2007-1623-Minutes for Meeting October 22,2007 Recorded 11/7/2007DESCHUTES COUNTY OFFICIAL RECORDS 7001■16Z3
NANCY BLANKENSHIP, COUNTY CLERK
COMMISSIONERS' JOURNAL 11/07/2007 09;14.37 AM
III3IIIIIIIIIIIIII II III
i
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
w~ ~-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
MINUTES OF WORK SESSION
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2007
Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tammy Baney.
Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; and David Inbody,
Assistant to the County Administrator; and, for a portion of the meeting„ Teresa
Rozic, Property Management; Joe Studer, County Forester; Laurie Craghead,
Legal Counsel; Anna Johnson, Communications; Terri Payne, Community
Development; and three members of the public (Nunzie Gould, Erik Kancler and
Kelly Smith). No representatives of the media were in attendance.
Chair Daly opened the meeting at 12:45 p.m.
1. Continued Discussion of Title III Funding Options.
Dave Kanner referred to a handout regarding Title III funding, showing what is
available and what is being or could be funded. Title III will be exhausted in
three years under one option, in four years under another, and in five years in
another option.
Commissioner Daly asked Joe Stutler asked if the Sheriff's Office spends all of
the funds each year. The Sheriff has indicated he would like to dedicate some
to the Heart of Oregon Corps if funding for the Corps is cut.
Commissioner Baney stated that she would like to see an open process and let
others apply. Mr. Kanner said that they have solicited applications on a
competitive basis in the past. At that point, a committee recommends to the
Board how the money should be allocated. Commissioner Luke noted that
there is no reason to go out for applications now that the program is being
discontinued.
Mr. Kanner said that all the Title II and Title III money could be put into one
fund and a decision made on whether to fund outside agencies or use the money
to extend County programs.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Monday, October 22, 2007
Page 1 of 5 Pages
Commissioner Baney stated that in view that there was just a one-year
extension of the program, she feels that allocations to outside agencies should
not be done at this time because the dollars just are not there now and may not
be available in the future. She would like to keep the core programs together
and strong for as long as possible. If, however, additional federal funding were
available, she would like to see those dollars go back in the community and not
just held in reserves.
Commissioner Luke explained that if funding is given to outside agencies, general
fund dollars will have to be used to keep the County's program going later on.
There is a strong commitment to the community to continue County programs.
Commissioner Daly pointed out that Search and Rescue is funded through
District 1 revenue. Commissioner Luke said that the money goes to equipment.
The Search and Rescue group is all volunteers. District 1 is to fund Sheriff
personnel and not volunteers.
Joe Stutler then went over the other two alternatives. He feels that the third
option would slow down the effectiveness of the programs.
Commissioner Daly asked what would happen if the Sheriff decided to keep
funding the Heart of Oregon. Commissioner Baney said that they have to keep
managing the forests, and it is important not to put this money into the
operations of another non-County entity. The County cannot depend on the
federal government providing future timber payments. She wants to support
local non-profits but the County programs take priority.
BANEY: Move approval of alternative 2.
LUKE: Second.
VOTE: LUKE: Yes.
BANEY: Yes.
DALY: Chair votes no. (Split vote.)
2. Discussion of Destination Resort Code Changes.
Terri Payne reviewed a memo submitted to the Board on October 21. The main
concern of opponents is changing from 45 weeks to 38; they feel this
encourages the use of individually owned houses as overnight lodging, and this
will cause more people to buy homes and use them as residences instead of
putting them in the rental pool.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Monday, October 22, 2007
Page 2 of 5 Pages
In regard to the location of the resort office- location and the availability of
information, language has been developed in this regard to make sure the
information is accessible.
Commissioner Baney pointed out that the Planning Commission voted for the
45 weeks, with one abstention and one no vote. Commissioner Daly said that a
lot of people don't want to see destination resorts. However, since they are here
the County needs to cooperate to make sure they are successful. They are good
for the economy and people who live in them have a relatively high standard of
living. It is a win-win situation. Some people think they are rural subdivisions
in disguise, but they are planned unit developments and they have done good
things for the area.
Commissioner Luke stated that there are a lot of things in State law that allow
the County to restrict what they can do. They are allowed under State law and
he does not want to see them go broke. If lowering the number of weeks can
help to keep them solvent, he has no problem with that. There is nothing
magical about those numbers. The applicant made a strong case and he doesn't
see how it would cause the County to be overrun by development. This may
not change anything much. It is not an easy process for the existing resorts to
make changes anyway. Most people cannot afford to own one of these
properties and not have it in the rental pool, unless they can afford to hold it
empty. Therefore, there is an incentive to keep it rented out.
Ms. Payne advised that this would be placed on a future agenda for approval.
There is no need for an emergency clause as there is nothing in the development
pipeline at this time.
3. Consideration of Economic Development Grant Requests.
• Redmond 2J Education Foundation - Commissioner Luke expressed
concern about this funding operations, but he granted $500 and
Commissioner Baney granted $500.
• Pot of Gold Thrift Store - Commissioner Luke asked for verification that
staff is not running the program, as it was supposed to be set up as a
nonprofit. Commissioner Baney asked to know how much the other
counties are contributing since the program seems to be regional in nature.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Monday, October 22, 2007
Page 3 of 5 Pages
Commissioner Baney had to leave the meeting at this point.
4. Other Items.
Commissioner Daly said that an agency retained by the Oregon Consortium,
which is made up of 23 counties, has misappropriated a lot of money. The
federal government has asked that $800,000 be returned. Mr. Kanner advised
that he has asked Legal Counsel if the County has any liability; thus far, Mr.
Pilliod feels there is none. Commissioner Daly will be attending the conference
later in the week.
Mr. Kanner stated that Code requires a code review committee to review
ordinances, but it has been determined that this is not necessary anymore and, in
fact, there are very few members of the committee active at this point. The
Commissioners advised that steps should be taken to delete this requirement
from Code.
In regard to a recent ADA claim regarding a handicapped person who has had a
code enforcement complaint filed against him, Commissioner Daly would like
to discuss this further to determine if there is a problem.
Commissioner Luke advised that granting exceptions could cause difficulty
since there are other protected classes to consider. The person who has brought
this issue up has retained legal counsel and his arguments were already rejected.
Home occupation rules are a land use and should already have an exception
process in place.
Mr. Kanner advised that the Board should not get involved at all if there is an
active code enforcement case. He will check on this and advise the Board.
Being no further discussion, Chair Daly adjourned the meeting at 3:45 p.m.
