher Buckner, Secretary. Absent: Mike Shirtcliff, Chair.
Vice Chair Keith Cyrus called the meeting to order.
II. PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS
Vice Chair Cyrus asked if there were any public comments or concerns other than those
already on the agenda. None were raised.
III. PUBLIC HEARING - File No's. QP-06-1 and V-06-17 - An Application for a Quadrant Plan
in Quadrants 1A, 113, and ID in the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area and a Minor
Variance Application for 15 lots in Quadrant 1A - Dee Van Donselaar, Associate Planner
Vice Chair Cyrus read the opening statement and applicable standards and opened the
hearing. Dee Van Donselaar presented the Staff Report, showed the area under
consideration on a map and answered questions from the Commissioners.
Rob Von Rohr, an engineer representing the Applicants, commented on the open space
requirement on behalf of Pahlisch Homes. Applicant Vic Russell also offered testimony
regarding the proposal. The Commissioners asked several questions regarding the size and
number of trees inventoried on the property, preservation efforts required by the County Code,
and what efforts have been made by Pahlisch Homes to save trees currently located on the
property.
Vice Chair Cyrus asked if there were any comments from opponents; there were none. He
suggested that this session was informational at this point and asked Catherine Morrow for
clarification on the Planning Commission's role in this process. Dee also explained applicable
sections of Code.
Quality Services Performed with Pride
TA-04-4: 8-20-07: Attachment 2
Vice Chair Cyrus asked if anyone would like to make a motion.
MOTION: Commissioner Otteni moved to accept the proposal for approval of the minor
variances as stated, including minimum lot depth, with Applicant's and Staff's proposed
revisions.
SECONDED: Commissioner Pace.
DISCUSSION: Commissioner Turner amended the motion and requested that the Applicant
provide clarification that the 200-foot open space buffer is acceptable, and also that some
natural landscaping and noise reduction be provided along the buffer.
Catherine Morrow made a suggestion for wording to be included such that the 200-foot buffer
identified on the quadrant plan, which shows 100 feet in the right-of-way on the subject property, is
acceptable.
AMENDED MOTION SECONDED: Commissioner Smith seconded that the Planning
Commission finds the motion acceptable as amended.
VOTE: Motion passed.
Vice Chair Cyrus asked for a vote on the main motion as amended.
VOTE: Motion passed.
Catherine Morrow asked Dee Van Donselaar to draft the necessary changes and return the
motion for Vice Chair Cyrus' signature.
IV. DELIBERATION - File No. TA-04-4 - A Text Amendment to Amend Deschutes County
Code, Chapter 18.04 and 18.113 to Reflect Recent Changes in State Statute Regarding
Destination Resorts - Terri Payne, Associate Planner
Commissioner Turner asked about the purpose of this recommendation and what it was
supposed to achieve. Terri Payne stated that the Planning Commission made a
recommendation on this text amendment to destination resorts two years ago, but because of
that time lapse, there was a discussion with the Board after the public hearing on
December 4th. After that hearing, the Board basically said, "Make another recommendation if
you'd like. The Planning Commissioners can therefore decide if they agree with the
recommendation that was made two years ago, given new information that has come in over
the last two years and how things have changed, or whether they would rather stay with the
original recommendation made by the Planning Commission in 2004.
Commissioner Pace added that she voted in favor at the time because she thought it was required
to be in compliance with state law.
Terri Payne mentioned the work session and public hearing were already attended by the
Commissioners, and copies of documents that were previously sent to the Board which have been
provided to the current Commissioners. She further proposed to outline the public comments
received last week and also to respond to questions emailed to her by Commissioner Smith.
TA-04-4: 8-20-07: Attachment 2
Terri Payne summarized that all of the comments received regarding the proposed changes are
negative, and some correspondence also includes negative comments towards any additional
destination resorts in the County. The general opposition to more destination resorts is not
pertinent to this application, which is a very specificequest to change the criteria, not the number,
of allowed destination resorts. However, most of the comments were on point and covered
potential impacts of additional residential housing in destination resorts, including traffic concerns,
lack of funds for road maintenance and repair, impacts on public services such as sheriff, fire and
schools, and the high cost of resort housing which makes it unaffordable for local residents. Also
mentioned in comments received were impacts to the natural environment, wildlife and unknown
fiscal impacts such as property taxes and services provided to the resorts. In summary, much of
the information seems to be unknown, and most public comments indicated it would be better to
hold off on making the change to the ratio until we know more of the facts. There was concern
about who is "watching" the destination resorts in operation now and the suburban nature toward
which the developments seem to be moving.
Regarding Commissioner Smith's questions to Terri Payne: (1) Current reporting information
provided by the resorts - Eagle Crest has provided for the individually owned units counted as
overnight units with a total of 143. We still do not have other information such as the owners of the
units, the days the units were available for rent and the number of days they were rented. We are
still working with Eagle Crest to try to obtain that information. (2) Traffic information/impacts
regarding Eagle Crest and Thornburgh - The Commissioners received information from an Eagle
Crest traffic study in their packets and the concern was that there wasn't anything to compare it to.
Terri found traffic counts on Cline Falls Highway for 2005 in three places, but average daily traffic
counts don't necessarily compare to the trip generation in the reports so the information may not
be useful. Most of the conditions of approval for resorts that have been approved do contain some
sort of specific requirements to work with ODOT for traffic improvements. Eagle Crest did this.
There was a question as to why the Applicant is requesting this change and what is driving it. Terri
Payne stated that it was a market issue - the demand right now is for second homes rather than
individual rental units. Another question was whether we are currently out of compliance regarding
the bonding issue, because the new Code says the first 50 units must be built. This only applies if
the Applicant chooses to phase. Right now we are not out of compliance on that issue. We are,
however, out of compliance on the investments required because we do have a less strict
requirement for "up front" investments. This is not in compliance with current Code and should
probably be changed.
Another question concerned the difference in the language about the housing ratio in the statute
and the Goal. It appears that this is more of a legal question for the attorneys, who give different
answers.
The Commissioners are facing a policy decision and can make another recommendation if they
choose. The criteria are the statute, the Goal and the County Comprehensive Plan. Approval may
be recommended as proposed by the Applicant, with or without staff changes. Staff
recommended taking out the bonding for the first 50 units, because the statute does not allow it.
Staff recommends retaining the 2:1 ratio until the legal issues are sorted out; staff also suggested
adding annual reporting requirements which are part of the statute that were not in the original
proposal, and adding language on conservation easements for specified resources, which is
another part of the statute not in the original proposal.
Commissioner Pace asked for clarification on Eagle Crest. Terri stated they have 143 individually-
owned units they count as overnight, in addition to 100 units in the hotel and timeshares. There is
TA-04-4: 8-20-07: Attachment 2
a total of around 500 overnight units. Commissioner Pace quoted some of the numbers in the
Kittleson Report and further discussion ensued about units in Eagle Crest.
Commissioner Turner and Vice Chair Cyrus stated possible conflicts of interest due to
Commissioner Turner performing work for destination resorts and Vice Chair Cyrus having an
interest in a potential destination resort. Commissioner Turner did not feel that this was a problem
and he could be non-partial; Vice Chair Cyrus will refrain from voting on this proposal.
Catherine Morrow summarized the process for resort approval, including the preliminary master
plan, the final master plan and tentative and final plats for various phases. The phases must be
consistent with the master plan.
Commissioner Otteni asked if the total of individual units could be averaged in with various resorts
owned by the same corporation. Terri stated that each has different criteria, and that when it
changes from a resort to a destination resort, the average is taken across the whole development.
The Commissioners discussed the morphing of destination resorts which started as economic
development tools and became gated communities.
Commissioner Quatre asked why the destination resort owners claim they have only four months
to make money, but they make money all year long and are still proliferating. Commissioners
Otteni and Pace discussed the percentages of owners who are living in the area year-round.
Commissioner Pace stated that she had called Eagle Crest to request more information than what
was in the Kittleson Report but was refused. She also spoke to two realtors and property
maintenance staff at Eagle Crest. She was told none of them had ever heard of a deed restriction
on the units and that the "best deal" was to rent full-time to locals.
Commissioner Smith stated he had done quite a bit of research and had concerns about the
effects of destination resort impacts; however, he was setting all of that aside for this deliberation
and felt that whether or not they were good for communities, there were three or four main issues
to be considered. One was the receipt of negative input from the public with the exception of
developers and lobbyists who supported this proposal. Another was legal questions which might
need to be addressed in the legislature and could cause problems with the proposal. He also did
not feel the Applicants have demonstrated a real need for the 2.5 ratio, only that they want it. He
felt that the change to a 2.5 ratio should not be approved.
Commissioner Otteni discussed rental units versus second homes and the amount of time units
might be rented for certain months of the year. Commissioner Quatre did not feel this was a
negative impact on the community. Commissioner Pace felt that this meant units could be sold,
occupied during the summer and used without interference from renters most of the time. This
could change the ratio of overnight units because of rental contracts.
Commissioner Quatre suggested recommending some way to mitigate impacts on the roads such
as shuttles for resort employees.
Commissioner Turner wanted to make a distinction between residential rentals and overnight
rentals. He did not feel the resorts are counting residential rentals in the 2:1 or 2.5:1 ratios
because of the deed restriction requirement, and we have no way of knowing whether those units
are counted or not. A different product is provided for overnight accommodations, and the
investment may not be as good as other types of investments. He feels it is important to keep an
open mind about the proposal, especially in light of the public testimony which may be only from
one segment of the population and does not include the construction industry, consideration of the
contribution to tax base and high-paying construction jobs.
TA-04-4: 8-20-07: Attachment 2
Commissioner Cyrus summarized the history of Eagle Crest and its bolstering of the tax base of
the Redmond School District. He further stated the need for a balance of starter homes and other
types of development.
Commissioner Pace pointed out that increased employment from construction jobs may not be
continuous unless there is a stream of projects to provide it. She felt that a balance of
development could take place in a better way within the urban growth boundary.