Minutes of Administrative Work Session Monday, October 22, 2007
Page 4 of 5 Pages
DATED this 22"d Day of October 2007 for the Deschutes County Board
of Commissioners.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
Dennis R. Luke, Vice Chair
af?~:7 - -
Tammy Baney, Commissi er
Minutes of Administrative Work Session
Page 5 of 5 Pages
Monday, October 22, 2007
-1(X1 0~~ ~
G a
❑ -t
Deschutes County Board. of Commissioners
1300 NW Wall St., Suite 200, Bend, OR 97701-1960
(541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.org
WORK SESSION AGENDA
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
12 NOON, MONDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2007 - please note earlier time!
1. Continued Discussion of Title III Funding Options
2. Discussion of Destination Resort Code Changes - Terri Payne
3. Consideration of Economic Development Grant Requests
Redmond 2J Education Foundation
• Pot of Gold Thrift Store
4. Other Items
PLEASE NOTE:
At any time during this meeting, an executive session could be called to address issues relating to: ORS 192.660(2) (e), real property negotiations;
ORS 192.660(2) (h), pending or threatened litigation; or ORS 192.660(2) (b), personnel issues
Meeting dates, times and discussion items are subject to change. All meetings are conducted in the Board of Commissioners' meeting rooms at
1300 NW Wall St., Bend, unless otherwise indicated.
If you have questions regarding a meeting, please call 388-6572.
Deschutes County meeting locations are wheelchair accessible.
Deschutes County provides reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
For deaf, hearing impaired or speech disabled, dial 7-1-1 to access the state transfer relay service for TTY.
Please call (541) 388-6571 regarding alternative formats or for further information.
Aj"n_ z,t~
k~ 1 / 1 ~-s
Title III Options
History: Deschutes County has received both Title II and Title III dollars for
approximately five years since the Secure Funding Legislation passed. Recently a one-
year extension gave the counties an additional allocation to buy time which will allow
counties additional time to identify alternative funding strategies for not only Title II and
III projects but the road maintenance funds. Congress is looking at alternative legislative
measures which would replace previous payments based on timber sale receipts but that
outcome in both unpredictable and may be several years before counties see results.
Traditionally Title II and Title III funding has been appropriated on a 70%-30% split
respectively. For 2007 the Deschutes County BOCC reversed the percentage spread and
the total amount available for Title III is approximately $765,000. In previous years Title
III received approximately $250,000 annually which was allocated to the following
recipients:
• Deschutes County Sheriff
• Deschutes County Forester
• Project Wildfire
• Heart of Oregon
• High Desert Museum
• Glades Meadow restoration project.
• Edgington Road District
• Nature Conservancy
• Wolf Tree Education Foundation
• Other education/natural resource initiatives.
Title III dollars can only be spent in specific areas as per the legislation:
• Emergency services on public lands, i.e. Search and Rescue and materials.
• Costs for supervising mandatory community service work on public lands.
• Easements for access or conservation.
• Forest related education.
• Fire prevention and planning.
• Community, Forestry.
Alternatives and Strategy: The only thing certain is that the extension of the funding
will be the last Deschutes County will see until Congress passes new legislation. The
timing and fiinding amounts is unknown, consequently impossible to predict.
Based on the available information there are three viable alternatives to consider:
Alternative 1: Continue with existing process allocating approximately $250,000
annually to qualifying applicants. This would give Deschutes County approximately
three years before Title III funding is exhausted.
Alternative 2: Fund the Deschutes County Sheriff, @ $75,000, the County Forester @
$75,000 and Project Wildfire @ $40,000 annually which will give Deschutes County
approximately four years before Title III funding is exhausted.
Alternative 3: Fund the Deschutes County Sheriff, @ $50,000, the County Forester @
$50,000 and Project Wildfire @ $25,000 annually which will give Deschutes County
approximately five years before Title III funding is exhausted.
Preferred Alternative is 2: Keeping the funding at the identified levels will allow the
Sheriff's Department, Forester and Project Wildfire to operate at "sufficient levels."
Both the Forester and Project Wildfire have other grant dollars to supplement the
programs but can not operate with grant funding alone. Project Wildfire has brought in
excess of $1.5 million dollars to Deschutes County thru grant writing efforts we must
maintain this as a viable program because of the success of the program and our
interagency commitments. Having a stable budget for at least four years is an added
advantage from a planning advantage.
The other two alternatives either will not extend Title III funding for a sufficient time
period or in the case of Alternative 3, those dollars amounts for the Sheriff Department or
Forester will result in significantly reduced services and reduce flexibility to utilize grant
funding opportunities.
The consequences of this alternative versus Alternative #1 is programs such as Heart of
Oregon and other worthy endeavors will have to seek alternative funding sources. This
will not be a popular decision but at this point with funding potentially going away, we
simply must take care of existing programs within County government. Project Wildfire
is an anomaly in that the program was created and still currently managed by County
ordinance
Choosing Alternative 2 will allow Deschutes County sufficient time to develop funding
strategies if in fact Title III dollars or other funding schemes completely end.
M
O
O
Cl)
O
O
O
O
O
L}L
U)
00
O
V
O
O
LO
N
T-
co
d
I-
~
O
~
CA
co
69
~
Q
a
~
C)
00
M
(0
Ce)
M
V
L
M
O
O
0
LL
Q
0)
M
C)
N
O
O
co
0)
U)
C4
T
1~
C
O
C \L
O
In
r
00
I
O
F-
M
T
to
O
O
O
co
T
O)
tO
V
N
M
O
Lf)
~
M
o
Q
EA
Efl
(.0
UY
69
N
LO
CO
N
O
O
O
M
O
O
O
O
O
CO
1~
M
M
O
O
O
1~
O
O
O
O
~
J
r
r
CM
to
r
CO
O
O
O
LO
O
O
N
Q
r
O
V
M
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
LO
O
=
CO
to
00
O
t0
C
O
O
CO
O
O
O
O
p
r
1-
0
0
00
O
0
O
LC)
CO
O
O
co
V
O
In
r
to
N
M
r
r
O
N
M
r
LO
O
a
,
m
0
69
L
64
H9
Cf3
(a
K?
ER
6s
M
6q
6
~
O
O
O
Go
O
O
O
CO
O
O
O
r
co
N
g
r
M
q
N
O
N
O
O
O
M
LL
J
Q
M
LO
M
f`
M
It
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
co
Il
O
O
CD
O
O
N
M
m
O
Lq
r
T
O
N
M
O
e%
r
-
0
O
O
0)
O
O
H
co
O
CO
le
(0
U')
LCD
T
O
Ln
O
N
4
0
M
O
0)
m
6s
Ql.~
M
O
Q
ER
(Al
LO
40
r
(o
V?-
69>
Cf3
6f?