Commissioner Smith wanted to try to put the pros and cons aside in light of the fact that
destination resorts are already in the area and do provide jobs and a tax base; he felt that in this
case, the only thing the Applicants are concerned about is the 2.5:1 ratio, not the deed restrictions
or anything else. That is really the only item to be considered at this point and the focus is on the
2:1 ratio versus the 2.5:1, which may not be that much of a difference. The destination resort
developers do not really need a boost at this point, and it appears the public does not want the
change. There seems to be very little reason to change the current ratio and some big reasons
not to.
Commissioner Quatre mentioned bringing the issue up at Leadership Bend, just to see how much
people knew about it. She felt that 75% had strong feelings, even if they did not have destination
resorts in their backyards. So it is not just the special interest groups that have concerns or
opinions against the change in ratio.
Catherine Morrow asked if the Commissioners would like to make a recommendation to the Board.
MOTION: Commissioner Otteni recommended keeping the current 2:1 ratio and 45 week
requirement. He did not have an opinion on the bonding issue.
Commissioner Pace recommended keeping everything the same except for compliance issues:
the investment and conservation easement, and also reporting and bonding requirements.
Terri Payne explained that the bonding issue is not an issue if the amendment is not adopted.
Bonding is not currently allowed, so if the current text is retained, the bonding issue is gone.
SECOND: Commissioner Smith.
Catherine Morrow asked if everyone understood the motion. Terri Payne re-stated that the only
actual compliance issue is the investment issue. The reporting issue is more of an enforcement
issue and we are not out of compliance if it is not added. The only place we are more lenient than
the statute right now is in investment. The conservation easement and reporting are part of
statute.
Commissioner Pace reiterated that the three items under consideration are infrastructure amounts,
conservation easements and the reporting requirement.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Quatre agreed with the motion.
Commissioner Pace agreed.
TA-04-4: 8-20-07: Attachment 2
Commissioner Turner said he could not support the motion from an economic development
perspective, and that the testimony everyone heard dealt with natural resources and traffic issues
which must be solved individually by each resort development. He felt that there has not been
enough consideration to support a motion at this time.
Commissioner Smith felt that destination resorts continue to provide benefits to the community,
and keeping the ratio the same is not a slap in the face to that community. We really do not need
to give a "boost" by changing the ratio.
Commissioner Otteni felt that there is a problem with destination resorts turning into virtual gated
communities with too much exclusivity, which is causing a loss of public support.
1
Terri Payne restated the current Motion: To retain the current Code and only change (1) updating
the infrastrcure; (2) add the annual reporting requirement; and (3) add language on conservation
easements.
VOTE: Commissioner Quatre: Yes.
Commissioner Pace:
Yes.
Commissioner Turner:
No.
Commissioner Smith:
Yes.
Commissioner Otteni:
Yes.
Commissioner Cyrus:
Abstained.
MOTION PASSED.
V. TRAINING - Statewide Planning Goals 6 and 7 - Terri Payne, Associate Planner
Postponed.
VI. UPDATE - Comprehensive Plan Update - Terri Payne, Associate Planner
Postponed.
VII. OTHER ITEMS OF CONCERN
Catherine Morrow mentioned that Peter Russell, a former ODOT employee, will be replacing
Steve Jorgensen as Senior Transportation Planner for the County. She also summarized some of
the current work on the Comprehensive Plan update. She further stated that the Board of
Commissioners will have to consider at least six Measure 37 claims a week starting in January,
due to the recent large increase in the number of submittals.
Applications have been submitted for a transportation plan assessment of the County's GSP and
for a transportation system plan update grant.
TA-04-4: 8-20-07: Attachment 2
VIII. ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. The next meeting will be on
Thursday, January 11, 2007, at 5:30 p.m. at the Deschutes Services Center, 1300 N.W. Wall
Street, Bend, Oregon, 97701.
Respectfully submitted,
Sher Buckner, Planning Secretary
REVIEWED
LEGAL COUNSEL
REVIEWED
CODE REVIEW COMMITTEE
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
An Ordinance Amending Title 18, of the Deschutes
County Code Regarding Destination Resorts. * ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005
WHEREAS, Sunriver Resort, Eagle Crest Resort and Pronghorn Resort filed an application with the
Deschutes County Planning Division that proposed text amendments to Title 18, the Deschutes County Zoning
Ordinance, to the definitions of destination resorts and overnight lodging as well as amendments to the
destination resort chapter; and
WHEREAS, the Deschutes County Planning Commission ("Commission") held a duly noticed pubic
hearing on November 4, 2004, and recommended to the Board of County Commissioner ("Board") the proposed
changes to Title 18 with one amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing on December 4, 2006, in coordination with
the Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Board amended the original proposal and held an additonal duly noticed public hearing
on August 27, 2007; now, therefore,
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON, ORDAINS
as follows:
Section 1. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.04, Definitions of Destination Resorts and Overnight Lodging
area amended to read as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with
new language underlined and language to be deleted in str-ilea.
Section 2. AMENDMENT. DCC 18.113, Destination Resorts, is amended to read as described in
Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and
language to be deleted in sty-ikedi,-,etigk.
PAGE 1 OF 2 - DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (8/27/07)
Section 3. FINDINGS. The Board adopts the staff report dated 8-27-07 as Exhibit "C", incorporated
herein by this reference, as its findings to support this Ordinance.
Dated this of , 2007 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF DESCHUTES COUNTY, OREGON
MICHAEL M. DALY, CHAIR
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Date of I st Reading
Date of 2°d Reading:
Record of Adoption Vote
DENNIS R. LUKE, VICE CHAIR
TAMMY BANEY, COMMISSIONER
day of 12007.
day of 12007.
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Michael M. Daly
Dennis R. Luke
Tammy Baney
Effective date: day of 12007.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
PAGE 2 OF 2 - DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (8/27/07)
EXHIBIT "A"
NOTE: denotes code provisions not
amended by this ordinance.
Chapter 18.04. TITLE, PURPOSE AND
DEFINITIONS
18.04.030. Definitions.
As used in DCC Title 18, the following words
and phrases shall mean as set forth in DCC
18.04.030.
DE. Visitor-oriented accommodations are
provided, including meeting rooms,
restaurants with seating for 100 persons, and
150 separate rentable units for overnight
lodgings as described in DCC 18.113.060(A).
Accommodations available for residential use
will not exceed two such units for each unit
of overnight lodging.
EF. Commercial uses limited to those types and
levels necessary to meet the needs of visitors
to the development. Industrial uses are not
permitted.
"Destination resort" means a self-contained
development providing visitor-oriented
accommodations and developed recreational
facilities in a setting with high natural amenities.
To qualify as a "major destination resort" under
Goal 8, a proposed development must meet the
following standards:
A. The resort is located on a site of 160 or more
acres.
B. At least 50 percent of the site is dedicated to
permanent open space, excluding yards,
street and parking areas.
C. At least $2,000;0007,000,000 (in 49841993
dollars) is spent in the first phase on
improvements for on-site-developed
recreational facilities and visitor-oriented
accommodations, exclusive of costs for land,
sewer and water facilities and roads. Not less
than one-third of this amount shall be spent
on developed recreational facilities.
DDeveloped recreational facilities and key
facilities intended to serve the entire
development and visitor-oriented
accommodations must be physiea}13`
pedconstructed or, where permitted by
DCC 18.113, be guaranteed through surety
bonding or substantially equivalent financial
assurances prior to closure of sale of
individual lots or units. In phased
developments, developed recreational
facilities and other key facilities intended to
serve a particular phase shall be constructed
prior to sales in that phase or guaranteed
through surety bonding.
"Overnight lodgings" with respect to destination
resorts, means permanent, separately rentable
accommodations that are not available for
residential use. Overnight lodgings include hotel
or motel rooms, cabins and time-share units.
Individually-owned units may be considered
overnight lodgings if they are available for
overnight rental use by the general public for at
least 4-538 weeks per calendar year through a
central reservation and check-in service operated
by the destination resort or through a real estate
property manager, as defined in ORS 696.010.
Tent sites, recreational vehicle parks, mobile
homes, dormitory rooms and similar
accommodations do not qualify as overnight
lodging for the purpose of this definition.
(Ord. 2007-005 § 1, 2007 ; Ord. 2006-008 § 1,
2006; Ord. 2005-041 § 1, 2005; Ord. 2004-024 §
1, 2004; Ord. 2004-001 § 1, 2004; Ord. 2003-028
§ 1, 2003; Ord. 2001-048 § 1, 2001; Ord. 2001-
044 § 2, 2001; Ord. 2001-037 § 1, 2001; Ord.
2001-033 § 2, 2001; Ord. 97-078 § 5, 1997; Ord.
97-017 § 1, 1997; Ord. 97-003 § 1, 1997; Ord.
96-082 § 1, 1996; Ord. 96-003 § 2, 1996; Ord.
95-077 § 2, 1995; Ord. 95-075 § 1, 1975; Ord.
95-007 § 1, 1995; Ord. 95-001 § 1, 1995; Ord.
94-053 § 1, 1994; Ord. 94-041 2 and 3, 1994;
Ord. 94-038 § 3, 1994; Ord. 94-008 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7 and 8, 1994; Ord. 94-001 1, 2, and 3,
1994; Ord. 93-043 1, IA and 1B, 1993; Ord.
93-038 § 1, 1993; Ord. 93-005 1 and 2, 1993;
Ord. 93-002 1, 2 and 3, 1993; Ord. 92-066 § 1,
1992; Ord. 92-065 § § 1 and 2, 1992; Ord. 92-034
PAGE 1 OF 2 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2007-005 (8/27/2007)
EXHIBIT "A"
§ 1, 1992; Ord. 92-025 § 1, 1992; Ord. 92-004
1 and 2, 1992; Ord. 91-038 3 and 4, 1991;
Ord. 91-020 § 1, 1991; Ord. 91-005 § 1, 1991;
Ord. 91-002 § 11, 1991; Ord. 90-014 § 2, 1990;
Ord. 89-009 § 2, 1989; Ord. 89-004 § 1, 1989;
Ord. 88-050 § 3, 1988; Ord. 88-030 § 3, 1988;
Ord. 88-009 § 1, 1988; Ord. 87-015 § 1, 1987;
Ord. 86-056 § 2, 1986; Ord. 86-054 § 1, 1986;
Ord. 86-032 § 1, 1986; Ord. 86-018 § 1, 1986;
Ord. 85-002 § 2, 1985; Ord. 84-023 § 1, 1984;
Ord. 83-037 § 2, 1983; Ord. 83-033 § 1, 1983;
Ord. 82-013 § 1, 1982)
PAGE 2 OF 2 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2007-005 (8/27/2007)
EXHIBIT "B"
Chapter 18.113. DESTINATION
RESORTS ZONE - DR
18.113.010. Purpose.
18.113.020. Applicability.
18.113.025. Application to existing resorts.
18.113.030. Uses in destination resorts.
18.113.040. Application submission.
18.113.050. Requirements for conditional use
permit and conceptual master
plan applications.
18.113.060. Standards for destination resorts.
18.113.070. Approval criteria.
18.113.075. Imposition of conditions.
18.113.080. Procedure for modification of a
conceptual master plan.
18.113.090. Requirements for final master
plan.
18.113.100. Procedure for approval of final
master plan.
18.113.110. Provision of streets, utilities,
developed recreational facilities
and visitor-oriented
accommodations.
18.113.010. Purpose.
A. The purpose of the DR Zone is to establish a
mechanism for siting destination resorts to
ensure compliance with LCDC Goal 8 and
the County Comprehensive Plan. The
destination resort designation is intended to
identify land areas which are available for the
siting of destination resorts, but which will
only be developed if consistent with the
purpose and intent of DCC 18.113 and Goal
8.
B. The DR Zone is an overlay zone. The DR
Zone is intended to provide for properly
designed and sited destination resort facilities
which enhance and diversify the recreational
opportunities and the economy of Deschutes
County. The DR Zone will ensure resort
development that compliments the natural
and cultural attractiveness of the area without
significant adverse effect on commercial
fanning and forestry, environmental and
natural features, cultural and historic
resources and their settings and other
significant resources.
C. It is the intent of DCC 18.113 to establish
procedures and standards for developing
destination resorts while ensuring that all
applicable County Comprehensive Plan
policies are achieved.
D. It is the intent of DCC 18.113 to ensure that
all elements of a destination resort which are
proposed are financially secured in a manner
which will protect the public's interest should
the development not be completed as
proposed.
E. It is not the intent of DCC 18.113 to site
developments that are in effect rural
subdivisions, whose primary purpose is to
serve full-time residents of the area.
(Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992)
18.113.020. Applicability.
A. The provisions of DCC 18.113 shall apply to
proposals for the development of destination
resorts, as defined in DCC Title 18, in areas
designated DR by the County zoning maps.
The provisions of DCC 18.113 shall not
apply to any development proposal in an area
designated DR other than a destination resort.
B. When these provisions are applicable, they
shall supersede all other provisions of the
underlying zone. Other provisions of the
zoning ordinance, made applicable by
specific map designations, such as the SMIA,
AH, CH, FP or LM, or otherwise applicable
under the terms of the zoning ordinance text
shall remain in full force and effect, unless
otherwise specified herein.
C. The provisions of DCC 18.113 apply to
destination resorts sited through the Goal 2
exception process.
(Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992)
18.113.025. Application to existing resorts.
Expansion proposals of existing developments
approved as destination resorts shall meet the
following criteria:
PAGE 1 OF 14 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (8/27/2007)
EXHIBIT "B"
A. Meet all criteria of DCC 18.113 without
consideration of any existing development; or
B. Meet all criteria of DCC 18.113 for the entire
development (including the existing approved
destination resort development and the
proposed expansion area), except that as to
the area covered by the existing destination
resort, compliance with setbacks and lot sizes
shall not be required.
If the applicant chooses to support its
proposal with any part of the existing
development, applicant shall demonstrate that
the proposed expansion will be situated and
managed in a manner that it will be integral
to the remainder of the resort.
(Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992)
18.113.030. Uses in destination resorts.
The following uses are allowed, provided they are
part of, and are intended to serve persons at, the
destination resort pursuant to DCC 18.113.030
and are approved in a final master plan:
A. Visitor-oriented accommodations designed to
provide for the needs of visitors to the resort:
1. Overnight lodging, including lodges,
hotels, motels, bed and breakfast
facilities, time-share units and similar
transient lodging facilities;
2. Convention and conference facilities and
meeting rooms;
3. Retreat centers;
4. Restaurants, lounges and similar eating
and drinking establishments; and
5. Other similar visitor-oriented
accommodations consistent with the
purposes of DCC 18.113 and Goal 8.
B. Developed recreational facilities designed to
provide for the needs of visitors and residents
of the resort;
1. Golf courses and clubhouses;
2. Indoor and outdoor swimming pools;
3. Indoor and outdoor tennis courts;
4. Physical fitness facilities;
5. Equestrian facilities;
6. Wildlife observation shelters;
7. Walkways, bike paths, jogging paths,
equestrian trails;
8. Other similar recreational facilities
consistent with the purposes of DCC
18.113 and Goal 8.
C. Residential accommodations:
1. Single-family dwellings;
2. Duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and
multi-family dwellings;
3. Condominiums;
4. Townhouses;
5. Living quarters for employees;
6. Time-share projects.
D. Commercial services and specialty shops
designed to provide for the visitors to the
resort:
1. Specialty shops, including but not limited
to delis, clothing stores, bookstores, gift
shops and specialty food shops;
2. Barber shops/beauty salons;
3. Automobile service stations limited to
fuel sales, incidental parts sales and
minor repairs;
4. Craft and art studios and galleries;
5. Real estate offices;
6. Convenience stores;
7. Other similar commercial services which
provide for the needs of resort visitors
and are consistent with the purposes of
DCC 18.113 and Goal 8.
E. Uses permitted in open space areas generally
include only those uses that, except as
specified herein, do not alter the existing or
natural landscape of the proposed open space
areas. No improvements, development or
other alteration of the natural or existing
landscape shall be allowed in open space
areas, except as necessary for development of
golf course fairways and greens, hiking and
bike trails, lakes and ponds and primitive
picnic facilities including park benches and
picnic tables. Where farming activities
would be consistent with identified
preexisting open space uses, irrigation
equipment and associated pumping facilities
shall be allowed.
F. Facilities necessary for public safety and
utility service: within the destination resort.
PAGE 2 OF 14 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (8/27/2007)
EXHIBIT "B"
G. Other similar uses permitted in the
underlying zone consistent with the purposes
of DCC 18.113.030.
H. Accessory Uses in Destination Resorts:
1. The following accessory uses shall be
permitted provided they are ancillary to
the destination resort and consistent with
the purposes of DCC 18.113 and Goal 8:
a. Transportation-related facilities
excluding airports;
b. Emergency medical facilities;
c. Storage structures and areas;
d. Kennels as a service for resort
visitors only;
e. Recycling and garbage collection
facilities;
f. Other similar accessory uses
consistent with the purposes of DCC
18.113 and Goal 8.
(Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992)
18.113.040. Application submission.
The authorization of a permit for a destination
resort shall consist of three steps.
A. Conceptual Master Plan and Conditional Use
Permit for Destination Resort. A conceptual
master plan (CMP) shall be submitted which
addresses all requirements established in
DCC 18.113.040. The CMP application shall
be processed as if it were a conditional use
permit under DCC Title 22, shall be subject
to DCC 18.128.010, 18.128.020 and
18.128.030 and shall be reviewed for
compliance with the standards and criteria set
forth in DCC 18.113.
B. Final Master Plan. The applicant shall
prepare a final master plan (FMP) which
incorporates all requirements of the County
approval for the CMP. The Planning
Director shall review the FMP to determine if
it complies with the approved CMP and all
conditions of approval of the conditional use
permit. The Planning Director shall have the
authority to approve, deny or return the FMP
to the applicant for additional information.
When interpretations of the Planning Director
involve issues which are discretionary, the
IMP approval shall be treated as a land use
permit in accordance with DCC Title 22.
C. Site Plan Review. Each element or
development phase of the destination resort
must receive additional approval through the
required site plan review (DCC 18.124) or
subdivision process (DCC Title 17). In
addition to findings satisfying the site plan or
subdivision criteria, findings shall be made
that the specific development proposal
complies with the standards and criteria of
DCC 18.113 and the IMP.
(Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992)
18.113.050. Requirements for conditional use
permit and conceptual master
plan applications.
The CMP provides the framework for
development of the destination resort and is
intended to ensure that the destination resort
meets the requirements of DCC 18.113. The
CMP application shall include the following
information:
A. Illustrations and graphics to scale,
identifying:
1. The location and total number of acres to
be developed as a planned destination
resort;
2. The subject area and all land uses
adjacent to the subject area;
3. The topographic character of the site;
4. Types and general location of proposed
development uses, including residential
and commercial uses;
5. Major geographic features;
6. Proposed methods of access to the
development, identifying the main
vehicular circulation system within the
resort and an indication of whether
streets will be public or private;
7. Major pedestrian, equestrian and bicycle
trail systems;
8. Important natural features of the site,
including habitat of threatened or
endangered species, streams, rivers,
wetlands and riparian vegetation within
200 feet of streams, rivers and wetlands.