O
0)
00
0)
00
0
0
0
0
N
N
C'M
O
1~
N
r
0
0
O
O
~
to
~
00
f•
~
O
O
O
0
r
Q
-t
CO
-t
1•
co
"t
O
O
O
O
N
_
't
CO
CO
"t
00
O
O
O
1~
r
Q
N
p
I`
v
-
M
to
00
It
V)
C)
to
M
(h
1~
V)
N
O
CO
69
-
M
M
Z
0
O
Q
Efj
IA
to
64
Ef?
co
m
mw
=
LL
Z
m
T-
00
co
O
O
LO
CO
O
r
r
N
O
00
T
M
O
00
r
J
U')
V
O
CO
1~
M
O
O
O
M
l
O
_
O
M
J
M
=
C
O
D
O
D
p
i
~
V
N
r
O
t
co
C!~
O
LO
r
N
O
r
O
r-
_
N
64
co
M
Cf3
64
CA
e-
O
N
co
co
C
O
CO
r-
t.
N
U
ti
a
O
L
.
C
O
a
0
co
It
0
co
-
V
cM
E~?
CM
N
Gs
d~9
M
•
o
Q
ss
to
(Al
t~
U)
V
O
CO
7
Z
D
C)
C
O
LL
O
CD
to
Q.
O
o m _
N
N
E
-
"
N
CO
O
C
o
a)
0)
C
O
CL
co
n
0)
U
Cu
U
>
O
E
a
a~
ca
~o
L
Lo
`
i
i
LU
a)
o
U
o
"
=
F-
o
c
c
=3
Z
a~
w
W
)
o
Ch
U
a
0
5
cn
Z•
o
U
LL
ai
c
~
(n
=
W
Z
o
v
a)
C
c
o
r
"O
W
O
a)
c
a
v>
N
0
LL
06
c
`
co
O
in
N
~
Q
V
>
W
N
7
CL)
Z
O
?
.
-
p
a
)
o
)
O
O
U)
ai
O
O
0)
in
C
O
Z
w
w w LLI
V
fn
0
L
7
0
L
0
C
O
L
O
LL
"O
.0
L
O
(n
-
O
U)
L
N
cn
U
C
LL
W
Z
~
O
(ILO)
O
(n
a
O
U)
c
c
C
LL
C~
U
o
O
j
m
O
'
X
Q
CD
W
'
C
o
~
0
0
>
'D
~
W
W
C
C
O
c
O
N
C
Co
O
c
L
fA
L
O
C
c
c
w
«
t.)
v
>
N
Z
W
W
O
O
E
V)
O)
O
OO
CL
O
O
O
N
N
p (O
N
a
E
O
Q
W
O
Q
cu
U)
E
cn
co
~
7:
<
LL
0
0
0
W
O
d
O
W
E
Z
F-
LL
O
-
L
?
V
O
O
co
O
2
L
O
O
m
Li
Cq
U
W
LL
1-
r-
cV
M
v
ui
--I
CD
a
rn
0
N
T
ti
0
0
N
r
O
r
Y
.a
v
m
O_
a
U)
Q
O
U ~
C C)
Q1 N
C N
00-
o
0
U) -t o
CU O
L =
Cl)
o rn
C O
CU
E ~
La
a
O M O O co T- O Lo I,- Lo O Lo ICT d'
O f~ O O Lo O M Lo I` O M N Cr) 00
CD O O O 4 M O M N CD O I_: N 4
O O O O M O Lo O O O O M 00 T -
CD oo M Lo Lo M M d N co ti O Lo to
~f d7 r r ~Y CC r Ict N O qqT w
M ~t 0)
O co Nco
T
Lo co
Il oc CO
M rl- r
N M
00
O O O ti N N Lo- M
COD O LO 00 O 0 co ~ M Lo O 00 V
O
Ln 1- M Cfl M N I, 1- N
r <Y' r CA
r T
t O Lo Lo O N LM 0) co
O N It LO C Lo cM- M
V O ti O Lo CA
r r Lo r O
Lo 0) ~ N ) Lo
O CD OM 0) N C.0 m
N .1rl: M O
O CO
T
II- oo co 00 N O co
ti O 'IT Nt N
N M c 0~0 t00o ~ O
Nt CV) `o co L N cto
T
CD 0 00 Lo i LLo M o r It M
0c0 V c 0 ~ ~ O co
N Lo 00 N N I-- O O
rn ~ ~ ~ an
T
ti
M M 00 ti CO
0)
0) ti Lo to co
Cfl co O N
q'i T
N W
N
N N
C =
c p
N
CU
CL a) O Q C p 06
N N _ N
O N CU E O '0
c CL
06 f cf) m O a m s
~ m c? d3 c o "J U rn
c o c > N ` H c O
C O O (0 O N E O u~ O U
` J 0 O CU >
-j A cc CA
=3 LL cn Cl)
o J >p ZT
~ p > > 0 ~
N Q cu ` > C
to L CU CL CU E E co .0.. E -a
m a`0. > a`. LOL U U z Li U 0 m H
Lo O Lo O Lo O Lo Lo co I- Lo O O
O M (o O O M CA N N N I- r N
N N N N M M M co CD (o
t
C
N
Fn
LQ
w
c
O
rn
c
E
.C
CU
a
c
O
c
r_
O
7
U
N
N
N
ca
'O
N
Cr
Lv
N
CL
O
I~ o_
CD
0
N
N
U
O U
0
L ~
ZT co
7 co
O
F- U
~ N
AMENDMENTS INCLUDED IN PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2007-005
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 as 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
lod in , accessible to the Count with 72 hour notice
Re uire resorts to create and maintain a rental 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
Ian ua a are enforceable b Count Code Enforcement
AMENDMENTS NOT INCLUDED IN PROPOSED ORDINANCE 2007-005
Permitted by 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
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 MEMO
To: Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
From: Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner
Date: October 11, 2007
Subject: 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.
11. Pubic Comment
The Board kept the written record on this proposal open until September 30th. Because the 30th
was a Sunday, comments were allowed until 5 p.m. on October 1. The comments received
from Central Oregon Landwatch and Merlyn H. Webster are attached, along with testimony to
the Planning Commission from Nunzie Gould.
III. Work Session
A worksession has been scheduled for October 22 at 1:30 p.m. for a final informal discussion of
this ordinance.
Attachments
1. Public Comments
2. Draft Ordinance 2007-005
a. DCC 18.04.030 amendments
b. DCC 18.113 amendments
Quality Services Perfortned with Pride
TES
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/
MINUTES
DESCHUTES COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER
1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701
SEPTEMBER 27, 2007.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Commissioner Shirtcliff. Members present were
Mike Shirtcliff, Brenda Pace, Todd Turner and Robert Otteni. Absent: Kelly Smith, Keith Cyrus
and Susan Quatre. Staff present were Will Groves, Senior Planner; Peter Russell, Senior
Transportation Planner; Tom Anderson, CDD Director, and Sher Buckner, Administrative
Secretary.
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND CONCERNS
Nunzie Gould offered testimony regarding TA-04-04 and the destination` resortissue. October 1:
is the' County Commission's deadline for testimony., They are taking written comments,, but
public testimony has concluded.. Nunzie wanted to encourage the: Panning -Commission not to
take developer-driven applications for changes. She also asked'. ab.o.utthe accountability, ;for
purrent, occupancy,' and encouraged,tfle"Commissioners-to forward` commerits, to the-Board
Ill. PUBLIC HEARING -File Nos. PA-07-061TA-07-6 - Plan and Text Amendments to create a
set of regulations for a new Sunriver Town Center District in the Sunriver Urban
Unincorporated Community - Will Groves, Senior Planner
Will Groves summarized the current proposed amendments and procedures relating to them.
He also mentioned that there would be a presentation by the applicant and submittal of some
revised documents.
John Goodman and Mark Sueno offered testimony on behalf of Applicant Silverstar
Destinations for what they consider to be a redevelopment of a commercial district, rather than a
new development, and also distinguished the proposed development from a destination resort.
They wanted to make clear that they have been working closely with the residents, including the
Sunriver Owners' Association and Sunriver Resort, while undertaking this project. They have
also worked with the County over the years. They feel that the project is not controversial,
although audience members here this evening are not in favor of it for the most part, and the
project has been embraced by the community. Part of the necessity for collaboration is the fact
Quality Services Performed with Pride
~~70<J 1~An~ 1A9Q1J., ~+ze.~
SO-AV
3-9
io) 4 04-- AQ~
woA-s
s
Q, y'"
Slip V.-dam, P 1 -L4
OVA,
na3- -4QVe-
C*Iva~ID Ar
A,4'~ -~b
.ern o,~ns ~,~,-.~~ra-• ~=~ak- E'l~~- 3 ~
40 4s--
4' A
VY\ MaL~~
tea- ~,.~e.en~a,
~ 2D - 3325
l~f~ ~;~,~7, Baroa~
CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATC94
1539 NW VICKSBURG AVE
BEND, OR 97701
PHONE: (541) 317-1993
FAX: (541) 383-3470
WWW-CENTRA LOR EC-nNLwN DWAT' H
rotecting Central Oregon's natural environment
nd working for sustainable communities. -
Date: September 28, 2007
To: County Commissioner Mike Daly
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, OR 97701
Re: Reconsideration of 38 week standard - TA-04-4
V E C E_ i
D
SEP 2 8 2001
j0_ARD OF MRAiIONNERS
Dear Commissioner Daly:
I am writing to ask that you reconsider your stance on allowing resorts to go to a 38-week standard and
simultaneously permitting resorts to allow homeowners to list their rental properties through private
property managers. Although these changes may seem benign, there are reasons to believe that they may
have profound implications, not yet explored.
Before addressing our concerns, I'd like to ask that you hold off on making a decision on this matter
until such a time as the implications of these decisions can be more adequately analyzed. Deschutes
County is about to undertake a comprehensive plan update process, which is the perfect time to address
questions such at these. Although you have held extensive deliberations on several of the issues raised in
TA-04-4, those deliberations have been focused mostly on ensuring that county laws are followed, not
on the benefits or impacts that these changes might bring to Deschutes County and its residents. The
residents of this county, whose future depends on deeply-informed decision-making on complex matters
such as these, deserve a more detailed consideration than that which has occurred on this issue thus far.
As for our concerns, they are based principally on the following argument, which we've entered into the
record. before, but which does not seem to have commanded much attention. The average owner of a
private resort residence - we're told - visits the resort for about 12 weeks a year. A 38-week standard for
overnight units allows a resident to visit the resort during any 14 weeks of his/her choosing if it's
available the rest of the time for renters. If such a person could visit all they wanted, when they wanted,
reap tax benefits from the ownership of a deed-limited structure, and rent out their units while they're
not there, it's entirely believable that a large percentage of residents would be willing to do so, far more
than would be interested in doing so under a 45-week standard.
If a mere one of three privately-owned residences could be recorded as overnight units, it would allow an
unlimited potential for residential units without any need to build dedicated overnight structures - aside
from the first 50 units, via the Thornburgh decision - and come in at the 2:1 threshold. In fact, if a mere
third of the owners found the overnight designation amenable, it wouldn't matter if the maximum ratio
was 2:1, 2.5:1, or even 5:1 because it would be easily satisfied. For this reason, the 38-week standard will
very likely render the ratio meaningless.
Why is this a concern? Primarily, a 38-week standard will have the effect of un-tethering resorts from the
market for overnight visitors - which is the market they have always been premised on. Resorts are only
required to make their overnight units available, they have no obligation to actually see them rented.
When it's their units that aren't being rented, it hurts them. When it's a private residence, it doesn't.
Under the proposed rules, resorts can avoid any responsibility if residences aren't rented, and avoid any
costs associated with renting or managing dedicated overnights aside from providing some basic
accounting data to the county. This may lead to at least three separate outcomes:
1. It may usher in a flood of new applications for resorts. Overnight units are financial losers at
this point, we know that. Now that resorts can avoid those financial losses, it's reasonable to
expect new applications to increase, and to expect that the cumulative impacts of resorts on
traffic, water, farms, forests, rural communities, nearby cities, and the environment to be
exacerbated.
2. It will create the possibility for even larger resorts than we've seen so far because all those
houses won't have to be accompanied by dedicated overnight structures and the financial drain
they create. The only limits on the size of resorts will be how much land is available - remember
this when we're going through the remapping process - and how many interested buyers are out
there.
3. It will create an opportunity for existing resorts to apply for revisions to their master
plans. I've talked to several Deschutes County planners who don't seem to see any reason why
an existing resort couldn't adopt the new standards established by TA-04-4. This could
conceivably allow additional residential expansion of these resorts and also the removal of
existing dedicated overnight structures. A resort like Thornburgh, for example, assuming its legal
matters clear up, would be allowed to expand - in a purely residential fashion - even further
onto what is now BLM land, or DSL in-lieu-of land, should that land become available in the
future, as may very well happen. And a resort like Pronghorn could come in and apply for a new
plan that had no hotel, or anything but the 50 dedicated overnight units required by law,
assuming that enough of its private-ownership were willing to adopt a 38-week standard. I'm not
aware of anything in state or county law that would prevent this from happening if a resort
desired to go this route. It's also worth noting that if the 38-week standard is passed, all the time
the commission has spent wrangling over the phasing of the first 150 units will likely prove to
have been a waste of time.