PAGE 3 OF 14 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (8/27/2007)
EXHIBIT "B"
9. All uses proposed within landscape
Works or the Oregon Department of
management corridors identified by the
Transportation, or both) at the same time
comprehensive plan or zoning ordinance.
as the conceptual master plan and shall
10. The location and number of acres
be prepared by a licensed traffic engineer
reserved as open space, buffer area, or
to the minimum standards of the road
common area. Areas designated as "open
authorities.
space," "buffer area," or "common area"
3. A description of how the proposed
should be clearly illustrated and labeled
destination resort will satisfy the
as such;
standards and criteria of DCC 18.113.060
11. All proposed recreational amenities;
and 18.113.070;
12. Proposed overall density.
4. Design guidelines and development
standards defining visual and aesthetic
B. Further information as follows:
parameters for:
1. A description of the natural
a. Building character;
characteristics of the site and surrounding
b. Landscape character;
areas, including a description of
c. Preservation of existing topography
resources and the effect of the destination
and vegetation;
resort on the resources; methods
d. Siting of buildings; and
employed to mitigate adverse impacts on
e. Proposed standards for minimum lot
resources; analysis of how the overall
area, width, frontage, lot coverage,
values of the natural features of the site
setbacks and building heights.
will be preserved, enhanced or utilized in
5. An open space management plan which
the design concept for the destination
includes:
resort; and a proposed resource
a. An explanation of how the open
protection plan to ensure that important
space management plan meets the
natural features will be protected and
minimum standards of DCC 18.113
maintained. Factors to be addressed
for each phase of the development;
include:
. An inventory of the important natural
b
a. Compatibility of soil composition for
features identified in the open space
proposed development(s) and
areas and any other open space and
erosion hazard;
potential
present in the open
natural values
Geology, including areas of potential
instability;
space;
c. A set of management prescriptions
c. Slope and general topography;
that will operate to maintain and
d. Areas subject to flooding;
conserve in perpetuity any identified
e. Other hazards or development
important natural features and other
constraints;
natural or open space values present
f. Vegetation;
open space;
in the
g. Water areas, including streams,
d. Deed restrictions that will assure that
lakes, ponds and wetlands;
the open space areas are maintained
Important natural features;
h. I
i. Landscape management corridors;
as open space in perpetuity.
6. An explanation of public use of facilities
j. Wildlife.
and amenities on the site.
2. A traffic study which addresses (1)
7. A description of the proposed method of
impacts on affected County, city and
providing all utility systems, including
state road systems and (2) transportation
the location and sizing of the utility
improvements necessary to mitigate any
systems;
such impacts. The study shall be
8. A description of the proposed order and
submitted to the affected road authority
schedule for phasing, if any, of all
(either the County Department of Public
development including an explanation of
PAGE 4 OF 14 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (8/27/2007)
EXHIBIT "B"
9
10
II
when facilities will be provided and how
they will be secured if not completed
prior to closure of sale of individual lots
or units;
An explanation of how the destination
resort has been sited or designed to avoid
or minimize adverse effects or conflicts
on adjacent lands. The application shall
identify the surrounding uses and
potential conflicts between the
destination resort and adjacent uses
within 660 feet of the boundaries of the
parcel or parcels upon which the resort is
to be developed. The application shall
explain how any proposed buffer area
will avoid or minimize adverse effects or
conflicts;
A description of the proposed method for
providing emergency medical facilities
and services and public safety facilities
and services including fire and police
protection;
A study prepared by a hydrologist,
engineering geologist or similar
professional certified in the State of
Oregon describing:
a. An estimate of water demands for the
destination resort at maximum
buildout, including a breakdown of
estimated demand by category of
consumption, including but not
limited to residential, commercial,
golf courses and irrigated common
areas;
b. Availability of water for estimated
demands at the destination resort,
including (1) identification of the
proposed source; (2) identification of
all available information on ground
and surface waters relevant to the
determination of adequacy of water
supply for the destination resort; (3)
identification of the area that may be
measurably impacted by the water
used by the destination resort (water
impact area) and an analysis
supporting the delineation of the
impact area; and (4) a statistically
valid sampling of domestic and other
wells within the impact area;
c. A water conservation plan including
an analysis of available measures
which are commonly used to reduce
water consumption. This shall
include a justification of the chosen
water conservation plan. The water
conservation plan shall include a
wastewater disposal plan utilizing
beneficial use of reclaimed water to
the maximum extent practicable.
For the purposes of DCC
18.113.050, beneficial uses shall
include, but are not limited to:
i. Irrigation of golf courses and
greenways;
ii. Establishment of artificial
wetlands for wildlife habitation.
12. An erosion control plan for all disturbed
land, as required by ORS 468. This plan
shall include storm and melt water
erosion control to be implemented during
all phases of construction and permanent
facilities or practices for the continuing
treatment of these waters. This plan shall
also explain how the water shall be used
for beneficial use or why it cannot be
used as such;
13. A description of proposed sewage
disposal methods;
14. Wildfire prevention, control and
evacuation plans;
15. A description of interim development
including temporary structures related to
sales and development;
16. Plans for owners' associations and related
transition of responsibilities and transfer
of property;
17. A description of the methods of ensuring
that all facilities and common areas
within each phase will be established and
will be maintained in perpetuity;
18. A survey of housing availability for
employees based upon income level and
commuting distance;
19. An economic impact and feasibility
analysis of the proposed development
prepared by a qualified professional
economist(s) or financial analyst(s) shall
be provided which includes:
PAGE 5 OF 14 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (8/27/2007)
EXHIBIT "B"
a. An analysis which addresses the
economic viability of the proposed
development;
b. Fiscal impacts of the project
including changes in employment,
increased tax revenue, demands for
new or increased levels of public
services, housing for employees and
the effects of loss of resource lands
during the life of the project.
20. A solid waste management plan;
21. ^ aeser-i ,t:"" of the system to be used f
the management of any i*di,,4dua41y
owned its that will be us@d fer
evemight !edging and hew it will be
,,.,...,.t tO assum that PFEYASiERIS
any
the g ,-.,t p4lie for at least nc , oov
pefea-1~F yeaf thr,.ug °rtral
t and b .
A description of the mechanism to be
used to ensure that the destination resort
provides an adequate supply of overnight
lodging units to maintain compliance
with the 150-unit minimum and 2 to 1
ratio set forth in DCC 18.113.060(D)(2).
The mechanism shall meet the
requirements of DCC 18.113.060(L);
22. If the proposed destination resort is in a
SMIA combining zone, DCC 18.56 shall
be addressed;
23. If the proposed destination resort is in an
LM combining zone, DCC 18.84 shall be
addressed;
24. A survey of historic and cultural
resources inventoried on an
acknowledged Goal 5 inventory;
25. Other information as may reasonably be
required by the Planning Director to
address the effect of the proposed
development as related to the
requirements of DCC Title 18.
(Ord. 2007-005 § 2, 2007; Ord. 92-004 § 13,
1992)
18.113.060. Standards for destination resorts.
The following standards shall govern
consideration of destination resorts:
A. The destination resort shall, in the first phase,
provide for and include as part of the CMP
the following minimum requirements:
1. At least 150 separate rentable units for
visitor-oriented overnight _lodging as
follows:
a. The first 50 overnight lodging units
must be constructed prior to the
closure of sales, rental or lease of
any residential dwellings or lots.
b. The resort may elect to phase in the
remaining 100 overnight lodging
units as follows:
i. At least 50 of the remaining 100
re wired overnight lodging knits shall
be constructed or guaranteed throug_h
surety bonding or equivalent
financial assurance within 5 years of
the closure of sale of individual lots
or units, and;
ii. The remaining 50 required
overnight lodging units shall be
constructed or guaranteed through
surety bonding or equivalent
financial assurance within 10 years
of the closure of sale of individual
lots or units.
iii. If the developer of a resort
guarantees a portion of the overnight
lodging units required under
subsection 18.113.060(A)(1)(b)
throw surety bonding or other
equivalent financial assurance, the
overnight lodging units must be
constructed within 4 years of the date
of execution of the surety bond or
other equivalent fmancial assurance.
iv. The 2:1 accommodation ratio
required by DCC 18.113.060(D)(2)
must be maintained at all times.
c. If a resort does not chose to phase the
overnight lodging units as described
in 18.113.060(A)(1)(b), then the
required 150 units of overnight
lodging must be constructed prior to
the closure of sales, rental or lease of
any residential dwellings or lots.
2. Visitor-oriented eating establishments for
at least 100 persons and meeting rooms
PAGE 6 OF 14 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (8/271/2007)
EXHIBIT "B"
which provide seating for at least 100
18.124.070 shall not be considered open
persons.
space;
3. The aggregate cost of developing the
2. Individually-owned residential units that
overnight lodging facilities, developed
do not meet the defmition of overnight
recreational facilities, and the eating
lodging in DCC 18.04.030 shall not
establishments and meeting rooms
exceed two such units for each unit of
required--in DGG 14.13.060(n)O an
visitor-oriented overnight lodging.
Wshall be at least $2,000;900 7,000,000
Individually-owned units shall be
(in 44841993 dollars).
considered visitor-oriented lodging if
4. At least $2,000,)00_2_333.333 of the
they are available for overnight rental use
$7,000,000 (in 49541993 dollars) total
by the general public for at least 438
minimum investment required by DCC
weeks per calendar year through one or
18.113.060(A)(3) shall be spent on
more central reservation and check-in
developed recreational facilities.
services} operated by the destination
5. The facilities and accommodations
resort or by a real estate propert
y
required by DCC 18.113.060(A)(2)
manager, as defined in ORS 696.010.
through (4) must be constructed or
E. Phasing. A destination resort authorized
financially assured pursuant to DCC
pursuant to DCC 18.113.060 may be
18.113.110 prior to closure of sales,
developed in phases. If a proposed resort is
rental or lease of any residential
to be developed in phases, each phase shall
dwellings or lots or as allowed by
DCC
1113.060(A)(1).
be as described in the CMP. Each individual
phase shall meet the following requirements:
B. All destination resorts shall have a minimum
1. Each phase, together with previously
of 160 contiguous acres of land. Acreage
completed phases, if any, shall be
split by public roads or rivers or streams shall
capable of operating in a manner
count toward the acreage limit, provided that
consistent with the intent and purpose of
the CMP demonstrates that the isolated
DCC 18.113 and Goal 8.
acreage will be operated or managed in a
2. The first phase and each subsequent
manner that will be integral to the remainder
phase of the destination resort shall
of the resort.
cumulatively meet the minimum
C. All destination resorts shall have direct
requirements of DCC 18.113.060 and
access onto a state or County arterial or
DCC 18.113.070.
collector roadway, as designated by the
3. Each phase may include two or more
Comprehensive Plan.
distinct noncontiguous areas within the
destination resort.