Allowing private residences to use private rental agencies would compound these concerns. Why?
Among those people who will only be there 12 weeks of the year at times of their choosing, there will
invariably be some who will see an opportunity for a tax-break and for reduced property-tax payments
by making their units theoretically available through a somewhat obscure property manager, and
ensuring that their unit will barely get rented. True, this probably isn't likely to happen all that often, but
under new law it will be allowed to happen, and as a result, it will entice more people to allow their units
to be counted as overnight structures. Although this is not as big a concern as the shift to the 38-week
standard itself - and would not be as much of a concern with a 45-week standard - this acts to magnify
our concerns regarding the 38-week standard.
On the other hand, a highly visible, centralized system, seems to be a more effective model for resorts
interested in renting out their units. It works for Sunriver, which is of course not a Goal 8 resort, but
which presents a valid model nonetheless. Furthermore, such a system does create some accountability
for ensuring that overnight units are rented. By simply making it more hands-off for the resort owners,
you are further washing their hands of their overnight obligations and freeing up their pursuit of
residential opportunity with all its impacts.
*Wow
CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH
1539 NW VICKSBURG AVE. BEND, OR 97701
PHONE (541) 317-1993 FAX (541) 383-3470
To summarize, these changes will likely lead to additional resort applications, larger resort applications,
applications with perhaps only 50 dedicated overnight units, the potential redevelopment of existing
resorts along the same lines, and ultimately a glut of poorly performing overnight units providing very
little in the way of room tax revenue.
All of this raises a far more daunting question as well, one of long-term sustainability and a growing
dependence on a revenue source - resort-based property tax - that no one is managing towards long-
term success.
The current resort boom is an artifact of a short window in time where retiring baby boomers with solid
retirement funds, Social Security, Medicare, and tremendous appreciated capital from recent real estate
success have an interest in purchasing retreat-ish units in destination resorts. As a result of weak laws,
developers have rushed to fill today's demand for homes in resorts with few limitations.
But what will happen to demand for these units in the future? This should be a serious topic of debate
before any new policy is set - or frankly before any more applications are submitted. For starters, even if
there was no baby boomer generation, there's no guarantee that resorts will even be able to sell as many
units as they have approval for. Eventually - perhaps soon - supply will exceed demand, prices will drop
and so will appraised value. What does that mean for county governments? It means a dwindling revenue
source, one that cannot be made up for by ,telling more units. If resorts keep getting approved with no concern
over supply limitations (present or future), this scenario is inevitable, and the more resorts that get
approved, the sooner we'll have to deal with these impacts.
And then there's the demographic perspective. Baby boomers are called baby boomers for a reason -
there's a lot of them. The subsequent wave of retirees will be far smaller in number. And we all know
that retirees, or soon-to-be retirees, are a huge portion of the resort market. As a result of the anticipated
crunch in Social Security, Medicare, weaker pensions, and the fact that the post-boomers probably won't
have near the same level of real-estate profit as today's retirees, this population won't have the spending
power of their predecessors. Will they want to buy a resort-style home? Will they even be able to? At
some point, baby boomers - or their children - are going to have to sell. Who will be there to buy them?
It stands to reason that far fewer of the post-boomers will be able to afford second homes, and so
there's a potential for these communities to - fairly rapidly perhaps - become increasingly owner-
occupied. So the future may hold not just substantially decreased property tax revenue from resorts, but
all the impacts of a full-time community, and a fairly rapid transition to boot. That's not how resorts are being
sold politically today, and if the future does unfold in this sort of fashion it will present enormous
financial burdens for the county, burdens never considered when permits were being granted.
It's difficult to see that unless resorts are prevented from building beyond sustainable numbers - if we're
not already well past that - that this scenario won't unfold in some manner in the not-too-distant future.
This scenario will be all the more problematic as oil prices continue to rise - we're probably already past
that particular tipping point with peak oil and with China and India and the rest of the developing world
competing with us for a diminishing supply - because it will be increasingly expensive to fly or drive to
resorts, and once there to drive back and forth to cities for dinner, groceries, or any other needs. It will
be more difficult for workers to commute to and from cities to resorts. It will become more expensive to
provide fire, police, and hospital services to resorts. All of which creates additional disincentives for
living in or visiting a destination resort.
CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH
1539 NW VICKSBURG AVE. BEND, OR 97701
PHONE (541) 317-1 993 FAX (541) 383-3470
Who is going to pay for increased services and impacts the future is likely to bring? Certainly county and
city taxpayers won't want to subsidize these services with bonds paid for out of their own pockets, or see
funds that once provided their services diverted to address growing problems associated with resorts.
Resort owners and developers may not have to pay either, especially if theyre able to successfully turn
the resorts over to homeowners groups before the crunch. Who will take care of the golf courses and the
aging structures? Who will see the allure in living in a resort without impeccable landscaping, with
deteriorating roads, and entrance signs that aren't quite so squeaky clean? It's hard to imagine that a
major disinvestment in resorts is not that far in the future. And this is a potential scenario that no one
seems to have given much thought to.
By way of comparison, consider the future of retirement and assisted living complexes. These are two
other largely baby boomer-driven phenomena that will someday face a supply shortage. But they are built
within existing cities and can be redeveloped or adaptively re-used, for example, as affordable housing.
It's very difficult to see how a destination resort, on the other hand, can be adapted to function as
anything else given the lack of diversity and remote locations.
If we were merely talking about Black Butte Ranch, Sunriver, Eagle Crest, then it seems likely that these
communities could sustain themselves well into the future, perhaps without any problems at all. But the
glut of resorts hitting market presents major problems, problems that haven't been anticipated, and that
perhaps at this point aren't even be avoidable. As a result, these resorts which many believe have helped
put Central Oregon on the map will drag the entire region down.
Are these scenarios far-fetched? It really is hard to predict the future of any real estate market. And with
a highly variable market like that for second-homes, retirement homes, or investor homes, it's even
harder. And with such highly specialized and isolated market like destination resorts, it's probably more
difficult still. But the fundamental forces at work here and lack of policy-based constraints don't bode
well for the future of this industry and of the region. If you want to start heading things back in the right
direction, reject the 38 week standard. If you want to rule with an eye towards long-term fiscal
stewardship of this region, reject the 38 week standard. If you're not prepared to do that, if you think this
deserves more study, at the very least put your decision off until it can be more thoroughly addressed in
a periodic review-type process.
If more information comes to light, we'd be more than wiling to re-evaluate our level of concern. For
now, however, give our role in the community, the concerns of the community, and our concern over
long-term resort impacts to the community, we would be remiss in not bringing these concerns to your
attention prior to your actually setting policy.