D. A destination resort shall, cumulatively and
for each phase, meet the following minimum
F. Destination resorts shall not exceed a density
requirements:
of one and one-half dwelling units per acre
1. The resort shall have a minimum of 50
including residential dwelling units and
percent of the total acreage of the
excluding visitor-oriented overnight lodging.
development dedicated to permanent
G. Dimensional Standards:
open space, excluding yards, streets and
1. The minimum lot area, width, lot
parking areas. Portions of individual
coverage, frontage and yard requirements
residential lots and landscape area
and building heights otherwise applying
requirements for developed recreational
to structures in underlying zones and the
facilities, visitor-oriented
provisions of DCC 18.116 relating to
accommodations or multi-family or
solar access shall not apply within a
commercial uses established by DCC
destination resort. These standards shall
be determined by the Planning Director
PAGE 7 OF 14 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (8/27/2007)
EXHIBIT "B"
or Hearings Body at the time of the
that listed in DCC
CMP. In determining these standards,
18.113.060(G)(2)(a)(1) and (ii) shall
the Planning Director or Hearings Body
be set back 250 feet in circumstances
shall find that the minimum specified in
where state highways coincide with
the CMP are adequate to satisfy the
exterior property lines.
intent of the comprehensive plan relating
c. The setbacks of DCC 18.113.060
to solar access, fire protection, vehicle
shall not apply to entry roadways and
access, visual management within
signs.
landscape management corridors and to
H. Floodplain requirements. The floodplain
protect resources identified by LCDC
zone (FP) requirements of DCC 18.96 shall
Goal 5 which are identified in the
apply to all developed portions of a
Comprehensive Plan. At a minimum, a
destination resort in an FP Zone in addition to
100-foot setback shall be maintained
any applicable criteria of DCC 18.113.
from all streams and rivers. Rimrock
Except for floodplain areas which have been
setbacks shall be as provided in DCC
granted an exception to LCDC goals 3 and 4,
Title 18. No lot for a single-family
floodplain zones shall not be considered part
residence shall exceed an overall project
of a destination resort when determining
average of 22,000 square feet in size.
compliance with the following standards;
2. Exterior setbacks.
1. One hundred sixty acre minimum site;
a. Except as otherwise specified herein,
2. Density of development;
all development (including
3. Open space requirements.
structures, site-obscuring fences of
A conservation easement as described in
over three feet in height and changes
to the natural topography of the land)
DCC Title 18 shall be conveyed to the
shall be setback from exterior
County for all areas within a floodplain
property lines as follows:
which are part of a destination resort.
i. Three hundred fifty feet for
I. The Landscape Management Combining
commercial development
Zone (LM) requirements of DCC 18.84 shall
including all associated parking
apply to destination resorts where applicable.
areas;
ii. Two hundred fifty feet for
J. Excavation, grading and fill and removal
multi-family development and
within the bed and banks of a strewn or river
visitor-oriented accommodations
or in a wetland shall be a separate conditional
(except for single-family
use subject to all pertinent requirements of
residences) including all
18.
DCC Title
associated parking areas;
K. Time-share units not included in the
iii. One hundred fifty feet for
overnight lodging calculations shall be
above-grade development other
subject to approval under the conditional use
than that listed in DCC
criteria set forth in DCC 18.128. Time-share
18.113.060(G)(2)(a)(i) and (ii);
units identified as part of the destination
iv. One hundred feet for roads;
resort's overnight lodging units shall not be
v. Fifty feet for golf courses; and
subject to the time-share conditional use
vi. Fifty feet for jogging trails and
criteria of DCC 18.128.
bike paths where they abut
L. The overnight lodging criteria shall be met,
private developed lots and no
including the 150-unit minimum and the 2 to 1
setback for where they abut
ratio set forth in DCC 18.113.060(D)(2).
public roads and public lands.
1. Failure of the qpproved destination resort
b. Notwithstanding DCC
to comply with the requirements in DCC
18.113.060(G)(2)(a)(iii),
18.113.060(L)(2) through (6) will result
above-grade development other than
PAGE 8 OF 14 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (8/27/2007)
EXHIBIT "B"
in the County declining to accept or
process any further land use actions
associated with any part of the resort and
the County shall not issue any permits
associated with any lots or site plans on
any part of the resort until proof is
provided to the County of compliance
with those conditions.
2. Each resort shall compile and maintain
in perpetuity, a registry of all overnight
lodging units.
a. The list shall identify each
individually-owned unit that is
counted as overnight lodging.
b. At all times, at least one entity shall
be responsible for maintaining the
registry and fulfilling the reporting
requirements of DCC
18.113.060(L)(2) tluough (6).
c. Initially, the resort management shall
be responsible for compiling and
maintaining the registry
d. As a resort develops, the developer
shall transfer responsibility for
maintaining the registry to the
homeowner association(s). The terms
and tinning of this transfer shall be
specified in the Conditions,
Covenants & Restrictions (CC&Rs).
e. Resort management shall notify the
County prior to assigning the registry
to a homeowner association.
f. As used in this section, "resort
nanagement" includes, but is not
limited to, the applicant and the
applicant's heirs, successors in
interest, assignees other than a home
owners association.
3. An annual report shall be submitted to
the Planning Division by the resort
management or home owners
association(s) each February 1,
documenting all of the following as of
December 31 of the previous year:
a. The minimum of 150 Termanent
units of overnight lodging have been
constructed or that the resort is not
yet required to have constructed the
150 units;
b. The number of individually-owned
residential platted lots and the
number of oven-fight-lodging units;
c. The ratio between the individually-
owned residential platted lots and the
overnight lodging units;
d. The following information on each
individually-owned residential unit
counted as ovemi t lodging.
i. Who the owner or owners have
been over the last year;
ii. How many nights out of the year
the unit was available for rent;
iii. How mgU nights out of the
year the unit was rented out as
an overnight lodging facility
under DCC 18.113;
iv. Documentation showing that
these units were available for
rental as required.
e. This information shall be public
record subject to ORS 192.502(17).
4. Each resort shall facilitate rental to the
general public of the overnight lodging
units by setting up and maintaining in
perpetuity, a rental office in a convenient
location at the resort and by setting up
and maintaining in perpetuity a telephone
reservation system.
5. Any outside property managers renting
required overnight lodging units shall be
required to cooperate with the provisions
of this code and to annually provide
rental information on any required
over-ii t lodging units they represent to
the central office as described in DCC
18.113.060(L)(2) and (3).
6. Before approval of each final plat, all the
following shall be provided:
a. Documentation demonstrating
compliance with the 2 to 1 ratio as
defused in DCC 18.113.060(D)(2);
b. Documentation on all individually-
owned residential units counted as
overnight lodging, including all o
the following:
i. Designation on the plat of any
individually-owned units that are
going to be counted as overnight
lodging;
PAGE 9 OF 14 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (8%27/2007)
EXHIBIT "B"
ii. Deed restrictions requiring the
Code and subject to code
individually-owned residential
enforcement proceedings by the
units designated as overnight
County.
lodging units to be available for
(Ord. 2007-05 § 2, 2007; Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992)
rental at least 38 weeks each year
through a central reservation and
18.113.070. Approval criteria.
check-in service operated by the
In order to approve a destination resort, the
resort or by a real estate propert y
Planning Director or Hearings Body shall find
manager, as defined in ORS
from substantial evidence in the record that:
696.010;
A. The subject proposal is a destination resort as
iii. An irrevocable provision in the
defined in DCC 18.040.030.
resort Conditions, Covenants and
Restrictions ("CC&Rs) requiring
B. All standards established by DCC 18.113.060
the individually-owned
are or will be met.
residential units designated as
C. The economic; analysis demonstrates that:
overnight lodging units to be
1. The necessary financial resources are
available for rental at least 38
available for the applicant to undertake
weeks each year through a
the development consistent with the
central reservation and check-in
minimum investment requirements
service operated by the resort or
established by DCC 18.113.
by a real estate property
2. Appropriate assurance has been
manager, as defined in ORS
submitted by lending institutions or other
696.010;
financial entities that the developer has
iv. A provision in the CC&R's that
or can reasonably obtain adequate
all property owners within the
financial support for the proposal once
resort recognize that failure to
approved.
meet the conditions in DCC
3. The destination resort will provide a
18.113.060(L)(6)(b)(iii) is a
substantial financial contribution which
violation of Deschutes County
positively, benefits the local economy
Code and subject to code
throughout the life of the entire project,
enforcement proceedings by the
considering changes in employment,
County.
demands for new or increased levels of
v. Inclusion of language in any
public service, housing for employees
rental contract between the
and the effects of loss of resource land.
owner of an individually-owned
4. The natural amenities of the site
residential unit designated as an
considered together with the identified
overnight lodging unit and any
developed recreation facilities to be
central reservation and check-in
provided with the resort, will constitute a
service or real estate propert y
primary attraction to visitors, based on
manager requiring that such unit
the economic feasibility analysis.
be available for rental at least 38
weeks each year through a
D. Any negative impact on fish and wildlife
central reservation and check-in
resources will be completely mitigated so that
service operated by the resort or
there is no net loss or net degradation of the
by a real estate propert y
resource.
manager, as defined in ORS
E. Important natural features, including but not
696.010 and that failure to meet
limited to significant wetlands, riparian
the conditions in DCC
habitat, and landscape management corridors
18.113.060(L)(6)(b)(v) is a
will be maintained. Riparian vegetation
violation of Deschutes County
PAGE 10 OF 14 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (8/27/2007)
EXHIBIT "B"
within 100 feet of streams, rivers and
significant wetlands will be maintained.
Alterations to important natural features,
including placement of structures, is allowed
so long as the overall values of the feature are
maintained.
F. The development will not force a significant
change in accepted farm or forest practices or
significantly increase the cost of accepted H.
farm or forest practices on surrounding lands
devoted to farm or forest use.
G. Destination resort developments that
significantly affect a transportation facility
shall assure that the development is
consistent with the identified function,
capacity and level of service of the facility.
This shall be accomplished by either:
1. Limiting the development to be
consistent with the planned function,
capacity and level of service of the
transportation facility;
2. Providing transportation facilities
adequate to support the proposed
development consistent with Oregon
Administrative Rules chapter 660,
Division 12; or
3. Altering land use densities, design
requirements or using other methods to
reduce demand for automobile travel and
to meet travel needs through other
modes.