Thank you for your time and consideration. As always, I am available for further questions or discussion
Sincerely,
Erik Kancler
*19MW
CENTRAL OREGON LANDWATCH
1539 NW VICKSBURG AVE. BEND, OR 97701
PHONE (541) 317-1993 FAX (541) 383-3470
Terri, Hello; I appreciate the opportunity to supplement my prior input on this subject matter and request... Page 1 of 1
Terri Payne
Subject: FW: TA-04-4 Proposed changes to Destination resort Code Title 18
From: Merlyn & Linda Webster [mailto:webweb@teleport.com]
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 1:33 PM
To: 'terrip@co.deschutes.or.us'
Subject: TA-04-4 Proposed changes to Destination resort Code Title 18
Terri, Hello; I appreciate the opportunity to supplement my prior input on this subject matter and request that you add it
to the TA-04-4 records.
I certainly can only hope that the Planning Commissioners stand their ground on their prior recommendations that
did not include the prior identified issues 4, 5, 6 & 7 in the proposed changes. It appears that the County Commissioners
just ignored their recommendations. In my opinion the multitude of real-estate property managers that exist in Deschutes
Country should not be included or trusted in the data responsibilities for reporting the critical information of overnight
rental units. Ref. Title 18. 113 060.D.2. To be factual it needs to be central to the resort's duties.
I also do not support the logic of having the Home Owners Association getting transferred the responsibility of
maintaining and reporting these critical records. Ref. Title 18.113.060. L.1 I would like to see the requirement to retain
the information of just how many days a rental was rented and use Phis information to audit the room tax collections in the
County. I also suggest that much if not all of these room taxes get sent back to the specific area that raised these fees.
They could then be used to improve the facilities that generated the fees to begin with.
Caldera Springs, which seems to be given a pass on these requirements, as if the fix is in, should be required to
step up to the Destination Resort over-night rental requirements. Nothings changed in the rules but the Counties reading
of these prior requirements. They, Caldera Springs, should also be instructed with follow up resort code enforcement in
the States Land Use guidelines and goals that require a Destination Resort to mitigate any demands it creates on publicly
owned recreation facilities in the adjacent community. This clearly has not been the case in Sunriver as it relates to
Caldaria's use of our good name and assets.
The current out of control situation of Commercial Hotel/Motel usage of homes located within the Sunriver
Communities "SINGLE" residential zoned property needs to be addressed by the Planning Commissioners in this setting.
These business interests don't always improve the owners livability because businesses always needs more business and
that certainly does not translate to quality of life in what was planned and we bought into as a single residential community
zone. In my opinion the root cause of these issues is the overabundance of real-estate property management businesses
with different business goals then protecting the owner's or areas livability.
I've heard many times from different people in Deschutes County that when it comes to the Deschutes County
Commissioners, most of which are prior builders, they have never seen a developer or development they didn't like. Ref.
the Boards most recent zone change approved on the 617 Forest acres out by Sunriver last month. In my opinion the
Planning Commissioners need to assert the authority intended in such a complex position or all these little public processes
that get scheduled may be seen from the public's point of view as all for show on the done deals. I would also suggest that
any future public meetings intended to meet the Citizens Involvement process clearly spelled out in the States Panning
Goals be scheduled for times more convenient for public participation.
Thank you for your time and efforts in this matter.
Merlyn H. Webster, P.E. (CA)
webweb@teleport.com
10/8/2007
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 Board of County Commissioners ("Board") held a duly noticed public hearing on
December 4, 2006, in coordination with the Deschutes County Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the Board to adopt only part of the
proposal; 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-iliethfough.
Section 2. AMENDMENT.
Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by
language to be deleted in str-ikethFeugh
DCC 18.113, Destination Resorts, is amended to read as described in
this reference incorporated herein, with new language underlined and
PAGE 1 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (//2007)
Section 3. FINDINGS. The Board adopts the staff report dated 8-22-07 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 92007.
day of , 2007.
Commissioner Yes No Abstained Excused
Michael M. Daly
Dennis R. Luke
Tammy Baney
Effective date: day of , 2007.
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
PAGE 2 OF 2 - ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (//2007)
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.
IMF. 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 44841993
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.
D. Developed recreational facilities and key
facilities intended to serve the entire
development and visitor-oriented
accommodations must be physieall ~
pr-evidedconstructed 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 4338 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 - EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2007-005 (//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 - EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE 2007-005 (//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
farming 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 15 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (//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 15 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (//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
B
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.
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 IMP 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 IMP
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 15 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (02007)
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
B. Further information as follows:
standards defining visual and aesthetic
1. A description of the natural
parameters for:
characteristics of the site and surrounding
a. Building character;
areas, including a description of
b. Landscape character;
resources and the effect of the destination
c. Preservation of existing topography
resort on the resources; methods
and vegetation;
employed to mitigate adverse impacts on
d. Siting of buildings; and
resources; analysis of how the overall
e. Proposed standards for minimum lot
values of the natural features of the site
area, width, frontage, lot coverage,
will be preserved, enhanced or utilized in
setbacks and building heights.
the design concept for the destination
5. An open space management plan which
resort; and a proposed resource
includes:
protection plan to ensure that important
a. An explanation of how the open
natural features will be protected and
space management plan meets the
maintained. Factors to be addressed
minimum standards of DCC 18.113
include:
for each phase of the development;
a. Compatibility of soil composition for
b. An inventory of the important natural
proposed development(s) and
features identified in the open space
potential erosion hazard;
areas and any other open space and
b. Geology, including areas of potential
natural values present in the open
instability;
space;
c. Slope and general topography;
c. A set of management prescriptions
d. Areas subject to flooding;
that will operate to maintain and
e. Other hazards or development
conserve in perpetuity any identified
constraints;
important natural features and other
f. Vegetation;
natural or open space values present
g. Water areas, including streams,
in the open space;
lakes, ponds and wetlands;
d. Deed restrictions that will assure that
h. Important natural features;
the open space areas are maintained
i. Landscape management corridors;
as open space in perpetuity.
j. Wildlife.
6. An explanation of public use of facilities
2. A traffic study which addresses (1)
and amenities on the site.
impacts on affected County, city and
7. A description of the proposed method of
state road systems and (2) transportation
providing all utility systems, including
improvements necessary to mitigate any
the location and sizing of the utility
such impacts. The study shall be
systems;
submitted to the affected road authority
8. A description of the proposed order and
(either the County Department of Public
schedule for phasing, if any, of all
development including an explanation of
PAGE 4 OF 15 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (//2007)
EXHIBIT "B"
when facilities will be provided and how
they will be secured if not completed
prior to closure of sale of individual lots
or units;
9. 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;
10. A description of the proposed method for
providing emergency medical facilities
and services and public safety facilities
and services including fire and police
protection;
11. 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 15 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (//2007)
EXHIBIT "B"
a. An analysis which addresses the
A. The destination resort shall, in the first phase,
economic viability of the proposed
provide for and include as part of the CMP
development;
the following minimum requirements:
b. Fiscal impacts of the project
1. At least 150 separate rentable units for
including changes in employment,
visitor-oriented overnight lodging as
increased tax revenue, demands for
follows:
new or increased levels of public
a. The first 50 overnight lodging units
services, housing for employees and
must be constructed prior to the
the effects of loss of resource lands
closure of sales, rental or lease of
during the life of the project.
any residential dwellings or lots.
20. A solid waste management plan;
b. The resort may elect to phase in the
21.." dese• iptio , _ the system tebe Rsed fer
remaining 100 overnight lodging
the-managefelit e€ anTindi; ids
units as follows:
awned units that will be used €er-
i. At least 50 of the remaining 100
eve might '"'grog end it will
required overnight lodging units
implemented, •••~i.lu~• ding proposed 4 ~
~r-~•••~••~~~
shall be constructed or
guaranteed through surety
. ivid"""" wmied f4eilities i1
bonding or equivalent financial
be ewailable for- evemight r-efital use by
assurance within 5 years of the
the general publie ` " e' least 45 weeks
closure of sale of individual lots
per calendar-wear th -eagh a eent~
or units, and;
r-eseFva4ien and b ' iii s '
ii. The remaining 50 required
A description of the mechanism to be
overnight lodging units shall be
used to ensure that the destination resort
constructed or guaranteed
provides an adequate supply of overnight
through surety bonding or
lodging units to maintain compliance
equivalent financial assurance
with the 150-unit minimum and 2 to 1
within 10 years of the closure of
ratio set forth in DCC 18.113.060(D)(2).
sale of individual lots or units.
The mechanism shall meet the
iii. If the developer of a resort
requirements of DCC 18.113.060(L);
guarantees a portion of the
22. If the proposed destination resort is in a
overnight lodging units required
SMIA combining zone, DCC 18.56 shall
under subsection
be addressed;
18.113.060(A)(1)(b) through
23. If the proposed destination resort is in an
surety bonding or other
LM combining zone, DCC 18.84 shall be
equivalent financial assurance,
addressed;
the overnight lodging units must
24. A survey of historic and cultural
be constructed within 4 years of
resources inventoried on an
the date of execution of the
acknowledged Goal 5 inventory;
surety bond or other equivalent
25. Other information as may reasonably be
financial assurance.
required by the Planning Director to
iv. The 2:1 accommodation ratio
address the effect of the proposed
required by DCC
development as related to the
18.113.060(D)(2) must be
requirements of DCC Title 18.
maintained at all times.
(Ord. 2007-005 § 2, 2007; Ord. 92-004 § 13,
c. If a resort does not chose to phase the
1992)
overnight lodging units as described
in 18.113.060(A)(1)(b), then the
18.113.060. Standards for destination resorts.
required 150 units of overnight
The following standards shall govern
lodging must be constructed prior to
consideration of destination resorts:
PAGE 6 OF 15 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (//2007)
EXHIBIT "B"
the closure of sales, rental or lease of
facilities, visitor-oriented
any residential dwellings or lots.
accommodations or multi-family or
2. Visitor-oriented eating establishments for
commercial uses established by DCC
at least 100 persons and meeting rooms
18.124.070 shall not be considered open
which provide seating for at least 100
space;
persons.
2. Individually-owned residential units that
3. The aggregate cost of developing the
do not meet the definition of overnight
overnight lodging facilities, developed
lodging in DCC 18.04.030 shall not
recreational facilities, and the eating
exceed two such units for each unit of
establishments and meeting rooms
visitor-oriented overnight lodging.
required in lGE 18.113.060(A)(1) and
Individually-owned units shall be
(}-shall be at least $)00-,4W 7,000,000
considered visitor-oriented lodging if
(in 4.9&1993 dollars).
they are available for overnight rental use
4. At least $2,000,,000 2,333,333 of the
by the general public for at least 45-38
$7,000,000 (in 4.9541993 dollars) total
weeks per calendar year through one or
minimum investment required by DCC
more central reservation and check-in
18.113.060(A)(3) shall be spent on
service(s): operated by the destination
developed recreational facilities.
resort or by a real estate property
5. The facilities and accommodations
manager, as defined in ORS 696.010.
required by DCC 18.113.060(A)(2)
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
be as described in the CMP. Each individual
18.113.060(A)(1).
phase shall meet the following requirements:
1. Each phase, together with previously
B. All destination resorts shall have a minimum
completed phases, if any, shall be
of 160 contiguous acres of land. Acreage
capable of operating in a manner
split by public roads or rivers or streams shall
consistent with the intent and purpose of
count toward the acreage limit, provided that
DCC 18.113 and Goal 8.
the CMP demonstrates that the isolated
2. The first phase and each subsequent
acreage will be operated or managed in a
phase of the destination resort shall
manner that will be integral to the remainder
cumulatively meet the minimum
of the resort.
requirements of DCC 18.113.060 and
C. All destination resorts shall have direct
DCC 18.113.070.
access onto a state or County arterial or
3. Each phase may include two or more
collector roadway, as designated by the
distinct noncontiguous areas within the
Comprehensive Plan.
destination resort.
D. A destination resort shall
cumulatively and
F. Destination resorts shall not exceed a density
,
for each phase, meet the following minimum
of one and one-half dwelling units per acre
requirements:
including residential dwelling units and
1. The resort shall have a minimum of 50
excluding visitor-oriented overnight lodging.
percent of the total acreage of the
G. Dimensional Standards:
development dedicated to permanent
1. The minimum lot area, width, lot
open space, excluding yards, streets and
coverage, frontage and yard requirements
parking areas. Portions of individual
and building heights otherwise applying
residential lots and landscape area
to structures in underlying zones and the
requirements for developed recreational
provisions of DCC 18.116 relating to
PAGE 7 OF 15 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (//2007)
EXHIBIT "B"
solar access shall not apply within a
b. Notwithstanding DCC
destination resort. These standards shall
18.113.060(G)(2)(a)(iii),
be determined by the Planning Director
above-grade development other than
or Hearings Body at the time of the
that listed in DCC
CMP. In determining these standards,
18.113.060(G)(2)(a)(i) 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
protect resources identified by LCDC
H. Floodplain requirements. The floodplain
Goal 5 which are identified in the
zone (FP) requirements of DCC 18.96 shall
Comprehensive Plan. At a minimum, a
apply to all developed portions of a
100-foot setback shall be maintained
destination resort in an FP Zone in addition to
from all streams and rivers. Rimrock
any applicable criteria of DCC 18.113.
setbacks shall be as provided in DCC
Except for floodplain areas which have been
Title 18. No lot for a single-family
granted an exception to LCDC goals 3 and 4,
residence shall exceed an overall project
floodplain zones shall not be considered part
average of 22,000 square feet in size.
of a destination resort when determining
2. Exterior setbacks.
compliance with the following standards;
a. Except as otherwise specified herein,
1. One hundred sixty acre minimum site;
all development (including
2. Density of development;
structures, site-obscuring fences of
3. Open space requirements.
over three feet in height and changes
A conservation easement as described in
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
1. 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 stream 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
DCC Title 18.