A destination resort significantly affects
a transportation facility if it would result
in levels of travel or access that are
inconsistent with the functional
classification of a facility or would
reduce the level of service of the facility
below the minimum acceptable level
identified in the relevant transportation
system plan.
a. Where the option of providing
transportation facilities is chosen, the
applicant shall be required to
improve impacted roads to the full
standards of the affected authority as
a condition of approval. Timing of
such improvements shall be based
upon the timing of the impacts
created by the development as
determined by the traffic study or the
recommendations of the affected
road authority.
b. Access within the project shall be
adequate to serve the project in a safe
and efficient manner for each phase
of the project.
The development will not create the potential
for natural hazards identified in the County
Comprehensive Plan. No structure will be
located on slopes exceeding 25 percent. A
wildfire management plan will be
implemented to ensure that wildfire hazards
are minimized to the greatest extent practical
and allow for safe evacuation. With the
exception of the slope restriction of DCC
18.113.070, which shall apply to destination
resorts in forest zones, wildfire management
of destination resorts in forest zones shall be
subject to the requirements of DCC
18.40.070, where applicable, as to each
individual structure and dwelling.
I. Adequate public safety protection will be
available through existing fire districts or will
be provided onsite according to the
specification of the state fire marshal. If the
resort is located outside of an existing fire
district the developer will provide for staffed
structural fire protection services. Adequate
public facilities to provide for necessary
safety services such as police and fire will be
provided on the site to serve the proposed
development.
J. Streams and drainage. Unless otherwise
agreed to in writing by the adjoining property
owner(s), existing natural drainages on the
site will not be changed in any manner which
interferes with drainage patterns on adjoining
property. All surface water drainage changes
created by the development will be contained
on site in a manner which meets all standards
of the Oregon State Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ). The erosion
control plan for the subject development will
meet all standards of ORS 468.
K. Adequate water will be available for all
proposed uses at the destination resort, based
PAGE 11 OF 14 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (8/27/2007)
EXHIBIT "B"
upon the water study and a proposed water
conservation plan. Water use will not reduce
the availability of water in the water impact
areas identified in the water study
considering existing uses and potential
development previously approved in the
affected area. Water sources shall not
include any perched water table. Water shall
only be taken from the regional aquifer.
Where a perched water table is pierced to
access the regional aquifer, the well must be
sealed off from the perched water table.
L. The wastewater disposal plan includes
beneficial use to the maximum extent
practicable. Approval of the CMP shall be
conditioned on applicant's making application
to DEQ for a Water Pollution Control
Facility (WPCF) permit consistent with such
an approved wastewater disposal plan.
Approval shall also be conditioned upon
applicant's compliance with applicable
Oregon Administrative Rules regarding
beneficial use of waste water, as determined
by DEQ. Applicant shall receive approval of
a WPCF permit consistent with this provision
prior to applying for approval for its Final
Master Plan under DCC 18.113.
M. The resort will mitigate any demands it
creates on publicly-owned recreational
facilities on public lands in the surrounding
area.
N. Site improvements will be located and
designed to avoid or minimize adverse effects
of the resort on the surrounding land uses.
Measures to accomplish this may include
establishment and maintenance of buffers
between the resort and adjacent land uses,
including natural vegetation and appropriate
fences, berms, landscaped areas and similar
types of buffers; and setback of structures
and other developments from adjacent land
uses.
0. The resort will be served by an on-site
sewage system approved by DEQ and a water
system approved by the Oregon State Health
Division except where connection to an
existing public sewer or water system is
allowed by the County Comprehensive Plan,
such service will be provided to the resort.
P. The destination resort will not alter the
character of the surrounding area in a manner
that substantially limits, impairs or prevents
permitted or conditional uses of surrounding
properties.
Q. Commercial, cultural, entertainment or
accessory uses provided as part of the
destination resort will be contained within the
development and will not be oriented to
public highways adjacent to the property.
Commercial, cultural and entertainment uses
allowed within the destination resort will be
incidental to t:he resort itself. As such, these
ancillary uses will be permitted only at a
scale suited to serve visitors to the resort.
The commercial uses permitted in the
destination resort will be limited in type,
location, number, dimensions and scale (both
individually and cumulatively) to that
necessary to serve the needs of resort visitors.
A commercial use is necessary to serve the
needs of visitors if
1. Its primary purpose is to provide goods
or services that are typically provided to
overnight or other short-term visitors to
the resort, or the use is necessary for
operation., maintenance or promotion of
the destination resort; and
2. The use is oriented to the resort and is
located away from or screened from
highways or other major through
roadways.
R. A plan exists to ensure a transfer of common
areas, facilities such as sewer, water, streets
and responsibility for police and fire
protection to owners' associations or similar
groups if contemplated. If such transfer is
not contemplated, the owner or responsible
party shall be clearly designated. Adequate
open space, facility maintenance and police
and fire protection shall be ensured in
perpetuity in a manner acceptable to the
County.
S. Temporary structures will not be allowed
unless approved as part of the CMP.
PAGE 12 OF 14 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (8/27/2007)
e
EXHIBIT "B"
Temporary structures will not be allowed for
more than 18 months and will be subject to
all use and site plan standards of DCC Title
18.
T. The open space management plan is
sufficient to protect in perpetuity identified
open space values.
(Ord. 92-032 § 1, 1992; Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992)
18.113.075. Imposition of conditions.
The standards made applicable by DCC 18.113
may be met by the imposition of conditions
calculated to insure that the standard will be met.
(Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992)
18.113.080. Procedure for modification of a
conceptual master plan.
Any substantial change, as determined by the
Planning Director, proposed to an approved CMP
shall be reviewed in the same manner as the
original CMP. An insubstantial change may be
approved by the Planning Director. Substantial
change to an approved CMP, as used in DCC
18.113.080, means an alteration in the type, scale,
location, phasing or other characteristic of the
proposed development such that findings of fact
on which the original approval was based would
be materially affected.
(Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992)
18.113.090. Requirements for final master
plan.
It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to
provide a Final Master Plan (FMP) which
includes text and graphics explaining and
illustrating:
A. The use, location, size and design of all
important natural features, open space, buffer
areas and common areas;
B. The use and general location of all buildings,
other than residential dwellings and the
proposed density of residential development
by location;
C. Preliminary location of all sewer, water,
storm drainage and other utility facilities and
materials, and specifications and installation
methods for water and waste water systems;
D. Location and widths of all roads, streets,
parking, pedestrian ways, equestrian trails
and bike paths;
E. Methods to be employed to buffer and
mitigate potential adverse impacts on
adjacent resource uses and property;
F. Building elevations of visitor-oriented
accommodations, recreational facilities and
commercial services sufficient to demonstrate
the architectural character of the proposed
development;
G. A description of all commercial uses
including approximate size and floor area;
H. The location of or distance to any emergency
medical facilities and public safety facilities;
1. When a phase includes a residential
subdivision, a general layout of the
subdivision shall include the number of lots,
minimum and maximum lot sizes, and
approximate location of roadways shall be
included:
J. A description of measures taken, with copies
of deed restrictions, CC&R's and rental
contracts, to implement the requirements of
DCC 18.113.060(L). measufes identified
to be avemi& ledgiiigs for- at least 45 weeks
K. A description of measures taken, with copies
of deed restrictions and a final management
plan, to implement the open space
management plan required by DCC 18.113.
L. The status of all required off-site roadway
improvements.
M. Methods to be employed for managing
automobile traffic demand.
N. A copy of a WPCF permit issued by DEQ
consistent with the requirements of DCC
18.113.070(L).
(Ord. 2007-005 § 2, 2007; Ord. 92-004 § 13,
1992)
PAGE 13 OF 14 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (8/27/2007)
EXHIBIT "B"
18.113.100. Procedure for approval of final
master plan.
A. The IMP shall be submitted in a form
approved by the County Planning Director
consistent with DCC Title 22 for a
development permit. The Planning Director
shall review the IMP and if the Planning
Director fmds that all standards of the CMP
have been met, the IMP shall be approved in
writing without notice. If approval the IMP
involves the exercise of discretion, the IMP
shall be treated as a land use action and
notice shall be provided in accordance with
DCC Title 22;
B. If the Planning Director finds evidence in the
IMP of a substantial change from the CMP,
the Planning Director shall advise the
applicant to submit an application for
modification or amendment of the CMP.
(Ord. 92-004 § 13, 1992)
A. If a tract to be used as a destination resort
contains a resource site designated for
protection in an acknowledged
comprehensive plan pursuant to open spaces,
scenic and historic areas and natural resource
goals in an acknowledged comprehensive
plan, that tract of land shall preserve the
resource site by conservation easement
sufficient to protect the resource values of the
resource site in accordance with ORS
271.715 to 271.795.
B. A conservation easement under DCC
18.113.120 shall be recorded with the
property records of the tract on which the
destination resort is sited.
(Ord. 2007-005 § 2 2007
(Zoning maps adopted by Ord. 92-031 § 1, 1992)
18.113.110. Provision of streets, utilities,
developed recreational facilities
and visitor-oriented
accommodations.
A. The Planning Director or Hearings Body
shall find that all streets, utilities, developed
recreational facilities and visitor-oriented
accommodations required by the IMP are
physically provided or are guaranteed
through surety bonding or substantial
financial assurances approved by the County
prior to closure of sale of individual lots or
units.
B. Financial assurance or bonding to assure
completion of streets and utilities, developed
recreational facilities and visitor-oriented
accommodations in the IMP shall be
required pursuant to the security
requirements for site plan review and
subdivision review established by the
Deschutes County Code.
(Ord. 92-004 § 13,1992; Ord. 92-003 § 1, 1992)
18.113.120. Conservation easement to protect
resource site.
PAGE 14 OF 14 - DRAFT EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (8/27/2007)
Page 1 of 1
Terri Payne
From: Merlyn & Linda Webster [webweb@teleport.com]
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2007 11:32 AM
To: Terri Payne
Cc: webweb@teleport.com
Subject: Proposed changes to DR code, ref. Individually owned units
Terri Hello: Input for the up and coming public meeting planning session on Destination Resorts.
First I would like to point out a few issues. Sunriver is currently designated in the lands use as an rural urban
unincorporated community, not a destination resort. Accordingly it has and needs different land use rules and goals then a
pure Destination Resort.
When we were sold our lot and again when we decided to build our home, the Sunriver area we chose to build in was
and still is zoned for Single Residential homes. Recently we have notice a shift in the use of some homes in the area to
more over night Commercial Hotel / Motel rental type units. These individually owned homes by any State Land Use
planning rules/goals are now being run as a Commercial Business. These rental operations come with all the negative
transient activity, traffic, noise and crimes that affects the livability that we were convinced we had when we purchased
our property within the single residential zoned area of the community of 5unriver over 20 years ago.
In that the States statue, OR5 197.250, requires all local land use regulations to be consistent and comply with the
State Planning goals we take exception to the current Hotel/Motel rental units that are operating as commercial
businesses within our SR community. The current County Room Tax collection activity seems to be not only allowing but
profiting from this out of specification land use zoning issue as well and we would like the Planning Commission to take
corrective action.
Bottom line, any home that is available for rent 38 weeks or more a year, as is proposed in this code change, is in
my opinion being run as a commercial business. Given that the counties land use rules can not be more lenient then the
States Goals established for our Rural Urban Unincorporated Community the current Hotel/Motel rental usages should be
stopped.
I'm currently planning on attending the meeting, but please communicate these issues to the commissioners if for
some reason I'm not able to attend the public comment session.
Regards,
Merlyn H. Webster, P.E. (CA)
webweb@teleport.com
8/27/2007
From: Beverly Southern [I
Sent: Sunday, August 26,
To: Terri Payne
Subject: Destination Resc
Dear Madam We are
policies that will negal
Southern
007 7:09 PM
Destination Resorts.txt
)tmail.com]
again respectfully requesting that no changes be made to the destination resort
impact water supplies , traffic flow, sanitation or habitat. Sincerely Don and Beverly
Page 1
Marianne Fellner
64688 Cook Ave
Bend, OR 97701
August 27, 2007
Deschutes County Commissioners
Deschutes County Planning Commission
1300 Wall Street
Bend, OR 97701
RE: Proposed Amendment to Deschutes County Zoning Code Title 18, Destination
Resort Criteria
Dear Commissioners,
I urge you to deny the recent request by developers to change the Destination Resort
criteria to allow an increase in the ratio of residential housing to overnight lodging from
2: 1 to 2.5:1. Those of us that reside in rural Deschutes County object to the explosive
growth of suburban communites outside of the urban growth boundary under the ruse of
creating Destination Resorts.
Before we decrease the number of overnight lodging units, there needs to be more
information provided by existing resorts on the current impacts on our roads, water needs
and community infrastructure. The impact of increased traffic on the public safety of
existing communities, from Prineville to Redmond, Tumalo and Bend is huge. Deschutes
County and ODOT have repeatedly stated that there are no funds to improve our roads to
meet the demands of our current, steady growth.
Can these new homes actually pay for the increased demands on public services?
Is there credibility to the developer's economic arguments? It seems that there is
currently no actual documentation to support the claims by developers that the current
overnight units are paying their share for services. How will we generate funds to offset
the impacts on our roads? How will we document the effects on our police services and
natural resources?
Don't let greed and opportunism drive the overdevelopment of our rural
lands at the expense of our rural communities.
Sincerely,
Marianne Fellner
f G
August 27, 2007
Deschutes County Commissioners
Mike Daly, Chair
Dennis Luke
Tammy Baney
Public Hearing TA-04-4 Ordinance 2007-005
1 encourage the Commissioners to tighten the language in the Destination
Resort Ordinance and not to grant further development rights free-bees to the
resort community until such time as Deschutes County has the following in
place:
(1) methodology for enforcing the overnight lodging reporting by substantial dollar penalty
(2) commencement of a Deschutes County transportation SDC. This is imperative for the
financial health of our community.
Attached is a Deschutes County Road Department Five Year Resource / Requirement
Projections spreadsheet that shows the fall-off of Forest Receipt revenues. In FY 2005-06
the Resource Budget is rounded to $18million dollars, the projection for FY 2010-11 is
rounded to $14million dollars (this is a loss of $4 million dolllars in 6 years.)
To balance this loss, assumptions are made that the Road Department's personnel will be
cut by 6.5 FTE full time equivalent jobs between FY 06-07 and FY 08-09.
By these projections, there is no budget for overlayment projects in FY 2009-10 or FY
2010-11.
Attached is a cost of Asphalt Prices: in 2001 the cost / ton was $29.00, in 2007 the cost
per ton is $49.60. This increase far outpaces the annual CPI % that from 2001 would have
projected asphalt prices to $33.83 in 2007. The County is now paying 46% more for
asphalt than projected. Where in the County coffer is the resource to cover these current
shortfalls? What reserve is there now to account for these higher costs? When a project like
the Cline Falls Highway overlayment comes in $400'000.00 overbudget due to asphalt
prices, who pays?
Deschutes County needs a transportation SDC. Resorts should contribute toward the
shortfall that our county is facing. Further as adjacent Crook and Jefferson counties develop
their own resort communities their resort traffic often is destined for Deschutes County Cities
such as Sisters, Redmond and Bend. Without a County transportation SDC, Deschutes
County and our cities have no basis to collect for these demands on the infrastructure.
Do not allow overnight rentals to be managed other than through a central resort
reservation system. If you do, there will be no way to audit for a central annual
report. Already, the resorts do not report their rentals and the County is remiss
to not collect the resort Overnight Lodging receipts.
Keep the ratio of home:overnight 2.0 : 1.0 any greater permanent housing ratio
translates to greater subdivisions.
Thank you p t,~ J
Nunzie Gould
19845 JW Brown Rd, Bend, OR 97701 541-420-3325 enclosures: 2
r +
uj
G ~
Q '
a'
Lu
0 ~
0 i
NQ
I.L 1
H 1
Z
U~
co
W~
U'
U
o
T.- 4i
1- O It 0 0 w O O N O
O
N
r y
w 00 O tO 0 0 0 Nt O
O
00
O' w
Cfl O M O OJ C \L tt) LO O
r
N
r
CO O CO 1- T T O M
O
ti
CO
_
0
0 ti O
N
O ~
ce) CA L
O
T"
M
LL
r
'It a N O T M O O d O
O
T
r
M 0 0 0 'It O O O T O
to
T
y
' I
T O i-- O O O O U.) 00 O
T-
CA
O
(6 Om1-N6 O TO
to
O
O
co CO N CO N co LO OD O
N
M
N
M 1- O M 1- to
O
CA
T T T CC
d
L6
LL
r
o)
CO O Co 0 (O N 0 0 co 0
O
N
CD (n
T O G O M M 0 0 0 0
-4
CD
O w
T O (O O T CM O to 1- O
in
It
O
Itto T I- to C) CD U*) (D
O)
C70
0
0
1 r N 0
tO
N
C
O
0 00 ( (O t
(N
t
O
C \f
to
to
LL
r
W 'a
CO 0 0 0 0 0 to 0 0 0
r
T
O N
0CD (0CD 0OcY000
r
t`
N
I- OI- Od' M If LO OO
r
O a
NOOI-OONN 0 0
M
T
O
O to w w w tO I-- O co
(C
to
N O
M T T Co CA M qqT O
V-
CO
} a.
to T 0 M
o
to
LL
N
1,-
1,- 000001 OOO
v
to
7
tO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N
O
C
M O O O 'I' O qt to O O
P.
O a
M O O 1l V Lo (fl O tC)
r
N
O m
~ LO CO (D O T~ O CO
tt
r
N Q
CO T O 1- O M CA O
co
}
d- T 11 M
O
to
LL
r
w
O d
LO C) C)
0 0
C) C) CD C) C) C)
0 0 0 0 0 0
W O O
d' O O LO O O
O m
r- 000 to
O N N O W
N
O T
-T LO Cl) to CA
tO
rl N
LL
0
J
p
4)
M
'
CU
3
-p r
)
Q
Z
y Z
Q
L.L
U U ca
0
C)
.S U)
O v (j)
o
N (1) Z w
D
Ir
0)
U Z
i> Q
V~
"W gww
Cl)
C3 a- z
z
aaiw SZ>
<
w
E -j w
w
_
°F-Z0wF-
t_
Q tT
<
d
~~Qw Ja
W LL
y
U
Cl
EotS(9caVU
M:
Z F (L
O Q
> W
W
Z w LL N
Zcf
LL LL
C LL F-
0
w
O
-
F- F-
0
w
F-
w
mZZ(A
~ _ (n(nJ~LL
Qo
w
O
O
r
J
H
O
I-
w
U
D
O
N
w
Ir
LO
Ln
CO
CT
M
O
LO
O ^ O N N O
m O co
m
t0 t0 O co
^
to ~r t c q
tti
ty h ^ (0 N
N N
O
t)
Cl
N
O
C.
O
to
O
t`
N
,I
M
O
t0
N
~
O
O
vi
t
^
(
N
to
(
0
N
N
N
(0 0 0 0 0 0
f- to Cl O O O
O N O O O O
N ~ v K O
•C.)- " ^ CO N to
N N'
t.
O
O
O
O
Co
oo
0
0
0
Co
0
t`
0
0
0
0
0
w
td
•
O
K
O
^
V)
N
N
N
0 0 0 0 0
tI 0 0 0 0 0
t1D tri O O O
CO N O t0 O
CO N ^ t0 N N
N N
to Cl O O O O
O O O O O O
L f! O O O O
troo 00
~ N co co N Co
NI
COOO N
rn O O N
N O LO
o 't O "It
^ M tO O
O Cl) LO
CO
U) O O 0i
00 O T
M LO 000
00
I-
T O O 1-
O
(0
CD OD
to
~
to
O (O
r
O
~
^
N
t
-
N
CO
It O
O
(Q
T
T
O
N
O
I~ T
v
0i
0t
N O O 00
N O O T
Lo O O
N to C
00 ~ O co
(O T M 1`
1` co N
O
O
00i
rn 0
O
O
O
r
O
Qf
N
co
L
T
V-
M
CO
r
0
N
L O O N q*
00 0 0 M N
1- O O 0 1`
r LO O N T
%T ti O T le
CA co O m co
r. C7 00
T
U) O O Co to
~ O O T r
O to O (D oo
m 00 Co M T -
CC) 1` O 00 w
CO to O 00 O
(o ~ co
T-
9 Q
° W
w C/)
~
W
z
LL
a
co U
Or
ao
WO>
J
C) cc
CL co CL
W
U)
?