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
setback for where they abut
1 ratio set forth in DCC 18.113.060(D)(2).
public roads and public lands.
PAGE 8 OF 15 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (//2007)
EXHIBIT "B"
1.
2.
3.
Failure of the approved destination resort
to comply with the requirements in DCC
18.113.060(L)(2) through (6) will result
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.
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) through (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 timing 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. Each resort shall maintain records
documenting its rental program
related to overnight lodging units at a
convenient location in Deschutes
County, with those records
accessible to the County upon 72
hour notice from the County.
g. As used in this section, "resort
management" includes, but is not
limited to, the applicant and the
applicant's heirs, successors in
interest, assignees other than a home
owners association.
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 permanent
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 overnight-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 overnight 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 many friglttweeks 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. To facilitate rental to the general public
of the overnight lodging units, each resort
shall set up and maintain 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
overnight 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 I ratio as
defined in DCC 18.113.060(D)(2);
b. Documentation on all individually-
owned residential units counted as
PAGE 9 OF 15 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (//2007)
EXHIBIT "B"
overnight lodging, including all of
by a real estate property
the following:
manager, as defined in ORS
i. Designation on the plat of any
696.010, and that failure to meet
individually-owned units that are
the conditions in DCC
going to be counted as overnight
18.113.060(L)(6)(b)(v) is a
lodging;
violation of Deschutes County
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 property
Planning Director or Hearings Body shall find
manager, as defined in ORS
from substantial evidence in the record that:
696.010;
iii. An irrevocable provision in the
A. The subject proposal is a destination resort as
resort Conditions, Covenants and
defined in DCC 18.040.030.
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
available for rental at least 38
1. The necessary financial resources are
weeks each year through a
available for the applicant to undertake
central reservation and check-in
the development consistent with the
service operated by the resort or
minimum investment requirements
by -a real estate property
established by DCC 18.113.
manager, as defined in ORS
2. Appropriate assurance has been
696.010;
submitted by lending institutions or other
-iv.- A provision in the resort
financial entities that the developer has
CC&R's that all property owners
or can reasonably obtain adequate
within the resort recognize that
financial support for the proposal once
failure to meet the conditions in
approved.
DCC 18.113.060(L)(6)(b)(iii) is
3. The destination resort will provide a
a violation of Deschutes County
substantial financial contribution which
Code and subject to code
positively benefits the local economy
enforcement proceedings by the
throughout the life of the entire project,
County.
considering changes in employment,
v. Inclusion of language in any
demands for new or increased levels of
rental contract between the
public service, housing for employees
owner of an individually-owned
and the effects of loss of resource land.
residential unit designated as an
4. The natural amenities of the site
overnight lodging unit and any
considered together with the identified
central reservation and check-in
developed recreation facilities to be
service or real estate property
provided with the resort, will constitute a
manager requiring that such unit
primary attraction to visitors, based on
be available for rental at least 38
the economic feasibility analysis.
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
PAGE 10 OF 15 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (//2007)
EXHIBIT "B"
there is no net loss or net degradation of the
resource.
E. Important natural features, including but not
limited to significant wetlands, riparian
habitat, and landscape management corridors
will be maintained. Riparian vegetation
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.
1. 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
PAGE I 1 OF 15 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (//2007)
EXHIBIT "B"
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
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 the 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
PAGE 12 OF 15 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (//2007)
EXHIBIT "B"
perpetuity in a manner acceptable to the
County.
S. Temporary structures will not be allowed
unless approved as part of the CMP.
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.
U A tneehanisfn to ensufe th84
«•••y crs::ig-cvca: :c::ian:-Maxicmnrttx
r-ent fer- at least 45 weeks per- ealendaf yea
thfeugw ntf t and eheek-iii
Serviee Sue' ° Shall ' - 1 a 11
of the f tlewing-
1. Designatien On the&A of whisk
iedividually awned units -are to be
eensid ed to b ght t d
used in PPG 18.113;
2. Deed F-estf-ietiefis limiting h
identified prr~mi^n^ + ig + led5*-.s
ptHJeses under DEG. 18.113 fe-eA lea4
45 weeks eaeh-yeaf-;
3. 1lieltlsien in the-GG&R s ef-an
County limiting use of stieh identified
DEED 8 11~ at least weeks eaeh
lion of language in-aRy rental
eentr-aet between the awner- of the unit
ia- b b f4eilities,
under DEG.-18 113 fe at least ^ 5 1 wee
eRVb yeaf; an4
"yaire:i:c~xc S. eaeb sueh unit be
I Fly by the owner- er- eefftf;&I
beeking--agent en danuafy 1 with-4he
Planning Pi the fellewing
isfettnatiew.
a. Who the ownef: of: owner-s hewe been
evef: the last year-;
ser~ise~1
e. Hew many nights atit of the yL-af t1je
ledgingfaeilit under DEG. 18 11-3.
(Ord. 2007-5 § 2, 2007; 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;
PAGE 13 OF 15 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (//2007)
EXHIBIT "B"
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.
J
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:
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). identified ineasures to b a
" gb-ht c :vaguisS-ivr-ctc-leavi45 TCCico
per--ealendar--year through a eentral
- o ati and
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)
18.113.100. Procedure for approval of final
master plan.
A. The FMP 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 FMP and if the Planning
Director finds 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
FMP 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)
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 FMP 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 FMP 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 15 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (//2007)
EXHIBIT "B"
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, 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)
PAGE 15 OF 15 - EXHIBIT "B" TO ORDINANCE NO. 2007-005 (//2007)
f
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
From: Terri Hansen Payne, Senior Planner
Date: August 22, 2007
Subject: 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 b 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
manager as well as the resort
Issue # 6
Allow the overnight lodging to be phased in over 14 ears
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 pronosal
Required b 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 b the Plannin Commission
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
Amendments not recommended by the Planninn rnmmiaainn
-
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 ears
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 as 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 2:1
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.
Vlll. 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