Z C)
LL WNy
LO 03 ::K
x
u
J _
WQcj j
o W W ~ a O
W
j W
O ~U
~ W w
o U Cd C) -j
~ JCD0ZZ
~ U
Z
W
W 0 0
U dZ
J
IQ-
~
0
LL
tocWW ~~W~'~
i~ a~
~
(
i~
QO
Z
}~Z
w_j
0
O
F-
w
m
"a Z)
UWQ
J CO J Q
~
Co
U)~ vU
ly
Z
-IWw
ZQ 2
ZW
~C,
)
Q
-10
- Z
a
LL
~
n
=
)C
~tia
Cl)
-
_
?J
Q
w~ZC
_
w
I;t
w~
QQwa
w
m
a-
2 UF-O
W
at
0 R at
•2EZ
a N
E N L
W
N
L
m C E
C (U
O_ ~p
AR. m
2.2
o
> >
m O A
m O L
7
C
O
O 0 N >
m
N N
7 ~
E
Q
E- N
O
O
O to
3
C
N
m
w
N
m
O
LL
A
X
N
III
m
0
U
m
2 -
CL
U)
n CO
O °
° o
N .N
co a
ASPHALT PRICES
YEAR
BID PRICE
ANNUAL CPI
2001 PRICE*CPI
2001
$29.00
$29.00
2002
$28.46
1.6
$29.46
2003
$32.80
2.3
$30.14
2004
$38.91
2.7
$30.96
2005
$36.27
3.4
$32.01
2006
$43.32
3.2
$33.03
2007
$49.60
2.4
$33.83
ASPHALT PRICE ESCALATION
$55
00
.
$50.00
^n
} ~
Tf. t'k -fin ~Y
$45
00
.
of + '^t j.~ s• 7
0 $40.00
t
`
O & 'IF hd' y5y. 9
$35.00
' T ~1`4t
C
f
,
r4
t
$30.00
r5i t r e
~1 r~~: ~d ~~~tnflafion)
y ~
»
~
$25
00
.
~
quY
~kSc'SfIC~i 'Nr rr ~ J v ~ A~
h
$20
00
I
.
N co V- Lo (o ti
O O
O
O O
O O
N N N N N N N
YEAR
FW TA-04-4; Ordinance 2007-005.txt
From: KELLY KAREN SMITH [mailto:kls1998@msn.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 4:44 PM
To: Board
Subject: TA-04-4; Ordinance 2007-005
Dear Commissioners Luke, Daly, and Baney:
I have a couple of thoughts regarding your public hearing tomorrow. I am not sure I will able to get there in time to
testify, so I am emailing now. Please include this in the public record.
First, I believe you are doing a disservice to the community by holding the public hearing during working hours.
Most of your constituents are working folk and find it difficult to take time off to attend a hearing at 10 am on a
Monday. The destination resort topic has proven to be of considerable interest to many people, and the public
hearing should accommodate them. I urge you to hold another public hearing during evening hours prior to
adopting an ordinance.
Second, I found the wording of your proposed ordinance 2007-005 interesting. You cite the Planning Commission
meeting of November 4, 2004 and their recommendation to adopt the proposed amendment, but you fail to cite
the much-more-recent Planning Commission meeting of December 14, 2006 (following the public hearing of
December 4), and their recommendation to adopt only the first three of your seven issues in the amendment. Why
is that? In my opinion, you certainly don't have to cite any of the meetings or recommendations, but the selective
manner in which you word the ordinance implies agreement from the Planning Commission, which you do not
have. Please correct this at your public hearing tomorrow.
Now to the substance of your proposed ordinance. I appreciate the considerable time and effort you have devoted
to attempting to make the resorts accountable. They need to be accountable, and the proposed amendments will
help in that regard. The process needs to be transparent, and the records should be publicly available; will they
be? With regard to accountability, I fail to see a sufficient "hammer" in the ordinance to ensure compliance,
especially once building permits have been issued for residences after the first 50 overnight units have been built.
The county code enforcement provisions are a joke in this regard.
Further, I see no justification for decreasing the rental-availability requirement from 45 to 38 weeks. Certainly the
public input you have heard does not support that. Neither, I would think, would projected county tax receipts. A
38-week requirement means 14 weeks (over 3 months) of non-availability, in all likelihood the most desirable
rental times (summer and holidays). For example, that could be all of the months of June, July, and August, plus
spring break. This would make it less likely that units will be rented. It doesn't do anyone any good to have rental
units available but unrented. Please rethink this.
Finally, although it looks as if you are not considering at this time the proposed increase in housing ratio to 2.5:1, 1
want to make it clear that I (and the public of which I am aware) am very much opposed to that increase.
Thank you for considering my thoughts.
Kelly Smith
Deschutes County Planning Commissioner (but of course, these are my thoughts, and I do not represent the
Commission)
Page 1
Bonnie Baker
From:
darrin_black@juno.com
Sent:
Monday, August 27, 2007 2:43 PM
To:
Board
Subject:
Todays 10am meeting
Greetings:
Was unable to attend today's hearing to discuss a new code for Resorts and the enforcement
of the law. I urge you to make this law work and enforce the Resorts (existing and
proposed)who agreed to abide by the law when they received approval for development. If
you fail to enforce the law then people are going to assume that you are in the pocket of
developers. The law is the law... not to be modified for anyone. Where can I get the
results of this meeting and what was proposed or approved?
On another subject, In the area where I reside there are many homes that have illegal
second homes and the law is not being upheld or enforced.
Would like to know why?
Respectfully,
Darrin Black
1
I ~
C1 ~
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.orc
BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA - LAND USE
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
10:00 A.M., MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2007
Commissioners' Hearing Room - Administration Building - 1300 NW Wall St., Bend
1. CITIZEN INPUT
This is the time provided for individuals wishing to address the Board, at the Board's
discretion, regarding issues that are not already on the agenda. Citizens who wish to speak
should sign up prior to the beginning of the meeting on the sign-up card provided. Please
use the microphone and also state your name and address at the time the Board calls on you
to speak. PLEASE NOTE: Citizen input regarding matters that are or have been the subject
of a public hearing will NOT be included in the record of that hearing.
2. CONSIDERATION of Signature of Final Decision, and First Reading of
Ordinance No. 2007-022, Changing the Zone Designation for Certain Property
from Forest Use F-1 to Forest Use F-2 (Applicant: Pine Forest Development
LLC) - Will Groves, Community Development Department
3. A PUBLIC HEARING regarding a Revised Application for a Tentative Plat,
Modifying a Plan for a Measure 37 Subdivision (Applicant: C Corp
Homes/Arnett) - Paul Blikstad, Community Development Department
4. A PUBLIC HEARING on Ordinance No. 2007-005, Destination Resort Code
Amendments - Terri Payne, Community Development
5. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
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.
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, August 27, 2007
Page 1 of 5 Pages
FUTURE MEETINGS:
(Please note: Meeting dates and times are subject to change. All meetings take place 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)
Monday, August 27, 2007
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting - Land Use
12 noon Meeting with District Attorney, Others regarding Parole & Probation Misdemeanant
Supervision
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Wednesday. August 29, 2007
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, August 30, 2007
11:00 a.m. Meeting with New U.S. Forest Service Supervisor for the Deschutes National Forest
(John Allen) and Staff
Monday, September 3, 2007
Most County offices will be closed to observe Labor Day.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, September 6, 2007
10:00 a.m. District Attorney Update
11:00 a.m. Community Development Department Update
1:30 p.m. Road Department Update
Monday, September 10, 20007
3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council)
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, August 27, 2007
Page 2 of 5 Pages
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
2:00 p.m. Tour and Overview of Alyce Hatch Center, Bend
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, September 13, 2007
7:00 a.m. Regular Meeting with the Redmond City Council, Redmond Council Chambers
10:00 a.m. Health Department Update
11:00 a.m. Mental Health Department Update
Monday, September 17, 2007
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
4:30 p.m. Meeting with City of Bend Council, at Bend City Hall
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
10:00 a.m. Regular Meeting of the Employee Benefits Advisory Committee
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
9:30 a.m. Juvenile Community Justice Department Update
10:30 a.m. Parole & Probation Department Update
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, September 20, 2007
7:00 a.m. Meeting with Bend Chamber of Commerce - Legislative Policy Council
12:00 noon Regular Meeting of the Audit Committee
Monday, September 24, 2007
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting - Land Use
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, August 27, 2007
Page 3 of 5 Pages
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, September 27, 2007
9:00 a.m. Fair & Expo Department Update
11:00 a.m. Commission on Children & Families' Department Update
1:30 p.m. Sheriff's Department Update, at Sheriffs Office
Monday, October 1, 2007
10:00 a.m. Board Land Use Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
3:30 p.m. Regular Meeting of LPSCC (Local Public Safety Coordinating Council)
5:30 p.m. Regular Dinner Meeting with the Judges, at Ernesto's
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, October 4, 2007
8:00 a.m. Regular meeting with the City of Sisters Council, Sisters City Hall
9:30 a.m. Regular meeting with Judge Fadeley, Sisters
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Monday, October 15, 2007
12:00 noon Regular Meeting with Department Heads
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, August 27, 2007
Page 4 of 5 Pages
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
11:30 a.m. Leadership Sisters Panel, Sisters City Hall
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, October 18, 2007
7:00 a.m. Meeting with Bend Chamber of Commerce - Legislative Policy Council
Monday, October 22, 2007
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Thursday, October 25, 2007
4:00 p.m. U.S. Highway 97 - North Corridor Steering Committee Meeting
Monday, October 29, 2007
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
10:00 a.m. Board of Commissioners' Meeting
1:30 p.m. Administrative Work Session - could include executive session(s)
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.
Board of Commissioners' Business Meeting Agenda Monday, August 27, 2007
Page 5 of 5 Pages